< April 21 April 23 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

April 22[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox (υ|τ) 12:22, 23 April 2006

Lugola[edit]

NN linux user group. No alexa ranking (not suprising considering the problems Alexa and linux have). A google search reveals 273 unique results, most of which are sites which simply list large numbers of linux groups. Delete. --Hetar 00:02, 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. — FireFox (υ|τ) 12:23, 23 April 2006

Furfire[edit]

This is the second time that this webcomic has been nominated. The first nomination can be seen here and resulted in no consensus. My grounds for the nomination are similar, that this is not a notable website. You can see this furry webcomic here. If you take a look at the original nomination made last year, you'll see that it had an Alexa rank of 1.5 million, it has now fallen to nothing. A look at their forums here, which have been online for around 9 months has managed to attract 45 users. Googling "Forrest dreams studio", the website name, gives back less than 50 hits. I don't think this website is notable. - Hahnchen 00:04, 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 05:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete is a Pogo Stick[edit]

A series of Macromedia flash cartoons hosted at Keen Toons. The Keen guys usually do webcomics, and have some professional flair in that area, so I don't normally nominate their comics. However, their foray into Flash cartoons is merely a sideshow distraction. In the world of Flash animation, KeenToons do not have clout. Googling "Pete is a Pogo Stick" brings back 10 unique hits, which is less than Super Monkey Poop Fight and Excitebike: Trouble on the Tracks did. This really isn't Xiao Xiao. - Hahnchen 00:04, 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 keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 06:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double vaginal, double anal[edit]

Impossible sex act. It's a prominent joke in the movie Orgazmo and the source of the name for Trey Parker and Matt Stone's band DVDA, but it doesn't need its own article. Brian G. Crawford 00:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

172.149.64.186 13:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know what you mean by "weird nonsense type stuff." It's obviously not an orthodox sex position, but it's pretty well known and featured in pop culture as well as countless pornographies. -Cheapestcostavoider 01:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about? This sex act is not even physically possible, and I made that clear in my nomination. Double vaginal is possible. Double anal is possible. Double vaginal and double anal at the same time is impossible. It's nothing but a joke. The movies are named DVDA because they feature double vaginal and double anal, but not at the same time. Your comments in this discussion indicate that you clearly don't understand that the structure of the human body prevents anyone from actually doing this. Countless pornographies (sic)? I found only two. In pop culture? Only in Parker/Stone projects. This is supposed to be a general interest encyclopedia, not a Trey Parker and Matt Stone fansite. Brian G. Crawford 16:04, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 06:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friz (KeenToons)[edit]

Who is Friz? He's the guy behind Pete is a Pogo Stick, nominated above, and also the guy who tried so hard to get his neologism Knunder into Wikipedia. You can see the fruits of his Wikipedia neologoism insertion here. Although his article suggests similarities between Dave Gorman and Danny Wallace, this just isn't true. His biggest claim to fame is being covered by BBC Local News Lincolnshire, wow.[3] This man is not notable. - Hahnchen 00:10, 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 06:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Washington and Educational Egg[edit]

Another non notable flash cartoon. "Danny Washington" "Educational Egg" returns 30 hits. There are literally thousands of more popular and notable Flash animations out there, and having just endured one, there are thousands of better ones as well. They really are bad. no, really - Hahnchen 00:21, 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 keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pirates! in an Adventure with Whaling[edit]

Also nominating The Pirates! in an Adventure with Scientists. Non notable books, about 2000 Google hits each. Rory096(block) 00:27, 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. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 06:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Bui[edit]

Asserts insufficient notability, and appears to be likely a vanity page. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? If he's notable, the notability should be shown. --Nlu (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being a "gifted doctor," even if true, is insufficient for Wikipedia's general consensus on notability. Please explain why he should be considered sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia. --Nlu (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And? Again, "being impressive" is not a notability criterion. He can be the most intelligent person in the world; until he does something that makes him notable, that still wouldn't warrant an article. --Nlu (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-Obli (Talk)? 00:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these citations to "JD Bui" are not to this person. --Nlu (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, "Jonathan D. Bui" leads to nine papers.[6] I am looking over them right now to see if they're the same person. --Nlu (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eight of them appears to have his name on them. I was unable to verify one other since the link leads to the wrong page. --Nlu (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And many of the ones that the Google Scholar search comes up with the search string "JD Bui" don't seem to contain that name at all; it's not just that it's the wrong J.D. Bui, but appear to be complete false positives. --Nlu (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The way your search is structured, there are way too many false positives. One of them that I was finally able to track down, [7], for example, had an co-author named "JD" and an co-author named "Bui." Our hero here is definitely not involved in 71 papers. --Nlu (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm glad that my note caused you to do some actual research on the notability, but I would assert that all you've managed to confirm here is that according to limited online sources, the individual has contributed to at least 9 papers. (actually, according to this link in the article, 14 papers.) I do note the fact that this is the only article edited by the originator of this article. We're talking about a clinical fellow at Harvard who's published, I'd rather hear someone with expertise in the field say if he's made lasting contributions (as some of the above Keep votes seem to say). Why are you so eager to delete? KWH 05:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The way that the keep IP comments were going, one can easily draw the conclusion that this was a vanity page as well. If I were "so eager to delete" the page, I would have speedy deleted it as non-notable. As it stands, I'm looking for debate, not for unsupported and unverified claims of "but he's a great doctor!" or "he's a great scholar!" If there's verifiable information that he's notable, fine, but these comments are not verifications of his notability. --Nlu (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I want to give the best good faith to the article creator and other keep votes who claim to be familiar with his work, and they do need to be clearer on asserting notability... but it does seem to be a slightly different case from the average "nn-band". KWH 01:23, 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. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freewebs[edit]

Non-notable free web host, fails WP:WEB. Delete Ardenn 00:47, 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 Esteffect 02:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JIMMY[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Zaia[edit]

Non notable priest. 149 Ghits, and his only claim to fame is supporting an American Idol contestant. Rory096(block) 01:15, 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 nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 06:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Basketball League (Australia) venues[edit]

Prod tag removed with the explanation: "possible candidate for Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight". I don't believe that supercedes the official policy regarding lists at WP:NOT. This needs a WP:HEY standard of improvement, right now it's listcruft. User:Kappa has been extremely busy removing prods this evening... Deizio 01:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw, list has now been significantly improved, hats off to Jcuk for making it happen. Deizio 21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT for "Mere collections of internal links", except for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles (offical policy), with structured lists defined as "lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists". Nobody is suggesting that a list of these venues should not be maintained somewhere on WP, but it's not suitable for a stand-alone list with no context or information, which is the job of a category or template. Deizio 15:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. Like categories, lists can be used for keeping track of changes in the listed pages, using the Related Changes feature. Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of pages from it, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available.) , so why do individual editors think they have to remove an article just because it IS a list?? Also there is a precedent for this sort of thing at List of Premier League stadiums, for example. Jcuk 20:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Premier League stadiums contains information about the home team, city, capacity and date built as well as a trivia section. It's something for this list to aspire to, sure, but by no means can that be considered to set a precedent for a list such as this simply because they are both about sports stadiums. I don't feel that we should remove lists, I feel we should adhere to the offical policy which dictates what Wikipedia is not. Deizio 00:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This list now contains much the same information as List of Premier League Stadiums Jcuk 19:22, 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 merge to Hispanic Business Inc.. MarkGallagher performed the merging. SushiGeek 07:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HireDiversity[edit]

intially proposed deletion, anon user removed the ((prod)) tag. Article is a advertisement for website. J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  01:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It would help if you could provide some reliable sources that mention the site. The only things I can find are press releases from the parent company. The site itself has an Alexa rank of 120,000, so I don't think it's notable per WP:WEB. Cheapestcostavoider 23:08, 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 delete all articles. Category and template is separately nominated. Mailer Diablo 06:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online Soccer Project Alpha[edit]

This is a multiple nomination and indeed 2nd nomination for the principle article, the original nomination resulted in delete and can be seen here There are many articles and they are listed below:

Online Soccer Project Alpha is a fantasy football league, hosted on Freewebs and started by TN Fantasy Sports Group. Now, this is not a notable fantasy football league in the slightest, and even if it were, the individual teams and leagues would not merit individual articles. And if the company behind it, the TN Fantasy Sports Group, were indeed a company and not just a bunch of high schoolers, then they would have bought their own domain and managed to get more than 6 Google hits, all of them Wikipedia. Goodbye. - Hahnchen 01:52, 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 both as non-notable biographies, verging on attack pages. Joyous | Talk 02:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Emza and PleaseDeleteThis[edit]

As per WP:NN and as unencyclopedic and nonsense... It is clearly a derogatory reference to *somebody* and deserves no place in Wikipedia - Delete --Valermos 01:56, 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 06:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Dennison[edit]

British born actor. I am nominating this on principle as vanity/self-advertisement since the only contributor so far has been user:Leedennison. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 02:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commnets have been emailed to both users and they are not withstanding. One does not need to be verified nor registered at IMDB to be an actor/crew member nor do the majority of films have CD listed in their crew as the CD role is required before production takes place. This is not a self advertisement (no companies details/web site information has been given) and unlike other people including one user here no vanity picture has been posted. Tendentious is the users own opinion and therefore not legally binding nor fact and the user even comments that "if" the details are fact he is still not convinced - again this is just a matter of opinion and not fact. It should be stated that other actors have placed their own bio here and have passed therefore RH and RC comments are also not valid. If I am wrong please let me know the correct page where it says actors/artistes etc cannot create their own page. I would also request they re-read the following before continuing with their comments. Thanks.

AfD etiquette


Vanity? Hoax? It would suggest a little reasearch is done befoire casting doubts. The etiquette still states do not "bite" and "assume good faith" which the majority of you have not. Some of you who have commented have displayed a touch of vanity on your own pages and some are rather self indulgent to say the least. (— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedennison (talk • contribs) )

  • Hi Lee. Do you mean information on editors "userpages"? That's a place to be creative as you like, and you are very welcome to display biographical information on your own user page, which appears when you click on your user name at the top of the screen or in your signature, which can be appended to comments on talk pages simply by typing ~~~~ before you save the page. Information stored in the main encyclopedia (often referred to as "articlespace" or "mainspace") such as the article nominated for deletion here must stand up to high levels of scrutiny per the policies and guidelines pointed out above ("WP:xx"). Many, many pages with the problems identified with this article appear on the deletion board every day, and as you can imagine many original authors contest the deletion. However, not displaying a solid grasp of wikipedia standards and practices when defending such an article is not a way to endear yourself to other editors. Again, I encourage you to stick around and get a better feel for the place. Best regards, Deizio 16:58, 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taunton Antique Center[edit]

Delete Prod failed. One reference has been added but I believe it still fails WP:CORP Joelito 02:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was created in September 2005. Joelito 12:55, 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 keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Degree completion[edit]

No sources, no references, appears to be original material, and the title doesn't seem to fit the description. Arbusto 02:35, 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 again. SushiGeek 07:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Cowell[edit]

Unremarkable person, except for his work on a single film. And shouldn't someone who was "made famous over the internet" get a little bit more than 379 google hits?. Article was previously deleted for simlar reasons. The only reference is to his official site, which of course won't cut it as a sole source. Drat (Talk) 02:48, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Eden (band)[edit]

Band is non-notable, does not meet music notability requirements, and page reads like bad fiction. Google reports only self-submitted band info. Probably vanity as well given there is exactly one (human) editor to the page. Coren 03:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. From what I can, or rather can't, gather, the group is not significant on the New York scene aside from their own claims. Since members "leave for college" and the group has had ever a dozen members, I really don't think that this is any sort of serious band. Additionally, I don't think the national touring they've done is what MUSIC had in mind; even I could book a dozen shows around the country, rent a van, and have a national tour. Lastly, the stage name Kleibold Harris is just wrong. Teke 18:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One last nail in the coffin (I think the band would like that phrase), The message board has 43 members. Teke 18:21, 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 redirect to Hellwars. - Liberatore(T) 17:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, since Hellwars was WP:PRODded for more than 5 days, delete it, and speedy delete Pkbr labs under WP:CSD R1. I'm evil. - Liberatore(T) 17:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pkbr labs[edit]

Found while working on dead-end pages. Company is the creator of the online MMPORG Hellwars. I'm not a gamer so I have no opinion on the game but is the company notable by itself if Hellwars is its only game. The article content basically describes the game, so if kept it wil have to be stubbed and started over from scratch. No opinion at this time. No one of consequence 03:11, 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 06:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decomplexity[edit]

This orphan page is undisguised marketing copy serving as advertisement. Coren 03:20, 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 Sent to WP:CP. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Device locking[edit]

Device Locking is a patented process of recognizing a devices non user configurable components for the purposes of generating a license to run software or access a system. This is not advertising, but actual fact. Pure advertising copy. Coren 03:25, 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 06:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where da moviez at[edit]

Should be reviewed for deletion, the previous deletion in 2005 was in my opinion uinfair. I, the author, am posting this page as AfD to avoid it being speedy deleted because it is a repost of an already deleted article. However i believe the original article was unfairly deleted and this should be given a second chance. It is valid information which is not false and should be given a second review perhaps.Crakorjack 03:31, 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 06:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Globalist manifesto[edit]

This page gives no historical or social background as to the topic. Instead, it merely reproduces a document, with no information as to the author or the source, and with no assurance that the document is not, in fact, copyrighted by its (unnamed) author. In fact, it may very well be entirely fraudulent. Either way, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Manifestoes should be posted on private webpages. Charles 03:36, 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 06:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mankind: Saving Humanity[edit]

nn self-published vanity book Amcfreely 03:46, 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 Deleted by Doc glasgow. --Arnzy (Talk) 12:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flawless (Phife Dawg)[edit]

Non-notable song. Tagged for speedy delete; creator wiped the page. Keppa 03:47, 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 keep, withdrawn by nominator [10]. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Ivey[edit]

Author is not broadly notable. Not widely published. Unknown outside the small minority of law school applicants who are familiar with her work Interestingstuffadder 03:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment anyone got her card for me? Teke 04:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this may be a keep but is certainly not a speedy keep. As the article stands it points to only very limited publication history. Publishing one book and being quoted a could times is not nec sufficient for notability, at least not conclusively enough to justify a speedy. Let's see how the debate comes out and not rush this process. Interestingstuffadder 05:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not. She's easily notable enough as an author, although you seem to be inventing new, ambiguous criteria that go well beyond the guidelines (Wikipedia:Notability (people)). If the NYT, Washington Post and Chicago Sun-Times all think she's notable enough to quote as an admissions expert, and Vault thinks she's enough of an expert to have her own column on their site, I don't see why there's any need to prolong debate.Cheapestcostavoider 14:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All I can base my reasoning on is what is referenced in the article -- she has put out one book, has been interviewed by a major newspaper once, she maintains a website and she used to serve as an administrator at an American law school. This infi may hint at notability (though I'd like to see more). But no, this information doe not make her such a slam dunk on notability that we should cut off the process of discussing whether she belongs on wikipedia. I just don't see anyting here that makes it clear that she meets speedy keep criteria. It is unclear to me why you are so afraid of letting this discussion run its course if you are so convinced of her notability. Interestingstuffadder 15:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't appreciate being accused of bad faith. As the article has developed I have in fact engaged in a dialogue with the author about it and have acknowledged that it has become a solid article and I would not nominate it for deletion again. When I nominated this article it simply did not make a case for notability -- now it does. I am an experienced editor and I really resent being accused of bad faith in a public forum. Interestingstuffadder 00:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let things like that ride, keep cool :) After all, you get the credit of being flamed on the user's first contribution! Teke 04:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what else you would call a violation of AfD etiquette like this. An experienced editor really shouldn't be using AfD as a first resort without using a more appropriate tag or making a good-faith effort to discuss issues. Sparklemotion 17:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot seperating bad faith from poor etiquette. Look around the wiki -- plenty of articles are AFDed soon after being created, especially when created by inexperienced editors (which this page's creator was when he/she created the article). Frankly, when I first saw this it article it seemed like non-notable vanity to me. I have since been convinced otherwise. Maybe I should have waited longer before adding the AFD tag, but "bad faith" is an extremely strong accusation around these parts. Obviously I wasn't aware of the articles "obvious" notability. Bad faith implies that I AFDed this article out of some ulterior or nefarious motive -- there is absolutely no evidence of that. Thus, if you are truly interested in being part of a community that values civility perhaps you should pause before levelling such pointed accusations at other editors. Interestingstuffadder 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So can we shake hands? There are 2,000 to 3,000 articles/stubs created every day. About 500 get speedy, 300 get prod, and up to 150 on AfD. It's all in process, Sparklemotion. Interestingstuffadder, perhaps you might not want to argue your own nominations so seriously. Sometimes it's best to throw it out there and get out of the way. Teke 06:34, 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 merge with Extraterrestrial real estate. Apparently done already, I'll just place a redirect here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moon for sale[edit]

Marginally unencyclopedic, magnet for advertising sockpuppets, and generally useless even if arguendo not unencyclopedic. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:54, 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 merge with Extra-terrestrial real estate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Hope[edit]

Similar to Moon for sale above, except that here, notability is a major question as well. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:56, 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 06:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscarawas County Rabblerousers[edit]

The article is either a joke, or a vanity page, but it certainly is not, in any way, an article about a real Major League Baseball team. A Google search gives 0 hits. Charles 04:06, 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 06:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unit 2[edit]

Useless trivia. Could probably be merged somewhere but I don't think it's worth it Hirudo 04:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nitpick do you mean point six? Hirudo 05:08, 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 keep and rename to List of radio stations in Spain. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish language radio stations in Spain[edit]

Yet another useless list. At most there should be just a page with Spanish radio stations in any language instead of this Hirudo 04:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no idea why prod was removed with no explanation or maintanance to the page. Appropriate Username 07:30, 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 06:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nursing and Healthcare Management[edit]

This article is not about nursing and healthcare management in general, just a joint degree program at a single university. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An individual academic program at a university is generally too narrow a topic to warrant an article of its own. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 04:24, 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 per CSD:A3 - article's entire content is rewording of the title or links elsewhere. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon world metropolitan areas[edit]

Original research/fanfiction; while these areas exist in Pokémon, they are never referred to by these names or even referred to as "regions" or "metropolitan areas". Hirudo 04:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: List of pokemon world metropolitan areas should also be deleted (it is basically a redirect)--Zxcvbnm 21:43, 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 16:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EA Web - East Anglia Forums[edit]

Article fails to meet WP:WEB and reeks of advertizing. Coren 04:38, 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 redirect. Mailer Diablo 06:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eddie plugins[edit]

Merge has been done; can't prod so listing here. Hirudo 04:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect--blue520 10:07, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of national copyright laws[edit]

there's a perfectly good category for this. The list adds no value whatsoever and is likely to be missed when new articles are added Hirudo 04:37, 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 keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11[edit]

non-notable fringe conspiracy theories have no place here, also they're hardly reasearchers anyway-RCT 04:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wouldn't claiming that the DNC is pushing for these conspiracy theories as part of some sort of agitprop campaign count as an "Insane conspiracy theory?"--DCAnderson 07:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP !! please make sure to keep it. no democracy and no encyclopedia is working if alternative views, especially backed by researchers, are discarded!

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ogonek and Cooh[edit]

Relevant policy: WP:BAND

Neither the article nor the Google hits indicate that this Bulgarian band meets the notability standard WP:BAND. They are said to have released "bootleg CDs" only, which I take means self-made CD-Rs (please correct me if I am wrong), and there are no indications of mainstream media mentions or tours. Contested PROD. Sandstein 04:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having a following in major nightclubs is not in the list of criteria in WP:BAND. I'm all against WP:BIAS, being a Central European myself, but standards are standards. Plus, there are no sources for the supposed nightclub following (WP:V, WP:RS). Sandstein 08:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was I who nominated the article, not Eusebus, and I would like to know why exactly you think I was acting in bad faith. Sandstein 14:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, my apologies. Eusebeus has made dozens of what I think are conspicuously bad faith AfD nominations, in the last few hours, and I tagged this one by accident because of the editing pattern. That said, Keep per AlexWCovington, since applying criteria intended to measure notability in American popular culture shouldn't be mechanically applied in the context of other cultures. Monicasdude 14:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction. I disagree with the keep, because WP:BAND - like all policies - isn't specific to any nationality or culture. Wikipedia is a global endeavour, not an American one, so: the same standards for everyone, please. Similarly, WP:V is both of global applicability (they have discovered writing in Bulgaria, yes? :-) and non-negotiable. Also, you do not specify what consensually accepted criteria, if any, should be applied to Bulgarian bands instead, and why. Sandstein 15:37, 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 06:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Echo[edit]

nn band fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Coren 04:57, 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 06:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FalconStor[edit]

Non-notable, and fails to meet WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Coren 05:12, 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. SushiGeek 07:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hazard Factory[edit]

Not notable. --W(t) 05:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(2 comments below moved from article's discussion page)

  • I've posted a note on the talk page about general notability and WP:V Deizio 00:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screff, and scundered too, while I'm here[edit]

A slang term. Moved to Wiktionary (I think) Dangherous 21:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 05:23, 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 16:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caddy whompus[edit]

We are not a slang dictionary. I've transwikied this to Wiktioanry, but chances ar it won't stay there long. Dangherous 21:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 05:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If google's an indication of current usage, the hits I get are: cattywompus 108K, catawampus 42K, cattywampus 20K. Less than 100 for "caddy whompus". Fan1967 03:58, 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 transwiki to Wiktionary. SushiGeek 07:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rufaro[edit]

We are not a dictionary Dangherous 22:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 05:23, 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 16:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ross (Anglo-Cantonese slang)[edit]

We are not a slang dictionary. This isn't really formatted to Wiktionary standards Dangherous 22:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 05:23, 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. SushiGeek 07:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jazzcore[edit]

non-notable genre or better genrecruft. Only few bands play this style not even mentioned by most of the bands listed. Delete. Note: Extreme metal says that Mathcore/Jazzcore are closely related styles. A merger may be an option as well. Spearhead 22:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 05:23, 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. SushiGeek 07:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nowe[edit]

Creating page, since this AfD was posted by User:84.184.119.43 who, not being logged in, did not create this. No vote. Mithent 16:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you
The page promises further information, but has been in "hiatus" for quite some time, current information isn't very helpful at all.
The character isn't important enough to warrant his own article, integrating further information about him into the main article makes more sense. deletion--84.184.81.207 00:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 05:23, 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 16:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trackie.ca[edit]

Specialized webforum with no apparent notability rendering it suitable for encyclopedia inclusion. Was not able to locate statistics page in site but putatively fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 3,032,931. Prod was removed--Fuhghettaboutit 23:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 05:23, 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 content and re-direct article to History of the Americas. No Guru 18:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient america[edit]

There are other articles that cover Ancient America that are more complete. This article gives no information that isn't already in Wikipedia's established history articles about the same topic. InvisibleK 23:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 05:23, 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 22:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RUOSI[edit]

This is a now dead one-man-spinoff of another Project RunUO. The wikipedia page was most likely created by the spinoff author. The RuOSI project self is also in last edits before death also violation in GPL. Not every Spinoff without any real orginiality of any GPL project, needs to mentioned on wikipedia, or? I just wand to hear, whats your opinion about this? PS: I'm neither a member of RunUO nor RUOSI, or any other projekt in this area. Jestix 15:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RUOSI article could do with re-writing anyway, given that all of the versions in he history seems quite biased (be it the current version using Wyatt in speech marks, off-the-cuff reference to illegality, and another to stealing, or the older version referring to how much better it is/was than RunUO), so the deletion of this page wouldn't seem a loss of anything but opinion. Despair 15:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 05:25, 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 keep. It is suggested as well that the article needs a rewrite. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The God Awfuls[edit]

AfD tag added on 29 March but AfD process not completed by nominator Kellster71 (talk • contribs). Nominator gave reason "just an advertisement for a nobody band" in edit summary. - Humansdorpie 16:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 05:25, 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 nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 06:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Emmanuel Bachmann[edit]

The stub has been around for almost two years, with no expansion. Teke 05:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! I withdraw my nomination. Teke 05:45, 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 keep (nomination withdrawn) [25]. — FireFox (υ|τ) 09:16, 23 April 2006

South Dakota abortion law controversy[edit]

This page is the result of a non-consensus, non-proposed move of the original page South Dakota reproductive rights controversy Struct 05:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its "abortion" that is POV. That is why we use the terms "pro-Life" and "pro-Choice." Also I see you were one of two people to edit the article. Arbusto 06:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to disagree with a supporter, but I don't look at the term abortion as POV per se; in fact, the original article uses that term several times. The duplicate we're discussing here still needs to be removed however. Struct 06:21, 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 keep as a bad nomination: gibberish on a talk page is certainly no reason to delete it. Further, deleting a talk page without deleting the article itself seems quite pointless. There are many talk pages on Wikipedia with bizzarre, irrelevant comments on them. The usual course of action is to either simply ignore them, or to be bold and archive/delete them if they add nothing to the discussion. Turnstep 12:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:St. Jimmy[edit]

All the text in this talk page is plain gibberish. Weirdy 05:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I can see that you are a new user. It is Speedy Delete, not Speedy Keep. We are voting to either keep or delete Talk:St. Jimmy . Weirdy 21:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid personal attacks. And "speedy keep" is a legitimate thing for him/her to say if s/he wants an admin to close this quickly on the ground that the nomination was seriously flawed in some way. Metamagician3000 23:37, 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. SushiGeek 07:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DigitalAir[edit]

This article is for a fictitious company that Novell uses in their training software. Originally proded by me but removed by page creator without explanation. Do we really need articles for every fictitious item in a company's training materials? Seems like Novellcruft to me. Delete. --Hetar 05:35, 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 07:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Theological Society[edit]

Article tagged for a merge in Feb.[26] and received no attention. This page should be deleted because the information is redundant and offers no reason why it should be a separate article. In fact, the article admits its "an extension of Tyndale Theological Seminary." Arbusto 07:35, 18 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. SushiGeek 07:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aras (band)[edit]

This band does not even come close to meeting WP:MUSIC Coren 05:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So if I had an unsigned santur garage band with self-published albums but in America that would be encyclopedic?--Fuhghettaboutit 06:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If santur was considered socially unacceptable in America, and thus being signed to a label would be nearly impossible and the very existence of your music seen as social protest bordering on rebellion, then obviously we couldn't apply exactly the same notability standards to your band as we would to, say, a santur band in Iran. --Hyperbole 07:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Iran currently has banned all western music from that country. Heavy metal is western. They are listed on heavy metal pages[27][28][29][30][31] Arbusto 07:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there are metal bands trying to grow in a country trying to repress them, that might make an interresting article (as I've suggested on Talk:Aras (band)), but that doesn't mean individual bands deserve their own pages. Coren 16:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You just posted a link to the Myspace profile of a 20 year old girl from California. --Hyperbole 19:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)--[reply]
  • Comment sorry my bad [[33]] Joojoo 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 16:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming leb[edit]

nn film, but can't find anything that qualifies for speedy Will (E@) T 06:08, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 16:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cass Boxing[edit]

Not notable. --W(t) 06:47, 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 16:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crush calculator[edit]

Fails WP:WEB in that the site is not the subject of any non-trivial published work, independant of the site itself. An Alexa rank does not in itself make a site notable. Kevin 07:07, 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. SushiGeek 07:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snow pollution[edit]

looks like a spoof - no other google links, no refs other than Dr Vlad--JBellis 20:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kar-Tech, Inc.[edit]

Non-notable. Does not meet WP:CORP. Prod tag removed.


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

Kar-Tech[edit]

Non-notable. Does not meet WP:CORP. Prod tag removed - duplicate article


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

Cody Brocious[edit]

Cody Brocious is not a person of enough importance as to constitute an article. Manik52 08:47, 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 16:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tips in runescape[edit]

WP:NOT a game guide ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:59, 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 16:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broadband Elite[edit]

Promotional page for a non-notable website Chuq 11:47, 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 merge into Nurse. SushiGeek 07:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nursing Officer[edit]

Specific case of Nurse and Midwife. I think a Nursing Officer is broader than this Eug 12:29, 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 nomination withdrawn. Mindmatrix 20:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RCAF Station Saglek[edit]

Article serves no purpose except to serve as advertising for a website Request withdrawn; the changes made by AlexWCovington are more than good enough for me. ekedolphin 12:51, 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 16:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Breslin[edit]

Looks like just another non-notable independent professional wrestler to me. ekedolphin 13:04, 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 merge into Boat building. SushiGeek 07:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boat building process[edit]

Wikipedia is not a how-to. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 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. SushiGeek 07:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshya Foundation[edit]

Non notable organization. No google hits. Seems self advertisement. soUmyaSch 13:09, 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 16:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Zaragoza[edit]

believed to be a hoax Vint 13:38, 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 16:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kismet (film)[edit]

Non-notable, undistributed 4-minute animated film from Downending Films. Article created by User:Downending. Vanity. Fan1967 14:16, 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 16:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sophomore Posse[edit]

Non-notable university athletics booster group. Prod tag was removed without comment by an anonymous contributor. - EurekaLott 14:28, 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 16:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Downending Films[edit]

Vanity. Promotional piece for nn indy film company, created by User:Downending. Per IMDB [35] they made a 4-minute short and a 7-minute short. Oh, and they plan to make other stuff. Fan1967 14:28, 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 16:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votecircle[edit]

Non-notable website. 89 Google hits. Prod tag removed without explanation by the creator. Delete. DMG413 14:31, 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 keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 07:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puppy breath[edit]

nn dicdef that's not NPOV and unverifiable Amcfreely 14:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Not everyone finds puppy breath nice. Usually people who don't are what is termed "animal hater."" Amcfreely 16:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see-- the article has changed quite a bit from when it was nominated. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"could be a potential research project for a vet/biologist" = WP:NOR Amcfreely 02:55, 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. SushiGeek 07:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scooter (Mick Foley novel)[edit]

Delete, book review, nn San Saba 15:27, 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 redirect into List of Pokémon characters. SushiGeek 07:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse Joy[edit]

Non-notable character of an anime character. Could have importance if worked on but an expansion of the entry in List of Pokémon characters would be better. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the info is already there, more so even. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I still think it isn't Nurse Joy in the games. It was only until FireRed/LeafGreen she had the pink hair like Joy, leading to believe that Nurse Joy was based on the videogame character. Nurse Joy is more important than Officer Jenny, who is slightly less frequent and has only ever featured once in the games, as a minor character presumed to be her. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:16, 28 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. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fallen / L. Wells[edit]

I haven't got much too say. See Craptacular's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You're My Best Friend/'39 for my reason to delete this article.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 16:00, 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 keep, nomination withdrawn by nominator. -- Longhair 14:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Ward[edit]

This text should be deleted because it fails the Verifiability test all the way through. It could also be considered a Vanity page, written mostly by the one author at IP 210.89.145.217, which happens to be based in [36] Wollongong. I would vote it a strong delete schgooda 16:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the clean-up Capitalistroadster, it's certainly an improvement on the verifiability of the article. Neutral[reply]

Comment: -- Is this a withdrawal of your nomination for deletion? - Longhair 12:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: -- Nothing to do. I've closed the debate. - Longhair 14:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

schgooda 16:05, 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 - Liberatore(T) 18:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMPrint Magazine[edit]

Blatant advertisment for a non-notable magazine. Links have been spammed to other articles. Prod tag was removed. Barrylb 16:13, 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 16:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sedu hairstyles[edit]

Delete, advert trying to look like real WP entry San Saba 16:19, 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. SushiGeek 07:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nagdweep[edit]

WP:FICT Non-notable fictional place This is another minor person, place, or object in the Raj Comics universe being proposed for deletion. Related deletion requests (by various editors) are Jadugar Shakoora, Saudangi, Singhnag, Nagpreti, Miss Killer, Thodanga, Nageena, and Nagpasha. --John Nagle 16:32, 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. SushiGeek 07:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STAR Scholar Society[edit]

Non notable society. Seems self promotiona nd advertisememt soUmyaSch 16:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of a few articles that serve as a student enrichment programs within the Saint Joseph’s University category. The category page is weak since it only features athletics and the SJU article itself. Adding enrichment programs in the SJU article page would be messy. --Zacharyleahan 16:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Average Earthman. I agree with the delete but would it be appropriate to make a "List of Student Enrichment Programs (Saint Joseph's University)" that links from the SJU article itself? That page would have external links. I don't want the external links of "Saint Joseph's University" to get too big. Thanks. I would like suggestions. --Zacharyleahan 17:31, 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 (criteria A3) --Allen3 talk 16:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand theft auto banshee[edit]

The page is blank soUmyaSch 16:49, 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 redirected to handkerchief by Mr. Lefty. Sango123 (e) 17:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Handerkerchief[edit]

It's just a misspelling of the word "handkerchief." Mr. Lefty 17:25, 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 to Delete the article.

Homochao[edit]

This page is totally pointless and innapropriate. It barely has any information anyways. It should be deleted. PokeOnic (Talk) 17:23, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Six Faces[edit]

Delete as Advertisement, article written by author's assistant, Amazon rank:2,123,642. Most google links are self-promotion. Author of novel does not meet WP:BIO. Prod failed, removed by new account. Joelito 17:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you have a tight to comment, everyone does. That's the Wikipedia way. Joelito 01:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I am starting to think that one of you is the same jerk who went to Amazon and posted a negative review without having read Six Faces. I wouldn't be surprised. I am a friend of Ashida Kim's, and I recently took notice of how biased your article on him was. I simply came up with this article to let Mr. Callaway's readers know little more about him, as well as his upcoming works. Semi-popular means that he is not world-famous, nor is he a Stephen King in relation to populariy, but that he is known among "some circles of readers", as I said. His website, which I created, is full of reviews by actual people, people who he nor I know in person. People who obviously enjoy his work. His website counters are "per individual hit", not just "per hit". So there is a good amount of people out there who are fans of his. Anyway, I'm not going to play this game with anyone. I have advertisements in other places, but Wiki was not intended to be one of them. I was just giving out some info to those who would like to know. I'll help you to delete the page myself if it bothers you that much, okay? -- Kana Miyoshi


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kdop[edit]

Hoax article about secret CIA sub-organization employing teenagers in the role of US federal agents. As the article claims the documentation on the group is clasified, Delete as per WP:V. Court Jester 17:45, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MMORLG[edit]

NN neologism. The article claims the term has been on a few internet forums since 2003, but it doesn't appear to have caught on beyond that. The article itself looks like an essay and appears to be mostly original research. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:50, 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 16:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Tilakaratne[edit]

Non-notable, advertisement, possible vanity. Making a book is a great personal achievement, but getting it listed on a website with no evidence that anyone has read it is not encyclopedia material. "Praveen Tilakaratne" gets nothing on Google but the publisher's site. I'd wonder about language bias, but the book is in English. Melchoir 18:07, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Truman (volcano victim)[edit]

Non-notable individual. Fails to fill criteria of WP:BIO. As the article states, he experience only "brief fame." Strothra 18:15, 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 16:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One, Two, Three (word game)[edit]

Unverified, unverifiable. I wrote this stuff back in 2004 before I understood WP:V. This is the closest I can find to a reliable source, and speaking as a former h2g2 subeditor as well as a current Wikipedian, I don't think h2g2 counts. There's very little verifiability or notability threshhold there. Delete unless someone thinks otherwise for a good reason. GTBacchus(talk) 18:24, 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 16:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IF function[edit]

Wikipedia isn't a reference manual for Microsoft Excel functions. Warrens 18:24, 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 keep. SushiGeek 07:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people who were once a cheerleader List of cheerleaders[edit]

Redundant with Category:Cheerleaders. Rob 19:00, 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 00:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drummoyne Presbyterian Church[edit]

Non-notable church. Prod removed by the creator: Juliangamble with comment: it is noteworthy! Now Julian, please note, the question is actually not whether the church is notable but whether you have managed to make it sound notable in your Wikipedia article. And patently you have not. -- RHaworth 19:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be curious to know why individual schools are notable but individual churches are not. Thatcher131 04:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, anyone can set up a Church, whereas setting up a school requires government endorsement. I feel that makes the former more liable to be cruftish. Andjam 02:07, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The launderette[edit]

Per WP:WEB. This is an article about a brand new website (started in 2006), and not assertion of notability is made in the article. I realize that's a speedy criterion, but I request that this one have its week on AfD, in the interest of WP:BITE GTBacchus(talk) 19:14, 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. Flowerparty☀ 01:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surfing firsts[edit]

Useless trivia/list. A mention of being a first on the individusl pages should be enough. Hirudo 19:14, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of words and phrases alleged to be derived from misunderstandings[edit]

More listcruft; overlong title. Add an note to each of the entries' pages if needed, but there's no need for a list. Hirudo 19:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: There seems to be a consensus that this article, in this form, must go. It seems to me that the logical follow-up question is: is the information that this list presents not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia at all, or should it merely be presented in another form? For example, is there a better way of presenting this information, such as in the form of a list entitled "Lists of folk etymologies"? Spikebrennan 12:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was titled List of words and phrases derived from misunderstandings - I might change my vote to neutral. The problem is with the Alleged — it's going to attract cruft. If they are verifiably derived from misunderstandings then it's borderline wiki-worthy IMHO. Megapixie 14:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, the intent of the list is not to list words derived from misunderstandings, but to list words that are erroneously thought to have been derived from misunderstandings. Assuming that such a list meets Wikipedia standards in and of itself, I agree that a word should be listed only if it can be verified that there exists an erroneous belief that the word was derived from a misunderstanding. For example, the article on kangaroo states in part that there is a common, but incorrect, belief that the word "kangaroo" derives from an Aboriginal word for "I don't understand". The Vauxhall addition to the list that someone recently made, however, doesn't seem to meet the standard unless someone can provide a citation to that belief being held by someone. In general, compare List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects-- that's a list of information where the common element is not that they were all Jack the Ripper, but that they were all regarded as suspects.Spikebrennan 18:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmmm. In that case it's definately not wiki worthy. To take your example - all of the Jack the Ripper suspects have been proposed in various places before they were included on the list - and he is noteworthy. What the list would contain is a list of guide books (or some reputable source) that 'the name of the area is often said to come from the.... but in actual fact it was taken from the ....'. I'm just not sure it's noteworthy - where as Jack the Rippers possible identity is. The list you propose would be like List of people who have allegedly been mistaken for a US President (but haven't in reality). Megapixie 02:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm convinced. Thanks for the debate. Spikebrennan 10:50, 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 - Liberatore(T) 18:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grosse[edit]

An article for an individual level in Doom 2? Please let's not do that. If someone really sees value in the information in here, merge to an article with a short summary for each one. I'd rather just exterminate it though. Hirudo 19:21, 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 00:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Oh, and remember WP:COOL. :) - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PKMN.NET[edit]

Purely advertising. Not notable, just another Pokémon website. Definitely needs to be deleted XenoNeon (converse) 20:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a member yourself, XenoNeon, so you of all people would know that PKMN is worthy of being known.User: Dark As Dusk 20:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, obviously, as the nominator.--XenoNeon (converse) 20:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article makes no claim of notability, and the site itself looks far from notable. Moreover, it's origins seem to be obscure, having been created in the shadowy mists of the early 21st century... --Deville (Talk) 20:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure, unadulterated, vanity. Mr. Lefty 20:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. delete it if you must. Bastards.User: Dark As Dusk 20:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, I'd say it was a particularly important part of this particular element of net culture. But the article could do with expansion and more information in it. Barnabat 21:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Barnabat. But I made it under an hour ago. User: Dark As Dusk 21:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page should be kept, as PKMN.net is a complete guide to all pokémon games, animé, etc, and individual in the way it is written. Adding to that it stands out from other sites with features like the Name Rater and Sentret. It's not doing any harm on this site, and the odds are stacked towards it staying as a Wikipedia page. EM 21:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see why you lot are questioning its value upon Wikipedia. PKMN.NET is a valued community with a wealth of information and as such, the article deserves a place on Wikipedia.

  • Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 966,668 seems awfully high. Fan1967 22:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Why does it matter how much information is on the site? It's still not notable. Tokakeke 22:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say something to all PUKers. I suggest you read the policies and guidelines before jumping to make an account regarding it and arguing for it. I know you love it so much, but it is not notable.--XenoNeon (converse) 06:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs to be deleted, but it needs to be expanded greatly. Not mention its POV. User:Myth_Maniac

  • Keep I'm unsure as to why a page about a website needs to be deleated. It contains no information against the rules of Wikipedia. The article is too impartial for it to be any sort of forumcruft. Wikipedia has many different articles about sites designed to share information and this is just another one. If the page becomes vain, then it can just be changed back, right? Phıl 16:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, IT'S NOT DOING ANY HARM JUST LET IT BE THERE.

This is crufty advertising about a non-notable website. If everything that "didn't do harm" was kept, Wikipedia as a reliable
encyclopedia would cease to exist. Tokakeke 21:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOR HEAVENS SAKE, JUST BECAUSE IT ISN'T DOING HARM DOESN'T MEAN IT'S VALUABLE INFORMATION TO GO ON WIKIPEDIA AND AGREES WITH OUR POLICIES. TRY READING THE WP:WEB. DOES IT AGREE TO THAT? NO.--XenoNeon (converse) 18:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you're in Esperanza? Tokakeke 01:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just getting really annoyed. I'm not normally like this.--XenoNeon (converse) 17:47, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Überlightweight[edit]

Also Oxford University Überlightweight Boat Club. Both appear to be a vanity articles. Although topic appears to be real - it is just 9 coxes at oxford uni who have started a rowing club and used the term "Überlightweight" to describe themselves. Only relavent google hit on uberlightweight is to a blog of one of the members [45] johnSLADE (talk) 20:57, 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 00:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nukka[edit]

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Moe ε 21:08, 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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Druggies[edit]

Completely unsourced, largely POV and verging on original research: the entire article deals with the individual perceptions of contributing editors and has no authoritative citations whatsoever. This might be salvageable, but it would probably be best to start from scratch. Dylan 21:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Bige1977 23:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, good title, just not good article. Cleanup, not delete. Stifle (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no evidence that there is an actual subculture as such specific to high school (and if there is, this article does not cover it well). The term "druggie" can be used of drug users in general, in many different contexts. However whilst the term exists, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I see nothing worth covering here that won't be covered by other Drug related articles; this seems just a place for pushing insulting stereotypes. Mdwh 02:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 07:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyranny of the breeders[edit]

Originally I proposed this article for deletion; the tag was removed by an unregistered user (possibly the same person as the creator). It is clearly unencyclopedic: original research, racist POV, spam. Strong delete. - Mike Rosoft 21:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only two hits in Google. The more common term for this is "demographic warfare". --John Nagle 21:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the concept is unique. The article could be written a lot better, but I don't see how it can be expressed in some other article. - Richardcavell 22:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. While it's an interesting point, until it gets more critical discussion under this name, it doesn't even meet minimal notability guidelines.Captainktainer 22:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until someone comes along with a more substantial article, I'd recommend keeping this one. (Some anon at 70.122.123.228).
  • Comment how about a move to Demographic warfare? There's no such article yet. That's an emotionally charged phrase too, but searching with Google, it's used to describe at least four major ethnic conflicts in the world today, plus one in the 19th century. So a legitimate article is possible. The existing text will require some work to reach an NPOV, though. --John Nagle 02:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With some trepedation, I've created Demographic warfare. Turns out the term dates back to 1970. The article has empty subparagraphs for every instance of demographic warfare I can find, so we're now at a stub with a neutral point of view. I'll let others fill the article in, hopefully not getting carried away in the process. --John Nagle 03:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - notice that this article was added to Wikipedia they day before the "source article" was published, and that the "source" is a comcast.net home page; together, these facts imply that this article was added by the source's author. Let's get rid of this vanity page. --JerryOrr 15:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. --Ashenai 14:56, 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. I'm redirecting it, however, since it would make more sense. SushiGeek 07:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Klub[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted Jud 14:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Duplicate of The Kashmir Klub[reply]

  • Redirect to The Kashmir Klub then. -- Mithent 22:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN. Tokakeke 22:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge or delete dupe/nn M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it please. It was created by mistake! The correct title should have been The Kashmir Klub and I intended to rename it, however I made a silly mistake and created a new article instead, so this one is now redundant. Jud 16:16, 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 - Liberatore(T) 18:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetables (band)[edit]

No verifiable sources; Google Search for the name of the album + band name yields only two relevant results, one from the band's website. A search of the other album yields similar results. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: note that I suspect all of the only "keep" votes are from the same user; the first two are from the same IP address, 81.156.21.100, who apparently decided to "vote" twice and has no edits prior to the AfD, and the last one from Dr zoidberg590, an account which was created today and whose first edits are to this AfD. The IP address (81...) resolves to the same IP address which created the article, and I strongly suspect that the user (Dr. zoidberg) is the same person, judging from edits (more) to the AfD modifying the other "votes" by the IP address and the similarity of edits to the article in question. This seems to be an attempt to influence the outcome of this AfD, so please take that into account when closing this AfD. Thank you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, as a textbook non-notable speedy. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ditto M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP There are no grounds for deletion here. I was certainly not aware that the verification of articles rested upon their google ranking. Many people know of the band in question, and if Wikipedia is to be as complete as it can be, there should be an article on it. In any case, when searching, say 'vegetables joe tucker' one is confronted with 8 out of 10 articles related to the band.
  • Someone is removing objections to the delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.21.100 (talk • contribs) , whose first edit was to this AfD
  • Keep The Google Test has been incorrectly applied here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.21.100 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Page is thorough enough, looks good with picture, and contributes to a more complete wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr zoidberg590 (talk • contribs) , whose second edit was to this AfD
  • Delete STandard band vanity. Don't come within a hundred yards of WP:BAND. All the keep votes are clearly sock puppets of one person (the original creator). --Bachrach44 14:32, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Tito[edit]

  • Delete as nn/vanity, subject to vandilism to boot. TKE 05:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:HOLE. CASE 21:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not listed properly. Listing now. --Rob 22:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --MaNeMeBasat 05:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. -- No Guru 03:06, 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 Speedy keep due to WP:POINT. Stifle (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Reguly[edit]

Delete non-notable CopperTopOnTheEdge 22:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think he's above the cutoff. - Richardcavell 22:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously a WP:POINT nomination, given the nominator; I just wish I could figure out what the intended point is. He's quite obviously notable enough for a bio, as a major columnist in a major national newspaper and a television commentator on a national business news television network. Keep and cut out the disruptiveness. Bearcat 03:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I get the point now: bashing the article's creator. I officially change my vote to speedy keep. Bearcat 03:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its a notable subject, and please, coppertopontheedge, stop trying to delete every article I created. Theonlyedge 14:00, 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 - Liberatore(T) 18:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The Rick Nagelberg[edit]

  • Delete: This is a local university drink. Does not comply with WP:NFT, WP:NOT, and WP:V --Hetar 22:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • : Do not delete=Clearly the drink has an influence outside of a localized area. Other pages exist for much less influential beverages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Latani6 (talk • contribs) .
  • Do not delete this entry. The Rick Nagelberg is changing the way the "pregame" is conducted. This beverage is rapidly spreading about the country by way of colleges and universities. The Rick Nagelberg has even crossed international borders, making its way into Montreal, Canada. With some help from Wikipedia this drink has endless possibilities.
  • Don't delete the Rick Nagelberg. It is a vastly popular beverage that has even reached the west coast at Stanford University. Wikipedia has far worse and less popular beverages.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.198.204.188 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 22:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nom Tokakeke 22:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete: This drink could be the next Rum and Coke, but it needs publicity.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.42.168 (talk • contribs) .

Do not Delete: This drink is taking over bars across America. Try it!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.198.204.188 (talk • contribs) .

Do not delete!!! this drink should have its own page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.198.196.9 (talk • contribs) .

Do not delete! This drink is revolutionizing the pregame.

Don't delete! Drink of the gods

Don't delete...this drink is really good and is a really good way to get the night started

You cannot remove the Rick Nagelberg. DO NOT DELETE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. You heard it from Wikipedia first, this drink will be all over America in no time.

  • Delete per nom; ignore the sockpuppets. -AED 18:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete! On a recent visit to Austin, Texas I stopped by one of the UT frat houses. They handed me a drink which they called the Rick Nagelberg. It was amazing! Everyone at UT was drinking them and for the longest time I was searching the web trying to find it. Do Not Delete this entry. It has forever changed how I begin my evenings and NOT just in a small college town. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.136.231.83 (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete The comments in favour do not help the case, and do not give any coherent rationale for keeping. Tyrenius 23:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: Actually the "rationale" for keeping it is as strong as any other useless listing on Wikipedia. The Pasadena mudslide is listed, why shouldn't this page be?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Latani6 (talk • contribs) .

  • KEEP Influencial, soon to be popular drink.
Comment not to be rude / a troll or anything, but you'd think college students would have better things to do than spam :sockpuppets : trying to keep a short article about a DRINK on wikipedia. In addition, the only informative thing on this page is :"The beverage consists of three shots of regular vodka and an additional shot of rasberry vodka. The drink is always served on
ice." The rest is just spam. Tokakeke 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DON"T DELETE. I ONCE DRANK A RICK NAGELBERG WHEN I WAS 17 AND I WOKE UP THE NEXT MORNING AND I WAS 52 AND WORKING TWO JOBS JUST TO KEEP MY KIDS IN SCHOOL. IT'S A WONDERFUL DRINK.


== The Rick Nagelberg was used to fuel the Apollo 11. True Story. ==

Not to be rude or anything, but you would think Tokakeke would have something better to do than to argue with college students over whether a world changing drink should be allowed to remain on the online encyclopedia wikipedia. Clearly it's affecting your life in more ways then it should, so what are you even bothering to protest about?


DO NOT DELETE:::::::to argue WP:NFT, a rick nagelberg was not something that was merely thought up in one day, it has infact been around for a long time and if the postings do not prove to you that it ihttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Rick_Nagelberg&action=edits wide spread then you should consult any bar in any number of colleges accross the country who will say that it is an up and coming popular drink. To argue WP:V, this is not a posting that is looking to harm Wikipedia or inpact it in any negative manner. This is a posting that is there to help people who are searching for resources on the new drink that is sweeping the nation. This is not WP:NOT, this is not what "wikipedia is not." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is made to help all people and that is what this post is for. IF you can make some other excuse besides """SOCK PUPPETS""" as a reason to delete this article than make it. As of now, I think you are just coming up with excuses to get rid of this article because you dislike the people making it. You are WP:NOT.

If Wikipedia moderators are gonna delete this page I wish they would just do it already. I posted the listing because I have heard alot of amusing stories pertaining to the drink and from what I can tell, it IS in fact becoming quite popular (at least among the college crowd). If it isn't appropriate then take it down, but the fact that a screwdriver has a listing seems to contradict your logic.

"Screwdriver+drink" gets over 750,000 hits. "Rick Nagelberg" gets a WHOPPING one, and from a NN website with only one sentence on : :it. "Pasadena Mudslide" (eww) gets over 1,000. As for the guy above, your sock-puppets aren't helping your case. Read the warning I put at the top of the page. With all due respect, you should not be talking about "what wikipedia is not" when you have zero edits. Also, I live near a university, and called the bar most frequented by college students. They had never heard of a "rick nagelberg". If more bars had known about it, wouldn't there be more than one google result? EDIT: Urban dictionary gets no definitions, a website extremely popular with college students. Tokakeke 01:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 'popularized' 'various' 'anonymous' 'supposedly' 'allegedly' 'legend' 'story' 'sightings' Shenme 01:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable, verging nonsense. Robin Johnson 21:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There. We edited it and it isn't so off the wall. As for the traffic argument, I happen to know that the site has been visited alot more than once. Even if that was the case, the page has only been here for a week or so. Let the page stay, it is now down to the bare essentials. I guarantee you will not regret it.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. SushiGeek 07:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feminists Against Censorship[edit]

Non-notable very diffuse group with tenuous existence.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 22:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Scranchuse 23:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most google hits are referring to various feminists who are against censorship, not the group in specific. Ultimately a NN group. --Bachrach44 03:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, San Saba 10:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 14:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Which Google search are you looking at, Bachrach44? Virtually all of the first 20 hits are about this group. Vashti 16:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've paged a couple of hundred into Google's results for "feminists against censorship" now, and almost without exception the hits have been about this group. There are 16,500 hits. Unfortunately it's not possible to get an Alexa rating for it. Vashti 19:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are 639 Ghits not 16,500 - go to the end of the list. It doesn't have an Alexa because it doesn't have a site. It's just a name with which individuals occasionally associate themselves. Dlyons493 Talk 19:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, they do have a site. It's here. It's not possible to get an Alexa rating for them because it counts for Demon Internet rather than the individual site. And even 600 hits is still respectable, not to mention their media references:
  • The British Film Institute found them worth linking to.
  • In 1998, the definitely notable Peter Tatchell stated in The Independent (a British national newspaper) that they paid a fine for him - quite remarkable for a group which doesn't actually exist. [46]
  • The Independent has cited them several times, twice in 1995 [47], [48] (describing them as "a libertarian strand of the feminist movement"), and in their 2005 obituary of Andrea Dworkin, stating that the group was created in opposition to her views. [49]
  • In 1999, The Sunday Herald (a Scottish newspaper) cited them regarding pornography statistics. [50]
How many multiple non-trivial published works do we need before they can be said to exist, exactly? Vashti 20:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think they do have a site - Avedon Carol has a site. It was pretty much all written by her, the single contact email is hers, I suspect she'd answer the 'phone if you called their contact number. This article was created by her - I don't believe the group has a real independent existence. Dlyons493 Talk 12:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, the page is headed "Feminists Against Censorship", describes the group and its history, gives contact information, and lists several publications of which only one is written by Avedon Carol. It's not uncommon for small groups to have a web presence for which one person is responsible. According to their website, they're putting up a stall at a London fetish fair next month. They've published books, been mentioned or cited in many independent works, and appear in the media. None of this indicates a group which doesn't have "a real independent existence". They are notable, and with the number of references they have they would be notable even if they didn't exist - as many fictional entities are. Vashti 13:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Cini 16:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For all the reasons stated above by Vashti. --Charles 03:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP see above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.59.248 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, per Bachrach44. Stifle (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm bored, so I thought I'd go and check out Google for some more references. The books search is here; I estimate that there are a bare mininum of 20 hits specifically about this group.
  • Cited in "Sexuality" by Joseph Bristow [51],.
  • Mentioned in the Spring 1993 "Feminist Review" [52].
  • Mentioned in "Knockin' On Heaven's Door: The Hebrew Bible and Cultural Criticism" by Roland Boer [53]
  • Mentioned in "Gender and Social Psychology" by Vivien Burr [54].
  • Mentioned in "A Queer Romance: Lesbians, Gay Men and Popular Culture", edited by Paul Burston and Colin Richardson [55].

Vashti 08:36, 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. --Terence Ong 07:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undersecretary[edit]

Delete- does not warretn an article CopperTopOnTheEdge 22:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it could grow into a 2000 word article. - Richardcavell 22:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is clearly notable and needs an article. -- Grafikm_fr 22:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a perfectly noteworthy political position. Mr. Lefty 23:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very much warrants an article, just as Parliamentary Secretary and Deputy minister have articles. Fluit 01:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Fluit. I created the article. It is very valid because it represents a distiguishable and known term and position. Theonlyedge 03:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a perfectly legitimate and rather easily expandable stub on a perfectly encyclopedic position in the structure of government, and I'm actually surprised nobody wrote something up before. CopperTop appears to be waging a POV deletion war against anything Theonlyedge writes, without regard to its legitimacy. Keep, speedily if possible. Bearcat 03:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above, though I worry somewhat that this might turn into a dicdef. Mangojuice 03:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Shepherd (Songwriter)[edit]

Minor not allowed details on web Frank 22:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, no valid reason given for deletion. Stifle (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and wikify. Google gets more than 90000 hits.--Jusjih 07:30, 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 keep. SushiGeek 07:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZGMF-X09A Justice Gundam[edit]

Total fancruft of no general interest, part of a large walled garden. Brian G. Crawford 22:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep While I don't like SEED much, it's worth to keep. No general interest? Gundam is consider to be largest mecha franchise in Japan. Delete these article would be like delete all Star Wars's article like AT-AT, AT-ST and AT-PT(and there are TWO wiki web for Star Wars already as well). Not that I don't like Star Wars, but Japaneese anime is a form of art too. If mecha and spaceship from American's sci-fi movie can be include here in Wikipedia, why mecha from Japaneese sci-fi anime can't? L-Zwei 06:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If these articles are deleted you would have to delete about every single anime character plus Star Wars and Star Trek articles. - Plau 11:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Just because you personally have no interest in a subject doesn't mean there's "no general interest". Note BTW that "ZGMF-X09A Justice Gundam" gets 1,160 Google hits. Redxiv 18:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And just "Justice Gundam" gets 53,700 hits. Redxiv 06:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please what do you mean large walled garden Yuckfoo 18:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's his term for a bunch of related articles that he's decided should be deleted because he's personally uninterested in the subject. Redxiv 19:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment the term "walled garden" refers to a group of articles that lend each other legitimacy by linking to each other. For instance, if someone wrote an article about a nn little league team, it would look bogus as none of the people in it would have articles. But if all those articles were created, it would look more legitimate. Mangojuice 19:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this article doesn't explain the importance of this particular robot to the series, and the article has no sources. Mangojuice 19:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if the article is insufficient in explaining some things, fix it. Don't delete it. Space Pirate Minagi 22:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I agree with the comment above. Adv193 01:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. If anything, you're being too specific with your delete requests... By that logic, you'd have to delete every Gundam article on Wikipedia, along with most other Anime articles - in fact, there are several more obscure series that should have been targeted first. And I'm not in favor of that - I enjoy having the information on this and other series all available in one place. Furthermore, varying amounts of data on the subject (Gundam) are found on the Japanese, French, Spanish, Italian, and German Wikipedias shows, in my opinion, that at least the general subject deserves coverage here. Golux Ex Machina 06:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is fancruft not even about a major character. Wikipedia's Minor Character policy stipulates stuff like this is meant to be collected on one page. A Mech is not a character it is a vehicle used by character in an Anime. Please be objective here and read teh wikipedia policies. The article is source less and is essentially fancruft. --206.191.28.13 15:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRUFT and WP:FICT. Stifle (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it! I use this article sometimes to help out with various online forums and games. Taking if off with no good reason other than you don't like it is not a good reason. And since it is obvious that you don't like it the series, then you must not know the Justice was piloted by the second protagonist in the series. Therefore, it is important to keep it around. Revan Vrake
  • Strong Keep MarineCorps 23:10, 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 merge and redirect with Pebkac. SushiGeek 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PEBKAC[edit]

I think this article is a dupe of Pebkac, that is more complete. I don't know which one to choose for deletion, tough Pieffe 22:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect -- The Anome 23:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I reverted PEBKAC to an earlier version, which has more info than before or than Pebkac. I also checked wiktionary for an entry. There is one. DVD+ R/W 23:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. --MaNeMeBasat 13:43, 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. SushiGeek 07:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gentlemen[edit]

Appears not to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. -- The Anome 23:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn --M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 00:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - minimal Google hits, no albums, no touring, no WP:MUSIC - the fact they played at a club with a rising band doesn't add much. Tony Fox 02:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failure to meet WP:MUSIC. Anville 15:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Anville.--Cini 16:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

appears to support the "vote early, vote often" concept. That's four five so far. (I'm a writer, I can't count.) Though the latter votes have declined from "strong" to regular.... Tony Fox 16:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepThey have also releases an EP under their own label and are due to release a cd with their record label (Nail The Truth)
    • Gentlemen have Played with we are scientists at the leadmill see review,
    • review
    • Short national tour-Sheffield, Blackpool-winter gardens, Huddersfield, Leicester, Manchster, Supported the Listener
    • The gentlemen have supported such acts as “the Listener” on 31st March 2006
    • if you take the time to look at this site album you will see an album is soon to be released
    • Does Meet WP:MUSIC.Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...). eg, Leadmill review on site.84.65.56.245 15:52, 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 transwiki to Wiktionary. SushiGeek 07:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meets[edit]

Delete—This belongs on Wikitionary, not Wikipedia. And unless I am mistaken, this definition is already on Wikitionary. The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 23:08, 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 delete - Liberatore(T) 18:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R&B: Reds & Blues[edit]

Delete - No assertion of notability. Prod removed (without explanation of course.) Wickethewok 23:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- No Guru 03:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Google gets less than 10 hits. Either delete or redirect.--Jusjih 07:28, 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 keep. SushiGeek 07:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caws.ws[edit]

Gamecruft. Only 519 Google hits. Ranked 102,705 in Alexa Bige1977 23:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment At first I thought it was an obvious delete until I noticed that it has been in both #172 of Gamesmaster and Official Playstation 2 Magazine. I'm abstaining for now but if the article is to stay it needs a huge cleanup and to be written in a more NPOV. Englishrose 19:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it has been mentioned in two big magazines (one of them has quite a large piece on it), it may be subject of inclusion based on "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." via WP:WEB. However, it needs a massive clean-up and rewrite. Englishrose 19:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:WEB and nominator. Need verification of the above-mentioned magazine entries to keep. Stifle (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a scan on Gamesmaster article in the article itself. [56] Englishrose 10:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It just about fits in to WP:WEB per the magazine entrees. Englishrose 22:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The site is growing at a rapid rate and is now the internets most popular CAW site. By being listed in a large magazine you could say the site is "going places" and with a clean up of the article it should stay. 86.139.206.101 22:31, 28 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. --Terence Ong 07:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Frank in popular culture[edit]

This article was split off from Anne Frank as a way to keep the cruft out of the main article. This kind of thing has become a common way to solve the problem of earnest but worthless contributions. I believe that articles like this should never be created, but rather the problem of trivia should be addressed within an article like Anne Frank, without creating a split. Maybe if this information is so important, it should be mentioned in articles like Family Guy or Hilary Duff, as it's got nothing to do with Anne Frank. Mentioning Anne Frank should not confer instant notability. I urge deletion not merging, since the editors of the main article didn't want this stuff. Brian G. Crawford 23:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as per my comment below in reply to Badgerpatrol) Delete - I was the editor who split off the article because I thought the information was not relevent in Anne Frank, but because it was receiving so many edits to that part of the article, I thought there was a strong desire from other users for it to exist. I don't think this obsessive level of trivia collection should be what Wikipedia is about, although I agree that the contributors to it are earnest and well intentioned. I'd be happier to see it, and other similar articles, gone (but as stated below, deleting it may ultimately lead to the trivia section returning to the Anne Frank article, because there are a significant number of editors who are interested in recording this information). I would be appalled and horrified if it was merged back into the article. Rossrs 00:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Comment Keep Isn't it better to retain this page rather than allowing a similar section in the main article? I also dislike such 'trivia' material- but strictly speaking, there's no obvious reason why this kind of stuff shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia in some form. I worry that deleting this article will only lead to a lot of difficult to support reversions from the main Anne Frank article- at least this way, good faith editors have an outlet for entering this kind of information into the encyclopaedia. Is the alternative to bluntly tell them their edits are not wanted? Badgerpatrol 02:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to tell them anything. Just delete the trivia when it pops up. Or, if there's a majority of regular editors to articles that approve of trivia, keep it. I don't see why we need to keep edits on when Anne Frank was mentioned in somebody's favorite cartoon, TV show, or song. A reader's understanding of Anne Frank's life is not enhanced in the least by mentioning this trivia. It only serves to trivialize her. Brian G. Crawford 16:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Badgerpatrol's comment makes sense to me. I would not like to see this all return into Anne Frank. I don't usually flip-flop but the article is not harming anyone, and I certainly don't have to look at it unless I choose to, so I'm revising my suggestion to "keep". Rossrs 08:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll revise my nomination and say that I'd rather see this stuff merged than kept in its own entry. "Out of sight, out of mind" may work for you, but it doesn't work for me. Brian G. Crawford 16:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't "work" for me, but I see keeping the article as the lesser of two evils. There is also justification for having it split from the main article for size reasons, so merging it would greatly increase the size of the original article, which is already quite long. If the subject of cultural references is worthwhile, and I think it is, the problem is the quality of the content rather the article subject itself, so if you feel that it's not necessary to "tell them anything", why not just delete the most trivial from the list, so that the list itself has some relevance? (actually, that would be difficult. I've read through the list again, and I can't see one reference that I think is relevant). You and I agree that the information on the list adds zero to the understanding of Anne Frank, so I don't understand why you would prefer to merge it, and thereby ruin and trivialize a fairly strong FA. Merging should be the last of all options, and in my opinion, the only option that is unacceptable. Rossrs 21:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to merge it if it is not deleted so that you editors of the Anne Frank article would have to deal with keeping it short and relevant. Splitting this stuff off makes one good article and one piece of garbage and encourages the rampant expansion of the garbage. Brian G. Crawford 01:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"you editors of the Anne Frank article"? Merging information into an article should not be done to deliberately weaken the second article so that other editors "would have to deal with" it. The article should either remain or be deleted, but it should not be merged into another article unless the aim is to improve the other article. For the record, the kindest thing that I can say about this article is that it's nonsensical rubbish, but my aim was to protect the integrity of the Anne Frank article when I split this off because I could see that a significant number of people thought this information was relevant, and they are now conspicuous by their absence. I don't care what happens to this one. Keep, delete - after all is said and done, I'm not going to lose sleep over it either way. But absolutely no way should it be merged. Rossrs 09:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Wikipedia is not paper. Roodog2k 18:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Wikipedia isn't toilet paper, either. Brian G. Crawford 01:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the comments above and nomination that this material does not belong in the main Anne Frank article and should not be merged. It might be a worthy article if it actually had analysis behind it rather than being a list of instances in which she was referred to. No prejudice against a serious attempt to write an article on the cultural use of Anne Frank (or her impact/legacy). --maclean25 20:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; I also think that merging is a very bad idea. This is not a good article, but there is some scope for improvement. I certainly DO NOT agree that good faith edits of this nature (or indeed ANY good faith edits EVER) should be reverted without giving a reason. It would be far better to direct such editors (many of whom may perhaps be new or inexperienced Wikipedians) to a more suitable article. Arbitrarily deleting edits we don't like without giving a reason is not the way to encourage new contributors. Badgerpatrol 23:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I regularly remove trivia from articles without saying anything more than that it's irrelevant trivia. As I see it, the only people who benefit from this stuff are the ones typing it it. They get their jollies from that and then leave, and I don't see why we need to wring our hands over it. I think it's best to just delete it and move on. That's what I've been doing, and it's what I'll continue to do. I wish you could agree with deleting this article, but it seems that we have such a fundamental disagreement on what is important that I don't think we will agree. I'm fairly sick of seeing Family Guy references dumped in articles everywhere, and I delete that stuff on sight. Brian G. Crawford 01:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's possible that I have a slightly more inclusive view of Wikipedia than you do. I also dislike trivia sections, but I don't see how they are not legitimate edits as per WP policies. Judging by the near ubiquity of 'trivia' or 'pop-culture' refs in 'serious' biographies and articles, it seems not everyone shares my disdain. It's not for us to enforce our own opinions. None of these articles 'belong' to us- it is a community effort, and the views (and edits) of every member of the community acting in good faith are as valid as any other. I see no reason not to maintain the status quo re Anne Frank. All the best, Badgerpatrol 02:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than talking about this one article in isolation, it would be great to get a consensus about the use and misuse of trivia in Wikipedia, work towards having a written policy on what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate recording of trivia, and then have something hard and fast to refer people too. It might be a way of gradually clearing all the clutter and debris from many articles, legitimately. At the moment all we can say is "this is irrelevant in my opinion" to which anyone can quite rightly reply "well who gives a ... about your opinion". Wikipedia:Trivia is flawed because it contains a lot of POV terms like "interesting" which is all in the eye of the beholder and impossible to quantify. There's a fair bit of discussion on Wikipedia talk:Trivia but the comments are disorganised and random without either a purpose or a resolution. Just a suggestion, but I think it would be worthwhile directing some attention in that direction, rather than this one article which is going to be quickly forgotten regardless of the result of this discussion. Rossrs 10:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with you, Rossrs, there should be a policy that should be followed. I dislike how adversarial this discussion and similar discussions have become, while I realize that I've contributed to this adversarial atmosphere. I just don't see any other way to get my opinion counted. My own view on trivia is that Anne Frank's favorite food or where she got her favorite pen, as examples, would be interesting trivia, while her depiction in market-driven corporate entertainment is not interesting and not needed and is better described as WP:CRUFT. I'd like to be able to reach a compromise on this stuff, because the present situation is intolerable to me and many others, judging from the discussion at Wikipedia:Trivia. I'm tired of being told that my opinion doesn't count in many cases because of some so-called "consensus," and I'm tired of being discouraged from being honest or outright dismissed by people who throw around WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT. That's happened before, although not in this discussion. Rossrs, you want an Anne Frank article cleared of cruft. I completely agree with that. I want that too. Badgerpatrol, you may not like cruft, but you don't want to see anything discarded. That's admirable, but not especially realistic. Besides, everyone is told that if they don't want their contributions edited mercilessly, they shouldn't contribute. Without compromise there's no way to reach a consensus. Is anyone else willing to take others into consideration and compromise? Brian G. Crawford 16:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, I agree with pretty much everything you say, although we are not in agreement about the actual solution to the problem, and that's fine. I want to assure you that I see this discussion as being far from adversarial. On the contrary, it's good that it's being discussed in some detail. Rossrs 23:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not see the discussion as being adversarial in any way, except in a dialectic sense. It is always possible to have a robust and forthright discussion (such as this one has been) without being incivil. Fundamentally, I agree with Rossrs that moving towards a clearly-defined policy would greatly help in these situations. I do think that formulating this policy will be very difficult however. If I can just correct a minor point- I personally would love to delete 90% of the 'trivia' or 'pop. culture' sections in Wikipedia articles- but I respect the fact that other people don't necessarily agree, and that editors have put in some effort with these contributions, even if I personally find them to be largely without value. This encyclopaedia is a joint effort, which is why consensus is so important- and consensus means that we won't always get our way on every point. I'm quite sure that everyone is willing to compromise- but personally, I thought in this instance splitting the articles already WAS the compromise position. Badgerpatrol 01:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Splitting the article definitely WAS a compromise on my part. It's the only time I've ever felt compelled to do such a thing. It wasn't done lightly and was done mainly because I felt overwhelmed by the number of editors trivialising the article. As one of the two authors of the version of the article that attained "featured" status, I've always kept it on my watchlist and I was affronted that the quotes I'd carefully researched, cited and added from notable people such as Nelson Mandela and Hillary Rodham Clinton talking about Frank's REAL legacy and impact on the world, were being drowned in a sea of Family Guy and Hilary Duff nonsense. Reading, for example, the My So Called Life quote, all I want to do is slap that screenwriter for trivialising Anne Frank in such an inane and so-stupid-it's-offensive manner – how can I convince an editor who thinks something like that is notable enough to put in a Wikipedia article, that it's the worst kind of garbage and has nothing to do with Anne Frank? I've got no policy to refer to - nothing but my own, biased opinion. And not one editor, but several, who all seem to think that "dumbing down" the article is actually improving it. After watching vandalism on this article on a daily basis for more than a year, I've expelled a lot of energy playing the part of "policeman" and it wears you down after a while, so I thought, if people want this rubbish, they win, I'll let them have an article that they can play in. Maybe not a brilliant decision but it's served my purpose of keeping the rot out of Anne Frank, so now it's only the juvenille vandalism to worry about. So in discussing the compromise, I hope this at least clarifies why I split the article - for anyone that's interested. Agree that it will be verrrrrrrrry difficult to reach a general consensus on "trivia". I can dream though. ;-) Rossrs 07:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this seems like a totally reasonable fork article to me. The quality of it is another matter, but that is best dealt with by discussion and editing, which admittedly is much harder work than trying to get something deleted. Mangojuice 19:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a legitimate article split. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep per Badlydrawnjeff. Carlossuarez46 23:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge back. Not good material for its own article; currently little more than an arbitrary list. Stifle (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, interesting and useful information. Do not merge back as the Anne Frank article is already 42 kilobytes long. JIP | Talk 11:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Under no circumstances should this be merged into Anne Frank, that's pretty clear. The editors of the Anne Frank article don't want it. Brian G. Crawford 18:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with what Badgerpatrol said regarding this matter — Linnwood 20:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nescience[edit]

Dictionary term that already has an entry on Wiktionary, which is also more accurate (see [57]). Not common enough to warrant a soft redirect. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:45, 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.
More