< April 22 April 24 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

April 23[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of remote administration tools[edit]

Delete because Category:Remote administration software already fulfills this role quite adequately without constantly attracting commercial spam. AlistairMcMillan 00:03, 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 00:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanboy Almanac (webcomic)[edit]

You can take a look at this webcomic here. This is not a popular nor notable webcomcic, it fails to attain an Alexa rank and the forums that they share with another comic manages around 75 members, which incidentally is roughly how many hits "Fanboy Almanac" achieves at Google. There is nothing to suggest that this webcomic is any different from the plethora of websites out there, this is not notable. - Hahnchen 00:08, 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. SushiGeek 08:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sins (webcomic)[edit]

Yet another webcomic , this one can be seen here. Wikipedia is not a web mirror, the reams and reams of crufty material in this article should be on their website. This website is not notable, Alexa comes back with over 500,000, their forums have less than 90 members. A search on Google for sins venials (the webcomic name being Sins: Venials) comes back with 60 hits. About as notable as a dodgy prescription-meds sales website, which is to say, not at all. - Hahnchen 00:08, 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 closed, Tuesday at 8.30. DS 00:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday at Ten[edit]

Another random non notable webcomic which has made it to Wikipedia's infamous List of webcomics. Around for less than a year, this webcomic gets an Alexa rank of 500,000. Googling the phrase "sunday at 10" is obviously going to be useless as it'll bring up countless TV listings, so I tried a search for "sunday at ten" "wes david" (david being the author) and that came back with 10 scorching links. Using the figure 10 instead didn't help and a search using the name of the other author, "don stevens" fared even worse. - Hahnchen 00:16, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigm Webcomic[edit]

A webcomic which ran for about 18 months during 2001 and 2002 and can still be seen here. According to the article, it was "moderately successful", what does that even mean? What sort of context or frame of reference are they using? I googled up the author and the webcomic, by searching for "Aaron Littleton" paradigm. It came back with 18 links. And look! The top link is to Wikipedia at Aaron Littleton, which is why this is a multiple nomination. - Hahnchen 00:26, 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 00:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy Sunday Afternoons[edit]

Non-notable (student?) film. Doesn't even appear in IMDB. Misterwindupbird 00:29, 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 07:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitism (religion)[edit]

Brand-new "religion", which the article states explicitly was set up as competition for the already barely-if-that notable Universism (Infinitism has the potential to supplant Universism...). Google for "Infinitism religion haley" (to weed out a lot of false positives) gets 14 hits. Author keeps removing the ((importance)) tag, so here we are. Calton | Talk 00:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 23:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King William V[edit]

Speculation, possibly original research. Possibly merge this info into the current article about prince William, but until he's king and actually using this name I don't think it's worth an article Hirudo 00:56, 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. Shanel § 00:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Besant[edit]

The article is full of lies. None of the albums in the discography exist and their names along with those of The Cortez Trio are complete nonsense. This article along with edits to others were created by Chinamanjoe who is Justin Besant. He is a high school student nothing more. He has never toured through Canada and The Cortez Trio is him and two friends performing at Cafe Bleu which is a school music recital. There has been continued vandalism of other pages such as Annie Besant who Chinamanjoe claims that Justin Besant is the great-nephew of. However if this were true, Justin Besant would be well over 90 years old. Also, the only record of Justin Besant is on self-editable webpages such as this and http://www.last.fm. If one were to look at his last.fm page: http://www.last.fm/music/Justin+Besant they would discover that his albums seem rediculous and all there are are a few songs he made in his spare time on his keyboard in his room. The pictures on his albums are also clearly stolen and the entire thing is obviously fake. This page was also made by Chinamanjoe. Yofoxyman 00:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, yofoxyman was banned for these posts. They are nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinamanjoe (talk • contribs) 2006-04-23t02:05:23z
Everything "Yofoxyman" has said above is a lie. He is just making personal attacks. He for some reason has something against this artist and wants to remove the page. There is a reason he is currently banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinamanjoe (talk • contribs) 2006-04-23t02:08:41z
The above vote is by the article creator. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-23t02:43z
The above vote is by the nominator, banned for personal attacks. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-23t02:43z


Ok I did some research. All IPs from the University of Toronto Schools are 142.150.33.***. In this case the following two votes are not from "the creator of the article from different school computers". They are from different computers around Toronto. Chinamanjoe 01:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC) the precedding two posts both made by the creator of the article from different school computers Yofoxyman 00:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Please provide a source for this statement. The preceeding two posts were made from different locations around Toronto. Not from University of Toronto Schools. Thank you.[reply]

Regarding Yofoxyman's previous statement which I have removed because it was completely false and would just be misleading. -- No, they most certainly were not! I would know, since 1) I didn't vote for them (and I am the creator) and I don't know who did. 2) those IP addresses are clearly not from the same building. 3) If you are referring to the University of Toronto Schools, which I assume you think I am from, which I am not, but anyways, those are not even the correct IP addresses, so I would appreciate it if you retracted your statement since it is completely based on speculation not fact. Thank you. Chinamanjoe 00:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it has already been proven that you are from the university of toronto schools, also, i believe that UTS's IP addresses are actually registered to UofT and not UTS. Also, why have they all been from similar IP addresses and not from actual users. I also hope you don't plan on creating new accounts just to post here. Yofoxyman 00:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prove to me that those IP addresses are from the University of Toronto Schools then! I think you might have some trouble, becuase as far as I am aware, I have only voted once. By similar IP addresses, I think you mean they are all addresses from the GTA (Toronto), which is where Justin Besant's fan base mainly resides. Maybe Justin Besant is more popular than you thought. Chinamanjoe 00:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
is it a coincidence that on all pages with mention to justin besant on wikipedia that Chinamanjoe is the only one who speaks in his favour? it's not.Chinamanjoe is justin besant, there's nothing more to the story, and hes behind everything. Yofoxyman 00:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally consider this to be a personal attack. I am certainly not Justin Besant! You have based that on absolutely nothing. Please take it back immediately. Chinamanjoe 00:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No chance, it has already been made pretty obvious that you are Justin Besant. This, last.fm, the fact that you saved the entire justin besant page on your user page so you would still have it to put up after it was deleted. Stop denying it, everyone here knows its true. You are your biggest and only fan. And I am not saying this as a personal attack, it is a clear fact. Yofoxyman 00:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is libel. Please retract your statements, they have no factual basis. I would go as far as to say that they are outright lies. Thank you. Chinamanjoe 01:13, 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 Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination of a valid page. Turnstep 00:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed[edit]

Insignificant nobody, nn-bio, no idea why it should have an article--IPO 00:59, 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. DS 23:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayalais[edit]

About a "lost" story by Tolkien, hence unverifiable. Prodded by CBDunkerson, but prod tag removed by anon. I agree fully with CBDunkerson's reasons: "The article is simply false. No such character appears anywhere in Tolkien's works. Likewise, a Google search on 'Ayalais Tolkien' returns ZERO hits and the few hits on just 'Ayalais' show no relation to Tolkien." Eric119 01:09, 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 Speedy keep Kotepho 03:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Meacher[edit]

hopeless soapbxing of non-notable persons with minority fringe POVs--IPO 01:08, 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 07:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cortez Trio[edit]

Delete: WP:BAND, WP:V. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-23t01:25z

Comment. Well, obviously you've heard of them, you're the one who created the article :P --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:47, 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 Speedy keep Kotepho 04:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas von Bülow[edit]

questionable notability, nobody pseudosceintist, left wing activist passing herself off as an expert--IPO 01:06, 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 07:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Ribeiro[edit]

I believe this was added by Mr. Ribeiro as an advertisement for his Senate campaign. Other than the fact that he seems to be currently running for U..S. Congress, I don't see anything in here to indicate notability, as it's a general guideline that being related to notable people doesn't confer notability. Joyous | Talk 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, doesn't count as advertisement as the candidate already lost --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:58, 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 keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okabe Nagamori[edit]

Non notable.Two google hits http://www.google.ca/search?hl=ru&q=%22Okabe+Nagamori%22+-wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.65.219 (talk • contribs) .

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep Kotepho 03:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Bamford[edit]

I guess anyone who attacks the president automatically gets their own article?--IPO 01:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Scratch that (not my vote, which stands)- today appears to be the nominator's first day as an editor. I have left a note on their talk page in an attempt to explain the process a bit better. Badgerpatrol 03:39, 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. DS 23:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Jenkins[edit]

No legitimate claim to notability, other than a gross-out website and a couple of self-published books. Joyous | Talk 01:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was placed in the AFD log page, moved here. Kotepho 02:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was non-consensus keep ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Adler[edit]

Possible vanity article. An important and accomplished person to be sure, but notable enough to warrant his own article? I don't think so. GT 01:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't say anything about notability, per se, just that the contribution was out of commercial interest. If Bill Gates hires someone (perhaps via WP:HIRE?) to add content onto an article about him, that doesn't make it non-notable, it just raises an POV flag. Notability is determined by the subject, not the author. Good information to know, though. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 08:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By that I meant, if Bill Gates was really notable someone outside the company would create and/or add to the article long before someone at his company had to for "publicity" reasons. Obviously that was the case (presumably) with Gates but not here. Indeed most CFO's don't have much if any impact outside the their company, let alone future CFO's, and it probably would take a financial motivation to get someone to spend this much time to write an article for one who has no other notable (or notorious) characteristics. GT 09:02, 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 Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 07:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limón International Airport[edit]

Non notable airport—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.65.219 (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Englipedia[edit]

Non-notable wiki project - vanity page.


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 23:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moleware[edit]

It's a non-notable website, therefore it violates WP:WEB. Mr. Lefty 02:21, 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 07:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knox Blab[edit]

Non-notable community forum.

A website must be known throughout a large region not just a single town, in order for it to be considered notable --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
East Tennessee is a region. Knoxville is often refered to but East Tennessee is about half the size of Ireland and is the actual area we are talking about. Knoxville is just the center and commonly refered to. - ShoeTick
Shameless self promotion by me. See the Grand Divisions of Tennessee. Teke 06:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KnoxBlab and its previous incarnations have been the source for many other blog reports from such notibles as Instapundit (also Knoxville based) and have been on the leading edge of behind-the-scenes information that main-stream media won't/don't report about such regional/national subjects as TVA (largest goverment owned utility in USA and based in Knoxville), public offical term-limits (currently on appeal in TN Supreme Court and may have national impact), regional enviromental issues (Great Smoky Mt. NP and several national scenis river in area)

Keep: This forum has participants from areas far removed from east Tennesse - Florida, South Carolina, New York, Massachussets, New Jersey, and Asia are the first that come to mind.

Keep: knoxblab.com is the URL for this forum.

"Give an article at least a little time to develop; It is understood that some RC patrollers feel they need to take action before an article disappears off the RC page, but nominating an article for VfD within minutes of its creation is often inappropriate. Use the "Watch" button - it won't kill us if a questionable stub is created and sits around for at least a couple of days until the author gets a chance to work on it."

"'A month' isn't exactly a long time either; many VfD's seem to be based on 'this article's been around for a month (or 2 or 3) and nobody's worked on it!!!!!' Nobody knowledgeable about the subject may have found it (especially if it hasn't been categorized/tagged/listed) or had time to work on it. Not all editors are Wikipedaholics."

  • Comment Enough of a Wikipedaholic to know that VfD has been gone for months. The AfD process is to promote concensus. The forum does not match the criteria per WP:WEB, plain and simple. It's nothing against the forum, it's that Wikipedia is not about external links nor a societal resource; it's to be an Encyclopedia. Teke 07:01, 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. DS 23:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gameboyz[edit]

Webcomic that doesn't meet WP:WEB. It has just one strip and was launched today. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Six Shooter[edit]

Not notable. See Google results — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 02:43, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Matadors[edit]

More band vanity, and yet another example of why the prod experiment is a failure. Bachrach44 02:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment By all means, please do - you don't even need this invitation. Proving that they meet WP:MUSIC would go much further to proving your case than making random unverifiable claims of notability. --Bachrach44 19:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I certainly would like to know what "Horrorbilly" is - not a genre I have ever heard.. doktorb | words 18:38, 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 05:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenifix[edit]

Non notable web site. --64.231.65.219 03:20, 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 Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steveism[edit]

AFD: not notable Rmcii 03:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as obvious non-verifiable hoax by user with no other edits whatsoever.

Pandolf[edit]

nn or hoax Vincini Pandolfo has 21 google hits and Vincini Pandolfi has 43 hits Amcfreely 03:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kent (Author and Consultant)[edit]

Delete, fails the google test (plenty of OTHER Peter Kent's, just not much on this one). Claims to fame are that he authored "Search Engine Optimization For Dummies" and "Pay Per Click Search Engine Marketing for Dummies". Real person, but not worthy of a page on WP. San Saba 03:59, 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 06:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music4krns[edit]

This might be controversial, but IMHO this fails WP:NOT. Most Google results are repeats ("omitted" in GSpeak). Also, it looks like it's just a big fat list of Korean pop stars. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:03, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 90% of this article was just copy and paste of Metarexand Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgegog, so perhaps a redirect would be more suitable, but I cant' decide which. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relic Hunter Rangers[edit]

Complete fanwank and vandalism. There is little to no information regarding the new Power Rangers incarnation and, if so, none of these characters would be them. - The One and Only 04:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. All made up and completely nonsenical info. 67.121.139.145 04:38, 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 (copy at [15]. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy body count[edit]

Third keep from the same IP -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment the 4th keep [17]-- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo!

Delete A lovely article, but not, IMHO, for Wikipedia. The best place would be a Wookiepedia-type place. But for Buffy, natch. HawkerTyphoon 13:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.133 (talk • contribs) .

Fifth keep from the same IP [18] -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The IP in question also accounts for a very large amount of the article's history, too. Warrens 16:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


*Delete Abstain for now. Note that I am going to userfy the article to me. At present this article should be clearly deleted but I'd like to possibly trim it and at some point make it into an acceptable article. JoshuaZ 16:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMO, removing votes should be countered with removing articles. But then again, I am quite hardcore over those things. HawkerTyphoon 17:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Articles should be removed based on their merits and our relevant policies and guidelines. Kotepho 18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, obviously. But I am entitled to voice my opinion on talk pages:) HawkerTyphoon 00:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Schwimmer[edit]

Non notable Supreme Court case. Rory096(block) 05:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you indicate more specifically on the article's talk page what parts or aspects strike you as insufficiently neutral? LambiamTalk 12:58, 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. Mailer Diablo 07:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Toronto 93 Highland Ave.[edit]

Decidedly non-notable building from a user who has an article he wrote on himself also on AfD. Also of note, the picture in the article is not the building described, illustrating further unverifiability and/or hoaxeshness and/or vanity fluffing. I know this because, 1) I took that picture a couple of days ago, and 2) I've never been to Toronto. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing corrections I was putting in List of botanical gardens in Canada and had this originally listed in the booklet I wrote in 1991. I did not link it in the right place and put it in the Botanical Gardens section in Wiki. It should have been and will soon be linked on the University of Toronto Wiki pages where it should have gone in the first place. Links for the graphics were uplaoded in Wikimedia and now that I look, and I totally agree, when I made the jpeg link on Wikipedia, the photos were different and not mine. Perhaps someone can instruct me on linking from WikiMedia to Wikipedia??? If you go to my page on Media you will see the actual 93 Highland photos. Thanks for pointing this out to me an I do apologize. WayneRay 00:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

'OK well delete or keep, either way it's not my house and it's not your house, but it is still the 32 room mansion (house) set aside and used by each President of the University of Toronto (Ontario) in the posh Rosedale section of downtown and has a 3 acre garden, ponds and rock garden with great botanical specimens. And it was taken from the above link, because I wrote the above link. Make a deciision and keep or delete, I will be back from vacation in New Brunswick in a week after my book launch and will either see it there or gone, your choice I leavee it up to you. WayneRay 18:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 00:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Moore (actor)[edit]

Non-notable. Vanity page bio authored by the article subject. Delete I@n ≡ talk 05:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I for one would appreciate it if you would refer to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, specifically WP:BIO & Wikipedia:autobiography. PJM 19:35, 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. Shanel § 00:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of authors on Islam by period and bias[edit]

Judging bias? Not exactly a game to get into... maybe this should be moved to "List of authors on Islam"... but, I think it's best to get rid of this. It does no good and it could be completely unwieldly since innumerable small pieces, etc. gren グレン


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 07:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor Sam's Sister City[edit]

Originally proded by Kinu with a summary of, "Blog hosted on Blogspot. Tenuous notability; external references do not show this or ability to meet WP:WEB. Created by user who references himself in article; might be vanity page." Alexa ranking of 388,684. I am recommending delete as there is no evidence that this blog has independent verifiability (or notability for that matter) in significant third party sources. --Hetar 05:48, 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. Shanel § 00:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contiki Tours[edit]

Reads like an advertisement and doesn't seem like a notable company anyways.CrypticBacon 06:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn I guess I didn't realize how large and well-known this company actually is. Withdrawing nomination. --CrypticBacon 03:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was also unconvinced about tiki tour coming from Contiki, having heard of Tiki Tours ... and had checked my NZOD (which mentioned its source as an unspecified tour company), so was planning to have a look at Orsman when I get the chance. --Limegreen 01:33, 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 07:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Labs[edit]

Gamecruft. I don't think we need an article for every area (or set of areas in this case) in Doom 3. There's already a list of levels in the main article, and I don't think it needs additional info. Hirudo 06:18, 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 and cleanup. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-German (ideology)[edit]

Delete. This article has serious problems with POV, notability and verifiability. --metzerly 06:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Many of the links are broken, irrelevant, in English/non-German, etc. The link to the German government report is about extremist groups and says nothing about anti-Germans. This article is much ado about nothing. --metzerly 07:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Volker Radke link, "cutupgermany" and "antideutschprojekt" prove that there is such a thing as an anti-german ideology. But, as I say, I am not quite sold on the notability of the concept. The El Reyko 10:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup This is definitely POV, but it should have a place on WP, although it needs major Cleanup. Jonathan235 15:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Portsmouth Hospital[edit]

Not notable, I don't even know where this building once was. Portsmouth, England I presume? Dspserpico 07:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with you. There must be a lot to be said, but Googling turns up relatively little of interest so it's unlikely that much verifiable can be found easily. Unless that happens I'm voting Delete for now and hope to be able to change vote later. It can always be recreated in the future! Dlyons493 Talk 12:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS the above post was made by me, I forgot to sign in, my bad.... (new computer, new ISP, hence new IP number for anyone sharp eyed enough to notice out there!) Jcuk 21:13, 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. SushiGeek 09:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trumbull Escapades[edit]

non-notable fanzine-- Sasquatch t|c 06:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got 20 google hits for it as a sidenote. Sasquatch t|c 06:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This magazine has definite plans to seek distribution deals and advertising, as well as taking subscriptions for its upcoming issues, it would be a shame to stifle such DIY creativity. I am eagerly awaiting issue 3. It's notable, it's just not on the internet. thanks! --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trumbull (talk • contribs) .

Sorry, but "has plans to..." doesn't quite cut it. I have plans to be notable someday but that doesn't quite make me notable. I encourage you to pursue your endeavour however, until your magazine reaches notability, it should not be included. This is the same with any emerging rock group or web comic. We do not write an article to publicise you (Wikipedia is not free advertising) but rather to note your achievements. In this case, I just don't think there's enough to note. Sasquatch t|c 06:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete vanity page. --metzerly 06:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi its just not on the internet man! minor threat didn't have a website and they were as real as it gets. this is really more a perspective problem on you guys' parts. go to any hardcore show and ask them about trumbull escapades fanzine. hardcore is the only real music in america and trumbull is the only real zine in hardcore. signed, a fan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumbull (talk • contribs)

it just doesnt have a website, it's plenty notable. plenty of current hardcore bands and contemporary hardcore fanzines dont have a website and are on our level — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumbull (talk • contribs)


How can this be considered advertising? There isn't even any contact info. This fanzine might not be receiving the accolades of VQR or MRR but in certain circles is no less important. I rest my case: Sweet Deal didn't have a website. (Spaulding) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.253.109 (talk • contribs)

I personally have all issues and all versions of every issue of Trumbull Escapades. I have brought them along on many road trips, train rides, subway rides, and on airplanes to read. I know most content by heart and could quote at least half of it. In fact I often find myself referring to this magazine when asked information. Not only is the fanzine one of the few remaining american hardcore fanzines, it is also one of the best it's ever had. Its' greatness lies in the combination of a strong knowledge of hardcore, sneakers, general internet and related subjects, and the editors' unique sense of humour. Why would one deny the existance and importance of a fanzine because it has no website? First off why would this fanzine even want to have a website? If the editors have anything to say they will adress it in the fanzine, not on a website. Secondly I can't think of any "real" fanzines that ever had a website (not counting former fanzines turned magazine). I am appalled that in todays' world one simply does not EXIST if one does not have a website. So no, Trumbull Escapades does not have a website, for reasons explained above. Does that mean they are not a viable and important pillar of a strong american music culture? Does it mean they should not be represented on wikipedia? The correct answer here is no. Sincerely, Kevin Charles Alen.

  • To all interested parties: the point here is this "topic" does not comply with the high standards set for inclusion in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia and not a web-directory. Nobody is saying it's not a great, informative fanzine with a dedicated following, or that not having a website is grounds for not being notable. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable as meeting the standards, and in the opinion of all the experienced editors who have thus far placed a comment here, this topic does not meet those standards. Further "this should be kept" comments not backed up by specific references to WP policies & guidelines and supported by verifiable evidence will not do your case any good. If you do a google search for The New Yorker, you will notice that only one of the results is for the publication's own web site - the other 27,099,999 are from other sources which reference and verify the existence and importance of the publication. That's what editors are looking for when applying the "google test", which is just one small consideration made when considering deletion. Deizio 20:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN. Not having a web page is one thing; not being mentioned by anyone else on the Internet is another. I find it hard to believe that something with all of two issues out has any sort of following in the hardcore community. Morgan Wick 22:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you find that hard to believe then i find it hard to believe that experienced editors are looking at this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumbull (talk • contribs)

Did you all actually do a google search? I did and I saw a handful of metions on myspace, a mention in some dude's blog, a thread on some msg board where someone was looking for one of the back issues, mentions on a trade list on howsyouredge.com, etc. Its true that it was only important to a small segment of the hardcore scene, but it is at least as important as Wikipedia's list of fictional worms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_worms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.253.109 (talk • contribs)

Comment Twenty hits as per this straight-forward Google search. --metzerly 05:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already said that... look up :-) well, no harm in some redundancy I guess. Sasquatch t|c 05:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question Any of you nerds know how to download a movie(probably MOV, possibly FLV) from Macromedia Flash?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.250.112 (talk • contribs) .

Delete- per nom, Deizo and Morgan Wick. DVD+ R/W 21:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agrammatism[edit]

Wikipedia not a dictionary --64.231.65.219 06:31, 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. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inverloch (comic)[edit]

Another webcomic. No evidence of significant and independent publication or commentary. Delete. --Hetar 06:40, 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 speedy delete. – Sasquatch t|c 07:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoints[edit]

I originally prodded this, but the tag was removed so I'm bringing it here. The article is spam. It advertises something I assume is some sort of web community. It's not explained at all what Zoints actually is, and to find out you have to join up, and I'm not going to do that. Anyway, it's not even close to satisfying WP:WEB The El Reyko 07:00, 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. Mailer Diablo 21:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mental (band)[edit]

Delete. No attempt at verifiability or notability. --metzerly 07:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

plenty of records available by this band www.lockinout.com www.revhq.com www.bridge9.com—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trumbull (talk • contribs) . 4 us tours, 2 euro tours

They recorded two EPs, and one LP. Here is a link to their Planet Mental CD on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0009VI4WQ/sr=8-2/qid=1145912816/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-3184996-6795809?%5Fencoding=UTF8 Here is a link to their Get An Oxygen Tank CD on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000AINMX/sr=8-1/qid=1145912905/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-3184996-6795809?%5Fencoding=UTF8 Here is a link to all their records for sale from Rev distribution, including a comp they appeared on that had a photo of Dookie on the cover: http://revhq.com/store.revhq?Page=search&BandId=5286 Here is a photo diary of their first european tour: http://lockinout.com/media.html Here is a link to ebay for items with the terms "mental" and "lockin out" in the title of the item. (note: A lot of these items are not actually for stuff that has anything to do with mental, because a lot of people advertise other band's merchandise on ebay using these terms because they are popular search terms.): http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?sofocus=bs&sbrftog=1&from=R10&satitle=mental+lockin+out&sacat=-1%26catref%3DC6&bs=Search&fsop=1%26fsoo%3D1&coaction=compare&copagenum=1&coentrypage=search&sargn=-1%26saslc%3D2&sadis=200&fpos=02135&ftrt=1&ftrv=1&saprclo=&saprchi= I would add a link to planetmental.com which was a page which advertised for their record release show last june, but the domain expired and godaddy now owns 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. Mailer Diablo 21:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander James Burke[edit]

Unverified and unsourced. Little noteriety. Several published authors aren't featured on wikipedia let along contributors to magazines. Delete CHANLORD [T]/[C] 07:51, 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 ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Programming[edit]

WP:NOR Original research, self-posted Please read WP:NOR to understand why this is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Thanks. --John Nagle 08:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not considered a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines. Please see the link for more information on the subject. Feezo (Talk) 10:04, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mertling-Blake[edit]

Non-notable person. Only has 32 hits on Google. Two are Wikipedia and a handful of others are signatures to posts on forums. rhmoore 09:52, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sci-Fi Moviescapes[edit]

Delete, nn, Amazon.com Sales Rank: #92,613 in Books San Saba 09:54, 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 speedy redirect. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg hartsuff[edit]

I screwed up and didn't capitalize last name. Then I screwed up again by not just moving it. Doh! Ksm10 09:53, 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 speedy. Akiyama, please use ((db-author)) in future. -- RHaworth 11:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Published and Online Alternate Histories[edit]

I am the creator of this article. I changed my mind and decided it would be better just to have an article on published alternate histories. This article is now redundant. Akiyama 09:59, 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. SushiGeek 09:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christdot[edit]

Delete - The pun doesn't make it notable, and the fact that the article creator linkspammed the /. article shows that this is purely promotional. Nnp 10:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

· I'd say the type of news is rather relevant. I'd be more against merging it into Slashdot more than keeping it. --Nnp 08:13, 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 Speedy Deleted by Karada as copyvio. -- JLaTondre 12:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spacem-build up on the road[edit]

This, as an essay, is not appropriate for an article, certainly not in its current form File Éireann 10:37, 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.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Doobi Inc. Publishing. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 09:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political Stew[edit]

I have refactored some of the comments from this page to the talk page to reduce the length that people have to browse through. This is not a statement that those comments are somehow not as important as what's here. Stifle (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page history shows no edits by Burmaduck before the AfD. Fan1967 20:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As others rightly state, I didn't attempt to deface the article. Burmaduck
Comment My only alterations to the PS article have been additions of AfD, RFM and reverting vandalism. Your link shows that after my addition of AfD, someone else began editing the article. Burmaduck 14:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not that frequently discussed. It's more like users on LP mention it in passing occassionally. Burmaduck 23:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question What links with Lonely Planet? I'm having trouble finding any. Fan1967 01:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Issue of self-promotion seems odd as author never advertised the link on the Political Stew forums - was found independently by a user - nor anywhere else. Site is a non-profit and Political Stew is an obscure combination of words to be considered promotion. Google search for Political Stew does not show wiki link in top results. Given historic links with Lonely Planet and frequent discussion of it on their forums including contributions from their site admins, suggestion is keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.208.99 (talk • contribs)

Delete This entry on wikipedia is just an attempt at self aggrandizing on a scale that is up there with Ross Perot's. "the biggest single act of masturbation in the history of the world".

Keep. (Comment from author of original entry). I'm happy to remove entry on the basis of contravention of the WEP, although I don't believe that it necessarily does. There are long-standing links to one of your major entries in Lonely Planet, as well as mentions from Boots 'n' All. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipssolutions (talk • contribs)

Delete Lies and more lies. The above poster has on numerous occassions told us of his intentions to tie the site in with a national newspaper or corporate sponsors. He has every intention of turning this website in to a commercial undertaking and is shamelessly using this entry on wikipedia as a way to convince interested parties to invest money. This site is a non entity and clearly does not benefit a mention on this site.--Bashtard 15:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is as simple as a non-issue, please explain how the article meets the WP:WEB criteria? Burmaduck 13:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are a bunch of cheap and workshy lawyers who will be prepared to take up the case of why Wikipedia should put this article up. If Wiki still do not see reason then we will contact the London Met police and take out a criminal prosecution. Bet you are scared now--David Phillips and partners 19:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to all at Wikipedia but this page has unfortunately been hijacked for a legitimate protest at the actions of the owners and administrators of the Political stew site. Banning people without reason and failing to give a justifiable reason is just not on. We are not going to just go away so sadly all other forays on to external sites by PS will be subject to this kind of attention. Bashtard


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 09:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By any means necessary[edit]

This is just a phrase from a speech, not an appropriate subject for an article. Perhaps it could be merged and redirected to the Malcom X article, but as it stands I'd say delete. (The link to Wiktionary is misleading, incidentally, as there's no entry there.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Malcom X. Redirects are cheap and it's a plausible search. JoshuaZ 21:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Merge and make a Disambig per Wick's second comment. JoshuaZ 23:58, 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. SushiGeek 09:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNH Blue[edit]

A non remarkable shade of blue, that seems popular as it is (or close to) Pantone Matching System No. 288 and seems popular in logos/colour schemes and similar with yellow or white. I have not been able to find any verification that this name (UNH Blue or University of New Hampshire Blue) is actually used beyond (or even by) the University of New Hampshire, also on a side point other groups also seem to clam this as their shade of blue like Pace University. blue520 13:25, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Eclipse[edit]

Vanity from editor who exists to promote Antonella Gambotto-Burke. Publisher seems to exist mainly for the same reason.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sango123 (e) 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Instinct for the Kill[edit]

More Antonella Gambotto-Burke vanity

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sango123 (e) 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pure Weight of the Heart[edit]

More Antonella Gambotto-Burke vanity

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sango123 (e) 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lunch of Blood[edit]

More Antonella Gambotto-Burke vanity

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 09:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest (Culdee Fell Mountain Railway)[edit]

This was prodded User:Gwernol who noted doesn't require its own article. Was curiously unprodded, so bringing it to AfD. One sentence about a fictional "character" which doesn't warrant its own article. Eusebeus 14:03, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squeezee[edit]

all info is already in the Squeeze play (bridge) article. I do not think it's a likely search term either, but if people disagree with that then a redirect would be ok with me. Hirudo 14:13, 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. SushiGeek 09:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of literature about footwear[edit]

Originally prodded and removed. Unencyclopedic list of books. Wikipedia is not a bibliography. Eusebeus 14:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding without fixing any of the glaring errors on a page seems a mite counterproductive. delete as shoecruft Appropriate Username 21:38, 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 21:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstraction_physics[edit]

This page appears to be (a) original research, (b) entirely unsupported by academic research or real-world practice, and (c) incoherent. It's my belief that it's not appropriate for Wikipedia, and should be considered for deletion. Rob 14:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. The El Reyko 20:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If it's heavily edited and published in a peer-reviewed journal, and subsequently becomes notable, it may be recreated down the line. Morgan Wick 23:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. also [[24]] as the wikipedia qualifications do not apply there either. T.Rue 02:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated by nominator. Cedars 09:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re-evaluate - read comment in articles discussion. (Article Discussion was removed. A wikipedia fail that would otherwise have show the bias of the editors)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 editorialise. This is AfD, not Pages for Merging, and it was not appropriate to nominate it here: one could just as easily have merged the articles (took me five minutes), or have slapped "merge" templates on them (would take thirty seconds). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Munford[edit]

Prodded, which was removed. Bringing to AfD. This reads like a corporate site bio. Suggest a Merge to Sophos. Eusebeus 14:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The keep argument is that the diner surpasses the notability guidelines at WP:CORP, which (I've checked) is absolutely correct. The delete argument is made by only two people, each with different reasoning. Cini (talk · contribs) points to the article being unverifiable which, it must be said, doesn't appear to be the case from what I can tell. Calton (talk · contribs) complains of a lack of Google hits, and he's quite right — but real, live publications that get the article past WP:CORP trumps the Google test any day. Calton's argument is strong, which is why I'm closing as "no consensus" instead of a straight out "keep". If you disagree, DRV is as always -----------------------> that way. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Becky's Diner[edit]

prodded by User:Rory096 which was removed so bringing it to AfD. Yes, it's a diner folks. Nn - suggest Delete Eusebeus 14:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's no such thing as wrongly deprodding an article. The rationale was that is appeared to be notable as it states the diner was featured on FoodTV and in a food magazine. You may disagree that it makes it notable enough to keep, or have concerns about verifying the claim, but that doesn't make removing the prod tag "wrong." Thatcher131 00:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Why I call it wrong is that the contesting user decided to demand consensus on an article that doesn't even toe the line of notability. If you look at the discussion here you can see that the consensus points to a resounding "delete", and my issue is that the extra work of the editors that listed the article here and then voted could have been better spent improving Wikipedia in other ways; that's why I call it wrongly removed. Kuzaar 19:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, checking and comparing search results for "Becky's Diner" with other, actually famous restaurants:
Restaurant Google hits
overall		 Google hits
unique		 Yahoo!
"Chez Panisse" -book -cookbook 161,000 773 78,800
"The French Laundry" -book -cookbook 89,400 718 52,100
"Charlie Trotter's" -book -cookbook 92,400 694 32,300
"Becky's Diner" 528 203 346
Doesn't compare very well. Hmm, but those are too upscale, you say? Okay, let's go downscale, using the type of eating places the Sterns have raved about in their Roadfood books and columns:
Restaurant Google hits
overall		 Google hits
unique		 Yahoo!
"Mary Mac's Tea Room" 56,500 350 2,450
"Swan Oyster Depot" 50,100 397 13,300
"Arthur Bryant's" 38,600 514 25,600
"Doe's Eat Place" 15,500 422 1,790
"Sylvia's restaurant" 12,300 438 1,820
"Becky's Diner" 528 203 346
Still falling short, it appears. --Calton | Talk 06:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't think WP:CORP applies? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:33, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Glickman[edit]

Originally prodded by User:Zetawoof as autobiography. Prod removed, so bringing it here. Original prod could have more accurately noted non-notable autobiography. (Article creator is eponymous). Eusebeus 14:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you're apparently voting to keep without "regard to merits of dispute". Eusebeus provided his own reasoning here... calling that bad faith is insulting. --W.marsh 14:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, he didn't. He just repeated the mantra "non-notable" without giving any explanation of the claim. Calling that "reasoning" is insulting to people who actually reason. Monicasdude 15:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okaay, so now he's acting in bad faith because he didn't perform up to your standards... I dislike "delete nn" nominations as much as anyone but to call them bad faith is simply incorrect. --W.marsh 15:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as I noted elsewhere (your RFAr), the person not providing a meaningful rationale for their opinion on the article is you, not the nominator. You posted that comment to 34 articles in 21 minutes... --W.marsh 15:06, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction in Organizational Purchasing[edit]

I have a sneaking suspicion that this is nonsense; I also suspect it exists purely to promote the very odd website that it links to twice. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Algerian Genocide[edit]

This article is based on a biased view of the Algerian war of independance. It is a confusion between the Setif massacre that took place in 1945 where between 15,000 to 45,000 (figures vary between sources)people were killed and the event of Algerian war of independance. In addition, France has formally accepted its responsabilities in the Setif massacre and presented its apologies to Algeria via its ambassador. The author distorts the words of president Abdelaziz Bouteflika who said that French colonisation was a genocide of Algerian identity, language and traditions, but never said that France perpetrated a genocide as in exterminating people. He was implying that the effect of colonisation was the destruction of the cultural identity of algerians. This also has to be replaced in the context, as president Bouteflika was replying in anger to a law that was voted in French parliement recognising the beneficial effect of colonisation. This law has been repelled since. The author also distorts his references as the Scotsman article referred to DO NOT claims that France killed 1.5 million Algerians so it is a false reference. I suggest this article should be deleted, as there are already some articles on the massacres perpetrated by the French rulers in Algeria, the article is just the point of view of the author and is full of inacuracies. Blastwizard 14:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Algerian president said it was a genocide of Algerian culture not people, obviously you don't get the subtlety of his language or more exactly you don't want to understand as it does not fit with your opinion. The exact words of president Bouteflika were Colonisation brought the genocide of our identity, of our history, of our language, of our traditions so it is your misinterpretation of this sentence that brought this article to existence, in addition the number of victims you wrote is unsubstantiated by any sources you gave. Would president Bouteflika go to receive medical treatment in a military hospital of a country that has comitted genocide on his people? Your contributions are in breach of neutrality of point of view. You are accusing me of editing the page of Algeria which is not the case. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a forum for personal opinion, I had nothing to do with the article on armenian genocide I just pointed its existence which obviously upsets you. If you read carefully my post on the subject you will see that I pointed at that there was no indictment of the ottoman empire because it collapsed before international courts of justices ever existed (I suppose Nuremberg trial makes a precedence), but several parliements in the world have voted a law to consider it as a genocide. You may have an issue with the atrocities the French did in Algeria, and I said I didn't condone it, what I say is it does not qualify as a genocide they took place at a time when France could have been condemned it is not the case, and you are distorting the official opinion of Algerian authorities. It is not because western people killed masses of non-western people and in the case you are pointing that it qualifies as a genocide and I'm rather upset because your light approach to the use of the word genocide belittles some real genocides. Blastwizard 22:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all please add your comments at the end, not to hide the reasons why I nominated this article for deletion. You seem unable to read the articles you cite. You say the figure of 1.5 million victims is the official Algerian records, cite your references where did you find this ? Strangely enough when you use references to support this affirmation the references do not contain this information. Your affirmations seem to be very distorted by the prism of your opinion. As I said before I don't care whether you are Turkish, Chinese, English, Papu or whatever, what I care about is well referenced articles in Wikipedia not peoples' personal opinions. Now if you can provide a well documented research work by historians and scholars instead of reporting words from politicians I will reconsider my stance. And no genocide is a crime against people not against culture, president Bouteflika hijacked the word in the purposes of his political agenda. If you take the etymology of the word, geno is the greek root for race and cide comes from latin cidere killing it does not mean killing people's culture. And for your records I am not denying that colonisation has altered the identity of colonised country, but your articles are really far fetched in that matter Blastwizard 11:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. You have have just decided against what the Algerian people had to go through in their independence war. You have just denied that they have been maasacred by the colonial French Army. Shame on you Genocide deniers! User: Samothrakis

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Blue[edit]

Contested PROD. This unsigned band does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. They are unsigned, their music is self-released, and I don't see any evidence of a national tour. Joyous | Talk 14:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When they are signed onto major record labels and are widely accepted as notable, they will merit their own article on Wikipedia. Until then, however, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Kuzaar 15:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 'widely accepted as notable' - I would call booked to play festivals and being payed for gigs, being asked by signed bands to support them and with over 15000 fans and 200,000 plays on Myspace as being widely accepted as notable. They are a KNOWN band in the Indie music industry and community, meaning they are known and regarded as famous. And before anyone asks, i am not a member of the band, just a clued up fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.238.119 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current Affairs Gaming[edit]

The game only had 50 players at its peak and most of the Google results for the "Current Affairs Gaming" appear to be irrelevant, like "current affairs, gaming". -- Kjkolb 15:45, 14 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!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:39, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian UFO Magazine[edit]

Non-notable publication, no evidence offered of existence, "the only UFO magazine in brazil" does not imply notability. Until this can be independantly verified by multiple sources, it neither deserves an article nor belongs here. Also, de-prodded by a chronic de-prodding editor. Kuzaar 14:41, 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. If someone wants to info for merging, please contact me or another admin. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merentha Mudlib[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:SOFT. 838 Ghits. Rory096(block) 22:25, 14 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!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:50, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Office "12" Ribbon[edit]

Already covered more extensively in main article listed in prod. Does not deserve its own article; wrongly deprodded by a contributor. Kuzaar 15:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's no such thing as wrongly deprodding an article. Thatcher131 00:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like "There's no such thing as a stupid question," there are always exceptions. This looks like one of them. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said "inappropriately" instead of wrongly, my mistake. Contesting the deletion of an article that is covered more extensively in another place, and which clearly does not merit its own article, I consider to be inappropriate and perhaps even lazy on the part of the editor, who could have spent a little more time to look into the subject instead of wantonly removing prod tags- which, if you check his recent hundred or so edits, all but a handful are exactly that. Kuzaar 12:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. If someone wants the information for merging, please contact me or another admin. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Sentinels (Part 2)[edit]

prodded, which was removed. Single line describing an episode of the X-men. Eusebeus 15:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is wrong with it, short and sweet Fallen Angel talk 19:39, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Torskie[edit]

Having just cleaned up and Wikified this article, I'm still not convinced that this writer is famous enough to be worth mention on Wikipedia, especially after having searched on Google and Amazon and found none of his published works. Djbb2 15:24, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Braganza's Beseigers[edit]

I don't think we need an individual page for each Warhammer figurine or unit Hirudo 15:29, 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. The author has now admitted this article is fiction. Which makes this a completely non notable article. CSD A7. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 20:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berstoffenday[edit]

  • Comment - above comment from User:69.250.174.6.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University futures education[edit]

Listcruft, unless someone can give a reason why there is something special about futures education. I don't see the value in having a list of universities teaching a certain subject Hirudo 15:37, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Get Invisible![edit]

Prod removed, so bringing it to AfD. Unnotable book; this does not need its own article. Could be merged to R.L. Stine Eusebeus 15:38, 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 speedy delete. Sango123 (e) 19:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LatestDiscountVouchers.co.uk[edit]

NN, fails to meet WP:WEB Coren 22:11, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Today[edit]

Non notable site. Alexa ranking of 381,061. Rory096(block) 16:29, 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 21:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agj Barnes[edit]

Vanity - non notable. -- Szvest 16:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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? 15:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian rappers[edit]

unverified listcruft; 95% of these rappers are nn and don't have their own wikipedia articles. There should be a Category:Christian rappers instead. --M@rēino 16:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian rappers would include 90 percent of rappers.--Urthogie 19:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find that unlikely. Many prominent rappers are Muslims or associated with the Nation of Islam or The Nation of Gods and Earths (the latter being an offshoot of the Nation of Islam, but not necessarily considering itself an Islamic group). See Category:Five Percenters. (Presumably there are others who do not publicly associate themselves with any organized religion.) Delete List of Christian rappers and replace it with a category per nomination, since many of the listed rappers do not have articles of their own on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 03:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of rappers are christian. The 5 percenters are called 5 percenters for a reason.--Urthogie 07:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what it already is.--Urthogie 08:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)--[reply]
True, true. |phantasy phanatik|talk|contribs|
We already have an article on the history of Christian rap. We're debating if we need a list of non-notables.--Urthogie 11:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but I see youre putting groups in it. Please create a seperate category for christian hip hop groups, as is the convention. thanks, --Urthogie 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe I should change the title so that both groups and individuals can be in the same category? I'm not sure what the best approach is.--M@rēino 17:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been categorizing hip hop stuff for a long while now. What we do for musicians is we have a Category:Christian hip hop musicians (i've created for you), which has groups and rappers categories inside it. Christian DJ's and producers and instrumentalists would go directly in [[:Category:Christian hip hop musicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urthogie (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Legacy[edit]

Unnecessary redundancy. All information easily found elsewhere on Wikipedia Chris Griswold 16:40, 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. If someone wants to try cleaning this up, contact an admin. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual life under the Islamic Republic of Iran[edit]

The article doesn't make any sense, it's inaccurate, has brough up discussions and is sibject to a war between editors! Hooman 16:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The article definitely does make sense. None of the other reasons given: being inaccurate, having brought up discussions, and being subject to a war, is a valid reason for deletion. I think the title could be more neutral; the word "under" by itself suggests oppression. LambiamTalk 23:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speak for yourself. We are here to produce an encyclopedia, and the only criterion that is relevant is whether this topic belongs in an encyclopedia. Provided it is interesting and properly sourced, an article on "Sexual life in the United Kingdom" (if such a thing exists) should be equally welcome. LambiamTalk 23:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV fork of what exactly? There used to be a brief section "Sexual relations in Iran" in the article Culture of Iran, stating: In Iran flirting and mixing between the opposing sexes is viewed even now as taboo. But with a rapidly changing society we are seeing changing views. But that was deleted on March 3, 2006 by User:Amir85 with edit summary Revert vandalism. LambiamTalk 07:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A big unrealistic claim with no source. Amir85 11:50, 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 delete. Shanel § 00:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday (2006 film)[edit]

nn indie film article created by User:Ryan_Moore, whose vanity article, Ryan Moore (actor), is also up for deletion. There is no IMDb listing for the film, and the article lacks verifiability, credibility and stated importance or notability. In the event that the film becomes notable in future it can be recreated, but that seems pretty unlikely based on the information provided. TM 16:44, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Montreal[edit]

I vote for this page to be deleted because the information appears to be a hoax. If this article is indeed legitimate, please state your case here. Trapper 16:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Mitsubishi i. Sango123 (e) 19:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi_i-Car[edit]

a similar article exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_i anobo 16:54, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry chill(gum)[edit]

Non notable... chewing gum. Rory096(block) 17:00, 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. – Will (E@) T 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karlson lee[edit]

No relevant results on Google, unverified/made up information. Mr. Lefty 17:04, 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 Speedy deleted by Sceptre. --Rory096(block) 17:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karlson lee[edit]

Possible hoax. --64.231.65.219 17:04, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LemmeFind[edit]

Non-notable website/search aggregator. Alexa rank of 499,781. Delete. zzuuzz (talk) 17:15, 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 speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. Pepsidrinka 17:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain IT Team[edit]

This article had been deleted four times (log) as a CSD A7. I believe it still is -- there's nothing notable here at all -- but I am hesitant to "salt the earth" with a protected ((deletedpage)) without community discussion on this one. Delete. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:24, 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 speedy keep as an assumed good-faith nomination but with no good deletion reason given. This is a long-existing page linked to by many other pages, and as others have pointed out, certainly no less minor than many other characters from the Simpsons. More appropriate (but probably futile) to raise an argument for merging character pages on the Simpsons talk page (or the Simpsons portal). Turnstep 02:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Hutz[edit]

Minor character in "The Simpsons." Brian G. Crawford 17:23, 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 Sent to WP:CP. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K.V.Sithamparapillai[edit]

looks non-notable, but has something to do with Amnesty International, so I'm not sure Will (E@) T 17:31, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Ankle Books[edit]

Non-notable publishing house which mainly exists to promote Antonella Gambotto-Burke

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sango123 (e) 20:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fielding (band)[edit]

Delete, nn, fails google test -not in top 100 listings for "Fielding" on Google San Saba 17:39, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etology[edit]

Nominated below by User:Jclerman. Elkman - (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See rationale for deletion in an extensive discussion in the talk page of the article ethology. Jclerman 17:56, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flanges[edit]

The subject matter of this article appears to be non-notable and unverifiable. I have attempted to verify the use of flanges to denote an alternative pool/billiards game - I failed. The article has existed for over two years, but the introduction of new material has apparently only involved one editor. There is currently only one incoming link (which was placed by the article's original creator). Wikipedia is not for things made up in school (or Carleton College) one day. Politepunk 18:26, 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 21:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puffinhost[edit]

((prod)) removed. Though an editor has put time in this, I regret it is NN. Computerjoe's talk 18:37, 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 speedy deleted. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Bonnarens[edit]

I don't know if this guy was being vain or just thought it was his user page... I moved what he wrote about himself to his user page, and now this page needs to be deleted. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 18:44, 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 speedy delete. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pelirrojo[edit]

Vanity, non-notable band JoachimK 19:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this gem: This band is quite famous at Maggie L. Walker Governor's School in Richmond, Va, but has not attained national popularity yet. PJM 19:13, 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. If he's on stamps in Nepal he's probably notable. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahananda Sapkota[edit]

Asserts notability, but Google results aren't promising. Doesn't appear to be notable, parts may be a hoax. Rory096(block) 21:50, 14 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!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:15, 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 merge into Holby City. Mailer Diablo 17:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Percy 'Abra' Durant[edit]

Television-cruft, minor character--Zxcvbnm 21:52, 14 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!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:15, 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 17:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melita de Leon[edit]

Starred in some redlink movies. Non notable actress. 11 Ghits, 3 that aren't Wikipedia. Rory096(block) 21:58, 14 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!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 17:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M. Zachary Sherman[edit]

Minor part of some notable movies, violates WP:AUTO and WP:N Rory096(block) 22:01, 14 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!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:15, 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 Speedy deleted as non-notable group and previously deleted article. Capitalistroadster 23:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Areepattamannil Family[edit]

This article describes a family of four, and it has been written by one of the members of the same family. The article is not notable and does not need to be put in an encyclopedia. The author had earlier written an article Areepattamannil which was voted to be deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Areepattamannil. Now the article has resurfaced by the name Areepattamannil Family. Shijaz 19:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straightshooter[edit]

NN band. Apparently Middle schoolers and founded last year. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 19:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fine, give me fifteen minutes to copy the page for other use and then go ahead and delete it. Thanks for your time.

OK, go ahead and delete. Guarantee we'll be back a few years, at the latest.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Progdrummer17 (talk • contribs) .

I hope you're right. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 21:03, 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.

Google Watch[edit]

The result was no consensus. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 before anyone asks, it has nothing to do with the number of votes. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scroogle[edit]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Google_Watch Jonathan 666 18:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Isotope23 18:17, 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 no consensus. Perhaps a redirect or merge will do just fine IMO. Mailer Diablo 06:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public Information Research[edit]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Google_Watch Jonathan 666 17:20, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mr. Lancer's book title exclamations[edit]

Fancruft at its worst. Completely non-notable subject of little interest to general audience. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 19:56, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Cleckner[edit]

WP:NN and WP:AUTO. author also has made an non-factual claim regarding inline hockey both in this article and in other articles regarding inline hockey Jnazarenko 20:01, 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. Thanks to Mr Gowdy for taking deletion of his article calmly, and to y'all at AfD for being nice about it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Paul Gowdy[edit]

An aspiring actor. His imdb entry lists movies that are generally "in production." No evidence anywhere that Mr. Gowdy is notable enough for inclusion here. Joyous | Talk 20:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I added my article and several others in attempts to 'expand the wikipedia knowledge database' if I did so in error then I appoligize. What must one do in order to be 'notable enough for inclusion here' at wikipedia? I am willing to learn. Joey Gowdy | Talk 15:43, 23 April 2006 (CST)

Hi, Mr. Gowdy. You might look at this page to see the kinds of criteria that we look for regarding biographies. Joyous | Talk 20:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that is considered pretty important is films that have been released and been in theatres. Films "in production" or "planned" are treated with a healthy skepticism. Fan1967 21:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, thank you all for those websites. After reading them throughly I must comply with the wikipedia rules. Ergo, feel free to delete those pages for now. On another note, the only test I passed at the moment is the Googe test. So... Google me. No hard feelings, I look forward to being a part of this community. Joey Gowdy | Talk 17:47, 23 April 2006 (CST)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sango123 (e) 20:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logophilia[edit]

WP:WINAD. PROD tag was removed by someone who seems to be waging a one-man war against the proposed deletion system. Brian G. Crawford 20:31, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To do an eden[edit]

Some term (probably uncommon) from a video game. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 20:40, 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 21:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WPI Campus Map[edit]

Delete. Does not meet notability for software. Search in Google brings up 8 unique results, none of which have to do with the program. Was tagged for speedy delete earlier by TenOfAllTrades. ... discospinster 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


-Alex Steinwachs— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.226.170 (talk • contribs)

-Matt Beaty —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.215.226.233 (talk • contribs) .

Comment No, it isn't. But it doesn't appear that this is of interest to anybody outside WPI. Fan1967 22:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anything but advertisement, we are linked to by another website which gets thousands of unique visitors per day. We do not need Wikipedia to advertise for us as we are getting plenty of hits without it. Wikipedia is more than an encyclopedia; it has become more of an online repository for information and hence has become a place which people turn to for answers. People who are hear about a Halo Map of WPI are not just going to think of going to WPIMap.com for information, but rather are going to look it up on the "internet knowledgebase", Wikipedia. "This article is also written as self-promotion." to answer that, I quote Wikipedia "Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject" Also, at WPI, most of the IP addresses are similar due to the fact that we all recieve static outside IP addresses. The above "shameless" accusation against "the four developers" each only voted once. The other votes are from students around us and therefore they will have similar addresses. As for some of the votes appearing the same, I talked to the person (Matt Beaty) about what he wrote and he said that he didn't feel like writing something different, but still supported the article. I am not selfish and do not appreciate being called dishonest.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pb59 (talk • contribs) .
  • Quoting Wikipedia, the following paragraph of WP:VAIN, "The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them." --Valermos 23:44, 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. No Guru 15:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Hope[edit]

NN fanfiction, just 97 hits. Rory096(block) 20:48, 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 redirecting seems like it would satisfy the "delete" side while still leaving the information intact for the "keep" side if ever he becomes notable enough for an article, non? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohad Shem-Tov[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeest[edit]

Doesn't even come anywere close to WP:MUSIC. Vague claim of notability is unverifiable. Coren 21:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi Coren,

yes I appreciate that it seems that this article does not come close to satisfying some of the criteria in WP:MUSIC. However, as this band will never be able to officially release a single, ( the 'moral' censor boards in the Indian subcontinent are quite particular about banning songs which contain explicit lyrics, which is a particular motif of zeest songs) the band is already precluded from quite a few of the criteria mentoined in WP:MUSIC

However, this article does meet one criterion; it has been featured in the 'Mid day' a very popular newspaper in mumbai [[28]] 

and on a news website [[29]]

I will also try and get a few more users from the Indian subcontinent to add thier views heres (we seem to be disproportionally represented on wiki)...anyway thanks for reading. Saurabhb 14:39, 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Meyer[edit]

Delete - Nn "Hollywood player," only credits are segment producer for Entertainment Tonight and the upcoming (next year) movie Horrorween. The page is now filled with patent nonsense, but even the original version had items like "is compared by some to Colonel Tom Parker." Methinks tis a vanity page Nobunaga24 21:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of your edits have been towards this person and this movie... a movie that isn't even filmed yet. Yes, adding content about a film (which had yet to materialize) to various articles is, in fact, linkspam. Also, regardless of removing the POV problems, this person just plain isn't notable. His IMDB credits are a grand total of two. As for the editing, you seem to insist on making all external links in bold and so those need to be edited. IrishGuy 04:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Before making wild claims like It is predicted by the press to be one of the biggest films of 2007 back up the claim. Show ANY respectable media which has said this. IrishGuy 16:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is making wild claims, as you don't seem to know anything about the movie and the worldwide press that it is getting each and every day! You call yourself an Editor??? I guess anyone can call themselves an Editor on Wikipedia? Whoizzy

You are the one making wild claims. You have not provided one shred of evidence to back your claims that this person and this film are even remotely notable. If it is all over the media, it shouldn't be too difficult to do so.IrishGuy 21:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you just want to slander, libel and trash Horrorween, look at your previous article IrishGuy, it didn't even meet any Wikipedia criteria at all!!!!!

IrishGuy, here is your previous article...

User:Irishguy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greetings.

This is my wildly unexciting article.

Enjoy!

...and you compain about other people's legitimate articles IrishGuy!!!Whoizzy

comment that isn't a previous article. That is an editor's welcome page. There is a difference.IrishGuy 22:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Find some evidence of notability. Period. Short of that, this article will need to go. The article you are linking to isn't mine. That is why it is a redlink. I have no idea what you are even talking about at this point. IrishGuy 22:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go on the www.DeadBodyGuy.com site and the www.Horrorween.com site and look at the press, then also search in Lexis/Nexis, Newsblaze.com, Yahoo, Google, etc., etc. You will see all the articles and blogs, and if you are a real Editor, which I doubt, you can see the notariety of this movie and it's cast & crew! STOP FLAMING AND GET A LIFE!!!Whoizzy

I have looked at those sites. Horroween.com only has two lines quoted, both of which give no verifiable source. I googled. Only two hits for the Horroween film, the rest were for other things (videogames, etc) with the same title. There is no palpable sense of anxiousness for this film. There is no sign at all of notability. If you believe there is then provide it. Otherwise let it go.IrishGuy 22:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at www.DeadBodyGuy.com also, and check out all the news articles about Horrorween on that site also!!! 5 million people visiting www.DeadBodyGuy.com can't be wrong!!! Stop flaming!!!Whoizzy

comment You don't get to vote numerous times. Stop doing that. The one line quotes weren't from a profile of the film. They were from a profile of dead-body-guy. He mentioned that he would be in a film that no one had heard of. Don't be disingenuous. The article link is from signonsandiego.com and it, too, is about dead-body-guy with the merest mention of horroween. This article isn't about dead-body-guy. DBG is emminently notable. This film is not. IrishGuy 22:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment enough with the personal attacks. I haven't removed anything from this article. All I did was unbold the external links. Anyone can look through the article history to see the single edit I did and my reasons for doing so. IrishGuy 16:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment how many times must we do this? I removed exactly one line because it was unverifiable. It it is verifiable, you should have no problem illustrating it. Just provide a respectable source. IrishGuy 15:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European_Empire[edit]

Original research, POV, most of the article is irrelevant to the topic that it is supposed to be about Gsd2000 21:59, 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 Transwiki to WP:TFD. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User United Kingdom resident[edit]

This userbox was created to provide a temporary solution to a problem that has since been solved. That has basically made this userbox extraneous. Mal 21:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Templates for deletion, where it belongs Morgan Wick 00:15, 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 21:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Smith[edit]

Delete, nn-vanity, not listed on IMDB "The Boondocks" page [30]not listed on IMDB at all [31] San Saba 22:16, 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. Mailer Diablo 21:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ASAHP[edit]

WP:NEO Neologism from fictional work. John Nagle 22:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not directly from the Movie. There are several sources giving the definition. I showed one on the edited entry. Have you, yourself ever used ASAP? Its got other refrences and other varitions, theres no reason it should be deleted. --DJOMaul 22:56, 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 21:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critical computer science[edit]

I'm putting this up for deletion because it is a horrible unsourced essay which I think is completely unverifiable as it is solely the author's work. It is mentioned and used and link-to-from nowhere else, an apt demonstration of its irrelevance and neologisticness. --maru (talk) contribs 22:37, 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.


A message from the original author concerning this deletion: no sweat: my bad Spinoza1111 10:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Edward G. Nilges

No sweat. I did not have time as I'd planned to follow up on the unmet needs. I'd hoped that a wikipedian would put the boot in and add content and references but none appeared.

I agree that the article didn't disambiguate comp sci and software engineering. However, critical technology questions the boundaries between subdisciplines because those boundaries are mental and social construction. It puzzled me, as it puzzled Dijkstra, how there can be a pure computer science if as Dijkstra wrote, programming is applied mathematics. Of course, computer science is more than programming, as computer scientists who can't program like to say, in the same register that software engineering is programming for people who can't program. Software engineering turns out to be nearly null because computer science is applied mathematics and hence impure, and leaves nothing for software engineering except thrashing the help (Taylorist scientific management, applied to people who can code).

I will retry in future when I have time to resubmit an article that meets Wikipedia guidelines. Sorry for any wasted time, but it was my unfulfilled intention to improve and make-wiki the existing article.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hidden City[edit]

Non notable [32], possible vanity Tony Bruguier 23:02, 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 meh. This could be merged, or it could be left as-is. AfD is not the place for merges. If anybody wants to merge it, they can do it themselves without AfD's assistance. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anisa Romero[edit]

tagged nn-bio but contested, so bringing to AfD. One-liner on singer with a just-about-notable band. I say merge and redirect. Just zis Guy you know? 23:11, 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 06:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long lane farm[edit]

Delete nothing notable enough about this farm for it to be included in WP San Saba 23:13, 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. Shanel § 00:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Shadell[edit]

Fan made character. Non-notable in any way. Google brings up nothing [33] Delete. Thunderbrand 23:12, 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 Speedy delete as ((nn-club)). Stifle (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northwind gale[edit]

Delete, World of Warcraft guild from the European Deathwing server. Individual guilds do not need their own pages on WP, vanity-nn San Saba 23:25, 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 was no consensus on some and delete the rest.
This discussion amounted to over 150K. Much of it (too much) was spent debating the merits of an AfD nominating so many related yet distinct articles in a single nomination. The prospect of 85 59 separate AfDs containing the same arguments from the same set of editors is even more frightening than the debacle that this AfD nearly became. I find no merit in the arguments against the form of this AfD other than the observation that historically these types of nominations become a train wreck with no consensus emerging after day upon day of discussion.

Fortunately, some progress has come from this AfD. Reading through this (yes, every word of it) consensus was clear (yes, clear) on several issues:

  1. The level of detail, in-universe style and sources of all of the articles fails to meet WP:WAF and WP:RS.
  2. The information is single sourced with possible copyvio issues from MaHQ.net.
  3. All of the information has already been transwikied to http://gundam.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
  4. While the Gundam series itself clearly meets the notability requirements of WP:FICT, the majority of the articles listed in this AfD do not.

Now, if this were a vote, then the result would be "no consensus". However, consensus here does not mean consensus that WP:ILIKEIT, but consensus that the material here meets established guidelines and policies that have been developed through consensus. In this regard there were strong arguments in favor of deleting everything, however, I find that there is no consensus whether the following articles meet the notability requirements of WP:FICT, and are thus kept by default:

Note that among those arguing to keep the articles, there was consensus to merge the above articles in some form. Deciding how to merge these article is left to the WP:CE project, of which 4 of its 11 members participated, albeit peripherally, in this discussion. There was no consensus to delete yet consensus among those arguing to keep to merge, delete and redirect the following into a single article:

There was also consensus that all 14 of the above articles need to be significantly edited to address the issues in points #1 and #2 above.

That leaves the following to be deleted with no prejudice against creating a single (or very limited set of) composite article(s) that discuss all of these elements as a group while addressing concerns #1 and #2 above:

The deleted articles above should be redirected either to a composite article or to some other article, in part to discourage recreation and in part to assist in locating the correct article for searches. This redirection is to be done at a later time following the completion of this closure.

You can do the math on the box below to see how long I spent reading, investigating and weighing this decision, so think about it before you come and yell at me. —Doug Bell talk 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have no stake or prejudice in Gundam—frankly, before this AfD I knew little about it.

CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series[edit]

ATTENTION: CLOSING IN PROCESS
I am in the process of closing this AfD. I am reading the entire thing (yes, every comment) and evaluating all 85 referenced articles. I expect this will take a couple of hours to do right. —Doug Bell talk 07:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To other admins: please talk to me before considering closing this AfD.
To people here to comment: you may continue to comment. I will find and read all comments up until when I complete this closing.
CLOSING COMPLETED: —Doug Bell talk 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am not only nominating this article, I am nominating every page all 84 pages in Template:Cosmic Era mobile weapons. They are all listed and lightly mentioned on Cosmic Era Mobile Units, therefore a merge is not required. All of the information has already been transwikied ([34]). The information appears to be stolen from MaHQ.net. Deletion is the only option. Before you defend the existence of these articles, please observe how these articles defy WP:NOT, an official policy.

There we have two policies that the article clearly violates. If that's not enough, here's a violation of the WP:FICT guidelines:

Now, on various articles for deletions, these points have been raised to keep:

Thank you. Please, base this on importance, not your liking of the series. Adhere to the rules, not your opinion. TheEmulatorGuy 00:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Many people in this discussion are stating that they think some of these articles should go but some should not, or complaining that individual AfDs should be created for each separate article. What they are neglecting to state is which articles they think should go and which should stay and stating their reasons. It is perfectly within process to nominate a group of related articles in a single nomination, and the above referenced template lists the included articles. That means that if your position is that not all of the articles should share the same fate, then this is the time and place to make your case for the fate of individual articles. —Doug Bell talk 12:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete only CAT1-X_Hyperion_Gundam_series until such time that all articles on template are properly AfD'd. wtfunkymonkey 02:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the information listed herein has already proven useful to my work as a reference/research editor" Huh? What kind of work do you do exactly? --SeizureDog 14:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe ZeroMig works for a comics and anime magazine, I hesitate to say more because of personal details policies. Kyaa the Catlord 08:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! Lets keep the tone a bit nicer! Nothing to get heated up about - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What.the.fuck? My tone was completely fine, it was a simple question asking for clarification to a confusing statement. Now I'm pissed though because it's late and hate it when people pull that "tone" crap on me. As if there are really tones online anyways, it's all how you read it. Gao. --SeizureDog 14:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its ok! It was not meant as an attack on anybody in particulars behavior. The comment was just meant to remind everbody involved that it is not that big a deal! Yes, it all how we read it. The comment was more directed at :Who the hell made you boss?". I apolagize if you took it offensivley! Thanks for your work on AFD discussions. If you have any futher issues with my comment, you are welcome to discuss it with me on my talk page. - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not even a keep vote. I'm honestly asking a question. _dk 01:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly - The WP:OR does not extend to fictional characters that appears in an anime(Seed and probably Seed-Destiny), in manga(Seed Astray, Astray-X, Destiny Astray), in settings(Seed MSV, Seed-D MSV), Official guide books(Seed data file characters 1~4, Mechanical file 1~4), and a Gundam Mobile Suit guide book for most Gundam series instead of Seed and Seed-D dedicated(MS encyclopedia 2003 and 2006). Some even appeared in the Super Robot Series(Super Robot Wars) that is not dedicated to Gundam but almost every single major mecha anime. Yes, it is very likely that these pages will recieve a lot of fancruff and OR in it if left unattented, however, this is not a reason of deleting any article just because they may contain OR.
More reasoning could counter arguments made by the nominator:
  1. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. - No, this is not publishing an original thought, the page is not created by the author of said characters(mecha), and there are more than one source backing them up (I know not all the pages include their sources, and I have no will in doing). No, they do not have to be not dedicated to Gundam, They just have to be not dedicated to the series, i.e. not a comic retelling of the anime, not a novel written by the same author, etc. If someone published a book talking about these characters, in a different way than the story plot itself, it is justified to be a secondary source. Which actually means that the articles not just justified the WP:NOT test, but can also be written to justify the style of an out-of-universe view.
  2. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - Yes, but per WP:FICT, Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article. and The difference between 'major' and 'minor' characters is intentionally vague; the main criterion is how much non-trivial information is available on the character. Some books could plausibly have several dozen major characters. Here, in the list of AfD, I see quite a lot of important mecha that major characters used. Therefore, at least some of the articles here should not be deleted under this rule. In fact, a citation needed is what you need in these articles.
    And yes, I agreed with the fact that There is no reason for keeping them, most of them, at least. However, some of them should be kept, but the nominator indiscriminately list everything here, and thus it is too generic to vote for a yes.
    And another yes, it does not matter which one goes first, but it should always be done in the correct way, with correctly informed voters, with correctly listed reasons.
    Also, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters, Fictional characters which are cultural icons transcending their appearance in a particular work of fiction, or who cannot be neatly tied to a particular work of fiction or fictional universe deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances. This is not an official policy, but a consensus. If they appeared in Super Robot Wars and SD Gundam G Generation, than it cannot be tied to a particular work (It is not Mobile Suit Gundam Seed's Cosmic Era anymore) and thus deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances. The fun thing is, there are a few listed mechas actually showed up in series that are not related to gundam at all, like freedom in Magical Nurse Komugi and Comic Party and various units appeared more than once in the magazines Hobby Japan and Dengeki Hobby as iconic model kits. If the nominator is going to do anything similar (I mean this kind of mass deletion) to the UC timeline of Gundam, be informed here that most units in that timeline is also showed in Keroro Kunsou, Genshiken, Plamo tsuguru(TV show teaching how to build plastic models).
    I am all into deleting most of the pages listed, however, due to above reasons, this nomination did not completely followed the rules and is just too generic and took too much liberty in explaining the wiki policy, I am going to vote a:
    Keep per above reasons. However, after the voting period, if the articles are to be kept, I will be bold and merge(redirect) the ones I see that are not suitable to have its own page when I have time. MythSearchertalk 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: This is quite bluntly incorrect. If you actually read the nomination, you'd realize I linked to a template AND list of all of the articles. You seem to misunderstand the policies as a whole, and seem to be judging it from the one-liners I wrote instead of the whole policy. I'm not enjoying the lack of literacy and comprehension in this nomination. There are about two people making a FALSE decision, and then we have a bunch of sheep saying "keep per above", even though the argument is wrong. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Please do not separate my section as a whole, also, different opinion does not mean it is a FALSE decision. Some see your argument is lacking its credibility and thus voted against it. Even someone like me who is all for deleting most of the articles thinks that what you are saying here is simply your own point of view instead of what is said in the policy. MythSearchertalk 10:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That there exists a project is not a reason to keep them. Do they follow policies, especially WP:V? That is the main question, and one I haven't seen any of the keepers address yet (although I may have missed someone in this lengthy AfD). Fram 19:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fram is right on this one. The fact that there is a project devoted to a subject does not mean we should start writing articles on everything that falls under that subject. We have a Wikiproject on libraries and librarians. Does it follow that we should then write and keep an article on every library and librarian in the known universe? Please, for the love of all things good in this world, recognize that the answer to this quesiton is no. Consequentially 20:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the nominator (not a "delete admin", just a regular editor: anyone can nominate articles for deletion) gave numerous reasons for deletion, one of them being that these articles violate one of our core policies, WP:V. Since these articles seem to be not only not verified but actually unverifiable (from secondary sources), they are a violation of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, and should be deleted. It doesn't matter if anyone likes or dislikes the subjects (we have many articles on subjects I utterly dislike), we should only look if these articles are conform to the policies of Wikipedia. They are not, and thus should be deleted. Fram 19:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their main feature, however, is the "Armure Lumiere" mono-phase lightwave shield system. This system consists of 7 emitters, one on each arm and 5 on the backpack." CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series
  • "In addition, an amphibious variant of the Forbidden was created, the GAT-X255 Forbidden Blue. It utilizes a Natural-use OS rather than OS intended for Biological CPUs, and has weapons optimized for underwater use, including torpedo pods and a photon laser energy cannon in close combat mode." GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam
  • "The Chaos is initially tested at Armory One by former Proto-Chaos pilot Courtney Hieronimus. However, before ZAFT can bring it into active service, Sting Oakley of the Earth Alliance's 81st Independent Mobile Battalion steals the mobile suit and escapes with it to the battleship Girty Lue, where it is given the new model number RGX-01." ZGMF-X24S_Chaos_Gundam
  • "For example, the Kimera piloted by Kisato Yamabuki is equipped with a large scoop-style shovel, while that of Lowe Guele mounts mobile suit-style arms, one with a conventional hand and the other with a heavy drill bit. Kimeras could also be fitted with caterpillar tracks for construction work on Earth." MAW-01 Mistral

Please, by all means, explain to me how that information is notable? Our guiding policy here should be WP:FICT, which gives us this gem of useful information:

"Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article."

These articles are written entirely in an "in-universe" style of prose, thus invalidating our first premise. They are unsourced, invalidating our second premise. They make no reference to their cultural value outside of the series, thus invalidating our third premise. In the end, they are a summary of Gundam-specific treknobabble, regurgitating plot specifics. What have we learned, then? Not only do they fail to meet any of the positive criteria set forth, they specifically violate the only negative criteria. Seriously. What's going on in here?

It has already been argued that the Gundam Wing series is a cultural staple and thus important to the encyclopedia as an article reflecting the significance of anime culture. Fine. That's why we've got an article called Mobile Suit Gundam. It covers the psychological and historical value of the franchise without vomiting up huge amounts of made-up statistics and histories for its myriad of plot-specific devices and characters. So stop saying we need an article about a futuristic backhoe to explain how the world is a better place because of the Gundam anime.

This debate needs to focus less on how much of a dick the nominator is (whether he is or not), and get to the crux of the issue: do these articles meet current Wikipedia policy for inclusion? I don't care how tight you twist your knickers up and wish it to be so, they simply do not. Consequentially 20:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said, and I completely agree. -- Ned Scott 22:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was forced to be a "dick" because of the general stubbornness of people voting to keep. I have seen one person give any sort of source to any of the articles, but the mentions are in a trivial matter and don't warrant an article for each robot. In any case, the matter has become out of hand, so I'm not going to bother anymore. I'll nominate some of the individual articles when this discussion is closed (if need be). --TheEmulatorGuy 23:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, we're just saying that if you were a dick or not doesn't matter. User:Consequentially is supporting your position. -- Ned Scott 00:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Personally, I don't think you're being a dick, you're just frustrated with the inane and misguided rationales for keeping these articles. Those kind of opinions aren't really relevant here, I think. We're here to talk about the article, not the people. If this debate is closed with anything other than "delete," then I suggest you go to the articles one by one and nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure, after all. Consequentially 02:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Screw that. If the discussion is closed with "keep," which it should be given the nature of the AfD, the opener should leave well enough alone. Going back against the consensus that evolves is the very definition of bad faith. If the nominator has NO intention of abiding by the result of the AfD if it goes against his desired result, he should NEVER have made the nomination in the first place. Iceberg3k 03:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it results in keep, it will only be because of the blanket nomination. Because of that, nominating individual articles would not be bad faith and it would not be going against consensus. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, if you're truly concern about quality of article, not just having bad faith. You would wait for some period to see if we manage to improve these articles after this AfD nom or not. L-Zwei 04:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The articles has existed for a year, they've had a WikiProject dedicated them, and they've been nominated for AfD over three times, and yet there's been absolutely NO improvement. I'm not going to waste my time waiting for nothing to happen. --TheEmulatorGuy 04:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irony, you appear to have self-confidence at moment. I'm not part of WP:CE (and in fact, hate it for narrow scope that limited to CE instead of whole fanchise) but the project seem to inactive. Many idea for improvement pop-up in this nom discussion, don't get overconfidence, but I think this AfD just drive people to improve their content, something previous AfDs fail (due to moronic element of previous AfDs). So I think it may worth to wait (AfD a soon-to-be-merge artcle is pointless anyway). L-Zwei 05:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This depends on who know their exsistence and who voted. There are unfortunately too many Cosmic Era fans who just walk by and do random edits. There is no method in stopping these. I can foresee these pages be recreated again and again after every deletion if there are no redirects that led them to a list(At least that's what happen to a lot of similar page in the Chinese and Japanese wiki). Actually, this is already a sign of what level of impact those things are influencing our real world. MythSearchertalk 05:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they are recreated after deletion, the proper response is to delete them again, and salt the earth from whence they rose. The fact that a lot of people edit an article is not an indicator of real-world impact, but rather an indicator of fan base. This was one of the major criticisms raised against Wikipedia in its humble beginnings: it was biased towards popular culture and current events articles because no one was interested in writing an article on hard science or math theory. The standards in WP:FICT go beyond "real world impact," also, a fact which continues to be ignored in this debate. Despite the "hundreds of editors" who've worked on these articles, not a one of them has bothered to put any non-fictional context into the article. You tell me how big its fake guns are, how fast its fake engines can go, and how long its fake legs are, but there is absolutely nothing about the artist who designed these units, or how they play into general themes of the anime, or how they've influenced the realm of anime-robot-drawing. The reason for this is simple in some cases -- the subject of the article 'just hasn't done any of those things. Consequentially 05:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is you POV, not wiki's. People say this people say that. Your argument based on a lot of elements that could be called original research, without a source, and violate the NPOV rule. Where on earth does wiki policy states that wiki should be only hard science, math theory? (though I really like those, too) I agree they should have some level of real-world context, they should have information on who designed them and by the influence of what (of course, sourced information). Again, I must tell you that these articles just did not have anyone with the knowledge and sources to edit them, you cannot just coin that to they can never be improved. And face it, popular culture is a real world impact, and I have already included sources that show how some of these articles can be improved to show real world impact. MythSearchertalk 05:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first half of your response, my friend, is a straw man, and I'd appreciate if you represented my positions accurately. I never argued that Wikipedia should include works only on math and hard science. I'll repeat myself.

The fact that a lot of people edit an article is not an indicator of real-world impact, but rather an indicator of fan base. This was one of the major criticisms raised against Wikipedia in its humble beginnings: it was biased towards popular culture and current events articles because no one was interested in writing an article on hard science or math theory.

Show me where I argued the point you refuted. Now, after you realize that you can't, lets move on. Wikipedia policy does not require "some level of real world context;" it requires the entire article be written in an out-of-universe context. This is from WP:WAF.

Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself.

For further explanation, lets look at what they suggest for information that meets an out-of-universe perspective.
  • the author or creator;
  • the design;
  • the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative;
  • real-world factors that have influenced the work;
  • for fictional characters in dramatic productions, the actor who portrayed the role and his or her approach to playing that character;
  • its popularity among the general public;
  • its sales figures (for commercial offerings);
  • its reception by critics;
  • a critical analysis of the subject;
  • the influence of the work on later creators and their projects; and
  • a summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition, treated briefly, and clearly defined as fictional.
Your sources do not address these concerns, nor do the articles that are currently being nominated for deletion. They are written entirely from plot summary and technical detail. Even if you want to argue that the treatments are "summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition," you have no basis to claim it is "treated briefly, and clearly defined as fiction." Consequentially 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you have introduced this new term to me is ironically true that it can be used on yourself. You have strayed the discussion on saying how people critized wiki, without source, and expect me to say nothing about it? Back to the discussion. Face it, what I have listed are enough to write a good article on how some of these fictional characters made a real world impact, they have at least impacted someone to write a book on how to 3D model them, they have impacted people on writing published articles on teaching how to model using them as a reference. Even published POV critics can be included in wiki's article, therefore, a third party company publishing magazines and books referencing these fictional units, not talking about the plot, but just using them as a good tutoring material that a lot of people are familiar with, is a good source of indicating real world impact. If only I can scan a fan poll listed in magazine on which of these are more popular, there will be even more real world context, I do not have the magaizne, and I have no interest in finding one, therefore I never said anything about using it as a source. However, for a show having that kind of popularity in Japan, compared to any other anime, they always put up polls just to do a marketing research on which unit they can make a model kit and gain profit on.
No. A straw man fallacy is when you take someone's argument, and reconstruct it in a weaker, more-easily disposed form. I said, historically, there has been a bias towards popular culture instead of hard-science, and that caused criticism. The bias existed because people wrote about their interests, and not necessarily on what people deem academically "important" for an encyclopedia. That there are a lot of people interested in a topic does not make it important. Somehow, you transformed that into me saying, "we should only have articles on hard science and math," which is not only disingenuous, but flat out wrong. Stop it. Even if you're only misusing the term straw man and instead arguing that I'm shifting the debate, it's still a non-responsive argument. I'm probing deeper into why these articles violate WP:FICT and WP:WAF, and you're regurgitating the same word-vomit that you have been all thread: "it's notable and important because people make models of them." What you have yet to address is the fact that, despite the hundreds of edits and dozens of eyes that have passed over these articles, no one has taken the time to meet the criteria for writing on fiction. No matter what might be, we're here to deal with what is. And unless you can prove to me that each of these cartoon fabrications has single-handedly reshaped the way people think about drawing 3D stuff, you can't slap a blanket on them and say, "They all belong."
Hell, the fact that they wrote a guide on how to model a Gundam isn't a very strong argument in the first place, because not a single friggin' article talks about how these robots significantly affected the world of 3D modeling. "So what?" you say, "People wrote about it in a third-party publication, so it's automatically noteable enough to merit an article." That's bunk. If we grant your premise that the Gundamspooge has rocked the world of 3D modeling -- which I assure you, it hasn't -- that's information that needs to go in the article on 3D modeling. Stop dodging the question and answer me: which of the eleven characteristics of out-of-universe writing do these articles demonstrate? Consequentially 05:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question where on earth do you see a policy saying it has to shake the whole world of 3D modeling before it can be said that it got some impact? Given, if a third party published a book of using it to teach 3D modeling, it means that it got enough credits and popularity that someone actually paid the copyright in order to use the designs for their books. No, it can never be so shocking that it moves the whole 3D modeling community, and thus it is not suitable to be mentioned in the 3D modeling article. However, a book written is a verifiable source of its popularity among the general public and the influence of the work on later creators and their projects. A third party publishing a book about these units is a very good demostration on how these units influenced the work of later creators and their projects. These articles currently contains none of these is a sign of they needed to be improved, if any of the fans cared to do so. Not a sign of deleting them. I have provided the sources, and the argument, and already said that if no one is changing them, I will merge them into a list. I never said anything about they should be kept as they are, and this is why I said the term you have introduced to me is ironically suitable for yourself, while I never said it is not suitable on what I said earlier about your unsourced argument on how people think wiki is biased towards popular culture. MythSearchertalk 05:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity is not notability. From UncleG's essay on notability:

The concepts of fame and importance have implicit in them the notion of a target population — a subject is famous amongst a group of people, a subject is important to a particular set of people. Notability has no such implicit notion. Notability is independent of specific groups of people. To understand this, consider that the primary notability criterion makes no mention of readership. A subject is not notable under the primary criterion if it is widely read about. It is notable by dint of people writing about it. It is the source writers, not the target readership population, that is relevant to the primary notability criterion.

I'm not saying that Gundam stuff doesn't have a large target audience, I'm saying that outside of that target audience, the importance of these vehicles drops off significantly. Your sources are written from within the anime community, from sources that center on the Gundam universe. These aren't articles from main-stream press or industry trade journals. Beyond that, the criticism that Wikipedia is biased towards popular culture is hardly unsourced. From Criticism of Wikipedia:

In an interview with The Guardian, Dale Hoiberg, the editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica, noted that "people write of things they're interested in, and so many subjects don't get covered; and news events get covered in great detail. In the past, the entry on Hurricane Frances was more than five times the length of that on Chinese art, and the entry on Coronation Street was twice as long as the article on Tony Blair."

While those specific examples aren't valid anymore, the bias still exists, and is a topic of great import to a lot of editors.Consequentially 14:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I have said, having books published satisfy the idea of It is the source writers, not the target readership population, that is relevant to the primary notability criterion., while you keep ignoring. Yes, they are not of a mainstream press, in America, but do I have to tell you that wiki is an international page, and the publishers are at least mainstream in Japan, if not Asia. The Magazines I have quoted are not Gundam or Anime based. Half of Hobby Japan talks about real world machine models, like cars, aeroplanes, ships and such. And your hatred in Anime does not take away the credibility of a magazine focusing on Anime is not a mainstream publisher and is biased on Gundam. Dengeki Hobby is more figure related than Gundam related. Yes, in your view anything that you have no interest in is not mainstream, because you simply do not need to pay any attention on it, and thus I have the idea of no matter how many sources I can include, you are just going to be able to say they are not notable, not mainstream. From the original Arguement of the nominator of having sources not dedicated to Gundam, you have moved the level higher onto an argument of needing to have sources not dedicated to Anime, and probably you will yet try to raise the bar to any sources dedicated to any sort of fan base, including models, anime, comics, novels, games, and any other thing you cannot name of but have a certain group of fans, and maybe just in case some star war fans are interested in Gundam, too, should not carry enough notablity as they are not mainstream, because you simply hate the fact that they are a source countering your argument. Oh, and I can add it up for you, a newspaper becoming immediately not mainstream if they have said anything about any of these Gundam mechas, why? because they are fan based, they are anime based, and center on the Gundam universe. Face it: Dengeki Hobby Magazine is a mainstream modeling and figure magazine that is even translated to 2 chinese version(Hong Kong and Taiwan), Hobby Japan only have Gundam as one of its nine sections, with at least 3 sections not related to Anime. And if you wanted to say that the section itself is not maintream publishers, anyone could have the same argument on anything, because you can even ignore any sources from CNN or BBC if you say that particular news is written by who is biased towards that topic. And No, wiki never states its sources have to be mainstream, if it got published, by a third party company, it is good enough as a source. It doen't matter if it is anime oriented or not, it is available on the market, people can read it and learn about what is written in it, it is good enough to be listed as a source stating how anything impacted anyone on writing that article of that particular thing. As a matter of facts, the Tokien Companion is a perfect source for books of J.R.R. Tokien. And thus a third party publisher writing anything on a topic should be a perfectly valid source.MythSearchertalk 16:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, we're continuing our parade of bad arguments, and the next stop on your tour is a ignoratio elenchi. I'll play along and grant that these articles demonstrate a significant interest in the Gundamgoo that we're talking about. I'll do you one better, and say that it shows a notable real-world impact, and is thus meritous of inclusion. I don't agree with either of those statements, but we're pretending here, mmkay? Now, tell me what that has to do with the fact that the articles don't meet any of the burdens presented by WP:FICTION and WP:WAF? I'll give them to you again, since you must've missed them the first time. An article on a fictional topic should cover the following:

". . . the author or creator; the design; the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative; real-world factors that have influenced the work; for fictional characters in dramatic productions, the actor who portrayed the role and his or her approach to playing that character; its popularity among the general public; its sales figures (for commercial offerings); its reception by critics; a critical analysis of the subject; the influence of the work on later creators and their projects; and a summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition, treated briefly, and clearly defined as fictional."

The thrust of my argument has, since the beginning, been that the articles you defend do not meet the criterion established by Wikipedia consensus in reference to writing about fictional topics. Along the way, I've had to defend against the notion that model kits inherently equal notability, but you'll notice I end each response with a return to the original question. Tell me, dear sir, how these articles meet the expectations placed upon them by the guidelines of our encyclopedia? Consequentially 21:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I have answered it many times. I never said anything about keeping all of them, and I never said all of them are important, I am just saying the ones that recieve out of universe treatment, like having a model made and appearing in another anime not made by the authors and company of the original anime, and appearing in a published magazine, serveral times, satisfy having influenced the work of later creators and their projects. Since these are not real human acting, the people who design them(including original design and finishing and redesigns) should be listed and replace the point of the actor who portrayed the role. The real world factors that have influenced the work can be found in an interview(listed in the Official website) of the director and two other interviews of the mechanical designer(listed in Data files) who said the designs are influenced by some of the previous Gundam productions not designed by him. Reception by critics can be sourced from the model magazines which over and over stated these designs reference too much from the previous Gundam series and some even referenced non-Gundam series. More could be found in Game Express Magazine published in Hong Kong that Critically analyze by Jeto(similar pronounciation) the series of main mechas(in separate issues) about how the main characters use auto lock on instead of real piloting skills in massive genocide and how the other mechas are being just paper boards without even moving and aiming.(The last one I never state because even though I totally agree with him, I know that that critic does not recieve much credit for his articles of constantly bashing on new series and is being criticised for that) How some of these articles can meet the expectation of our encyclopedia is simple. It cannot cover every single point, but at least some of the articles can have enough coverage on how much it was influenced by previous productions and how much influence they have on the real world modeling, 3D modeling, and anime production of later creators. And sources are posted over and over again. And no, I keep saying the articles at their current state does not meet any of the guidelines and must be improved, and I am assuming good faith on people who are interested in them with the sources I have provided will do a good enough job. MythSearchertalk 02:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If any of that information appeared in the articles in question, I'm sure things would've gone a lot differently than they have so far. But until those statements, sourced and correctly applied, appear in the articles, then they stand to be deleted. Which articles specifically will benefit from those additions? Not trying to attack you, just wanting to know which we'll be deleting. Consequentially 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am constructing a list of what to do down there, I think if it is passed, we we have some sort of consensus dispite this trainwreck. However, I will use the word merge(and redirect) instead of delete. If they are redirected, it is highly likely that people that can find their information will not create a new page by copyvio from mahq or something like that. MythSearchertalk 03:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, having real world context is essential, but an article not having them maybe just needed to improve, especially sources indicate they can be. You can always assume bad faith, but the deletion guide suggested a merge for these kind of articles instead of a delete. I know 1.3 states WP:NOT as a may be needed for deletion, however, again, I must say that this is only a straw man's explanation on the WP:NOT policy. The WP:NOT#IINFO have nothing stating about these kind of articles and obviously a lot of list articles here falls into Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article This is why the nomiation is doomed to fail. It should not have started anyway. The nominator should just be bold and started merging them in the beginning(and no, a transwiki is just different from having a list on wiki unless we can redirect people to there without using an external link). Now it is listed, no one can do so because it is like blanking the pages. MythSearchertalk 01:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If no one can show real-world impact for the articles on an AfD, then that is an extremely clear indicator is has no real-world impact. He's not coining the term "never be improved", he's showing it through evidence - evidence being that no one has shown any importance of any of the articles whatsoever. The sources you have given are NOT proof of a real-world impact. I have already explained it, please read it. You're giving me clear proof IQ is not an indicator of common sense, comprehension or intelligence itself - and no, that is not a personal vendetta or attack. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, keep ignoring the sources, everything that indicate they have an impact is dedicted to Gundam and should not be used, should not be listed and should not carry any notability since they are against your argument. Face it, the series is made by Sunrise, the models are made by Bandai, which are two different companies, that is enough prove of every single model made is an impact on the real world. The magazines are published by different companies, the books are published by different companies, anime made by other companies with no relationship to Sunrise that may infringe copyright problems are also shown as a proof and your common sense is ignoring anything that is against your argument, you have shown clear prove of ignorancy and yet you try to use personal attacks, POV and bad faith just to try to hook to your own nomination without even trying to link all of these together. Like I have said, I am not against deleting most of the articles, I am only against deleting them all blindly. MythSearchertalk 06:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Ignoring this sources? I clearly explained why the sources do not give leniancy to separate articles. This is because the "model kits" for each robot are part of a SERIES of model kits - it's not just this one little robot, it's all of the robots - they're not uniquely important - that is why a keep vote is complete nonsense in reference to those sources. --TheEmulatorGuy 21:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AllBut condense the information... However, I think the whole premise of this motion is outrageous! Many of the points that the main person opposed to these articles (EmulatorGuy) has raised are vague, personal opinions which seem to have been raised on the basis of a personal vendetta. I like the way this material is called "useless" - useless to whom? It seems only to be useless to the people nominating the article and there are evidently plenty of people who find it quite useFUL. If we apply his model to the whole of Wikipedia: there will be no articles remaining for anyone to discuss or do anything with. It is obvious that many people want these articles to remain. This is supposed to be an open, public contributed resource of information, regardless of what spurious guidelines you care to spout out, (which seem more inane to me than most inclusions in these articles). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.18.135.215 (talk • contribs). — 195.18.135.215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Summary of votes[edit]

Yes, polling is evil, but this afd is getting to the point that we need to see how the issue is split.
deleted list to save space and confusion

Please do not misrepresent my vote. I am Keep. Also, the nominator does not count. You seem to have completely mixed up your "votes." — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a listing of "votes" from what I read:

Revised listing, italics indicate disputed votes, normal are those we both agree on:
Delete (15 to 18)

Keep (15 to 17)

In addition, a number of non-voters have expressed the opinion that this AfD is against Wikipedia policy. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I had some human error in my counting, but you made you biased your list in the opposite direction. Ben's redirect should be considered a delete (since you have to delete to redirect) and SidiLemine and Kerochan no Miko only said keep unless it was transwiki-ed. So that's at least 18 to 16 17. wtfunkymonkey's vote probably shouldn't be considered, as it's both a delete and keep statement, so I say the voting stands at 18 to 15 16, delete being the majority. --SeizureDog 01:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind everybody of an official wikipedia policy, WP:IAR. That is the foudnign of my argument, I feel like these articles at least have some value and should not be deleted, per WP:IAR. I think that IAR, is for situations like this, when somebody, so badly wants something deleted, that they try to cover all of there bases. I think that AFD's should be for the people participating to do the resaerch and make a decision, not attempt to innoculate the voters by squasing every keep argument! - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That all depends on what you think "improve" means. Because the encyclopedia is intended for normal people, not Gundam fans (no offense), the rule would not apply. Only a fan of the Gundam series would ever find that information helpful. Regardless, that policy itself seems to have problems. It seems to imply that I can upload an image that violates copyright laws just because it would make Wikipedia better. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (Stupid locked datebase lost my first post!)This is not something that everybody knows about. If it were an article on Food, it would be something most people know about. If I had a child or a good friend interested in this, I would come to Wikipedia to research, learn what I could. This is why I feel that WP:IAR applies here. IT is not something that is bad faith, like blatant uploading of copyright images, it is an area that most people dont know about and should get some coverage. In my opinion. (I dont even know what it is, I am not an advocate for whatever this is. but reading it, it seemed intersting enough to not be deleted. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's information on quaternary robots of an in-universe fictional Japanese-created television show. Now explain why it should have coverage? I could apply the same defense to my foot. In your own words: This is not something that everybody knows about. If I had a child or a good friend interested in this, I would come to Wikipedia to research, learn what I could. It is not something that is bad faith, like blatant uploading of copyright images, it is an area that most people dont know about and should get some coverage. In my opinion. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At least we agree! It is not a bad faith edit! I am all for that. The foot analogy was pretty good. If your foot had a fan club, and there was something unique about your foot. (perhaps you have 123 toes) or your toes look like a star wars character or something, I would probably support keeping the article. If there was a TV show about your foot, I would be all for it! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they are part of something popular does not mean they are notable themselves. An even more popular series like Star Wars doesn't have a page on every droid. They are listed here, and what's more ridiculous is THE LIST is being accused of non-notability. Really, if that article is deleted and these aren't, that's hypocrisy at its best. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody in this AfD has yet to prove that every single article linked to is non-notable or otherwise not worthy of a Wikipedia article. Until such proof is given, this entire AfD is meaningless: a blanket nomination is not an excuse to nominate articles for deletion without explaining why they should be deleted. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have stated the policies and their violations, and the only way for that to be proven is for you to actually look at the articles. I should mention that no one has given a reliable source, nor have they disproven the accusations for ANY of the articles. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sick of defending every argument here. It just isn't worth it, no one wants to accept it and keeps ignoring logic. From here on I'll just stop and let the nomination get a "no consensus", which was clearly going to happen from the start. It's beyond me why anyone thinks these articles are notable, have reliable sources etc. etc. etc. I shouldn't bother, regardless of any of my arguments, Wikipedia administrators will base it on amount of votes (like they always do) and not the integrity of votes. I give up, you can have your articles if the administrator says so. If the nomination results in delete, that's fine, but it's just not worth pointlessly arguing with ignorance. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is your problem, you are being ignorant with my comment.
What is missing here? A list of what articles that are going to be deleted on this page.
It is important to tag a AfD on every page you want to include, but it is also important to let people know what is going to be deleted on the nomination page.
Yes, linking to the template works, to a certain point. However, it is not effective enough, especially the title of this page is Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series.
Another note: You have totally twisted Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
per WP:NOT#OR,
  1. Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion.
    Yes, there are sources, I have cited them in this page, I know they need to be in those pages instead, but I really have no interest in defending Cosmic Era related stuff.
  2. Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day!
    No, those are not invented by writers of wiki. And in fact, there are magazines published in Japan as secondary sources reporting their exsistence. Your lack of knowledge on those is not a good excuse to ignore it is there.
  3. Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  4. Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  5. Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  6. News reports. Wikipedia should not offer firsthand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See Current Events for examples.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
    Then per WP:NOT#IINFO:
  7. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
    These pages are not FAQs.
  8. Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  9. Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  10. Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  11. Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  12. Textbooks and annotated texts. These belong on our sister project, Wikibooks.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  13. Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
    Like I have said above, some of the listed page for deletion actually impacted Other anime and manga by appearing in them, Some of these anime and manga are not produced by Bandai or Sunrise or any branch of them.
    Stop defining the policies to serve your own purposes, and cursing with ofending language like saying the Gundam wiki is an absolute cruft hellhole is not going to help either. MythSearchertalk 03:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: You make so many claims to sources, but where are they? :) --TheEmulatorGuy 03:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
機動戦士ガンダム MS大全集2006―MOBILE SUIT Illustrated 2006 published by Media Works, not Bandai, and thus it is a secondary source.
Primary source official guide book. Which is a inclusion of data file and mechanical files, I have mentioned as a source above, into one book. (I give no credits for the title of it since I am not a fan of Cosmic Era and hated it to be even called Gundam)
GUNDAM A (ガンダムエース) 2007年 01月号 and previous issues, published by 角川書店, not story based magazine.
Hobby JAPAN (ホビージャパン) and 電撃 HOBBY MAGAZINE (ホビーマガジン) model based magazines, not gundam specific but with a lot of information about what are the models used for in the plot. If you want to ask me for the issue date and number, I will tell you every single issue contains Gundam Models, I do not have time to go through each one to modify the articles about which issue they are from.
Newtype Magazine with more detailed articles about mechanical and character data that are not just plot summary.
More real world impact includes GUNDAM CG WORKS―MODELING TECHNIQUES FOR MOBILE SUIT, Magical Nurse Komugi series by Tatsunoko, not Sunrise, [35] series by Leaf, having a Freedom Gundam and Strike Gundam appearing in it. In the Game Super Robot Wars alpha 3, most of the Mecha piloted by main characters and rolled out as mass production units are present.
I am only listing these to support the exsistence of some articles, not all of them. I do know a lot of them do not deserve their own page. Like I've said, I would have follow the WP:FICT and delete/redirect most of the pages without going through this AfD process if I'd knew these pages exsisted. The chinese wiki entries like these are so much simplier, we just merge and redirect everything without even putting up something like this. If fans can find enough data in the list of mecha, they will not create new page for every single one of them. MythSearchertalk 06:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're misinterpreting the guts of WP:FICT. The fact that some of these things appeared in another anime about big robots does not mean that they significantly impacted said anime. These big robots haven't significantly affected anything. The television show, perhaps, has made a dent in the Great Big Timeline of Stuff, but I'm willing to bet, when it all comes down to the line, no one is going to say, "Thank God for the ZGMF-600 GuAIZ. Were it not for this twenty-meter-tall, eighty-ton mass of metals and guns, my life would be completely void of meaning." WP:FICT makes the argument for real-world reference and analysis because Wikipedia is not a Gundam fan site, and the sum cultural value of the Gundam series is not going to be that Pilot X stole it from Evil Nemesis Q, who was going to use it against Innocent Population T, but instead managed to defeat Otherworldly Monster N, and is the reason for the ring of space debris floating around Planet U. The fact that someone else has devoted time and webspace to listing these facts does not make them worthy of encyclopedic apotheosis. Consequentially 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While certainly nothing in this AfD (which hits a swathe of over 85 articles, which when the related AfD for the non-mecha vehicles of this same series is added, tops 100 articles all told) is of life-shaking importance, there are several articles in here which are at least as notable as, say, X-wing or USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D). Iceberg3k 21:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't read the X-Wing article until now. Having done so, I'd say it's pretty crappy, and a poor example of writing on a fictional topic. Only three or four of the paragraphs relate to real-world content, with the other 4/5 of the page devoted to Star Wars treknobabble. That article needs cleaned up, purged of irrelevant and trivial knowledge, and polished, but I digress. Since I'm not familiar with the intimate details of Gundam stuff, I'll trust you that some of the units mentioned are of value to the series. Could you give some examples of the ones you think should be kept, and provide a rationale for them? I don't mean that as a mean-spirited challenge: I'm not attacking you and demanding you come forth like some kind of deletionist McCarthy. Just help us sort the wheat from the chaff, so we can make something productive out of this. Consequentially 02:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already conceded that the "grunt" units should be compressed into summary articles by nationality (ZAFT/PLANT, Earth Alliance and Orb are the relevant nationalities). The "star" units - the Gundams (such as the GAT-X105 Strike Gundam and ZGMF-X09A Justice Gundam) - should absolutely be kept and revised to an out of universe perspective, as they're piloted by major characters, have a lot of screen time (for the five GAT-X series units from the first show, over 10 hours individual screen time each). Iceberg3k 03:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in complete agreement with you there, and I think that's an acceptable compromise between the two extremes being presented in this debate. As I know only vaguely of the Gundam world, I'm not in a position to make those changes, but since you seem to be on the ball there, I think it's a solution that you should pursue aggressively. Consequentially 04:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind everyone that AFD is not a vote, it's a debate please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. It doesn't matter how many people voted and what they voted for--it's the quality of the arguments that matter. May I also remind everyone that adding tally boxes to AFD is listed in the "what not to do section. --Kunzite 05:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While MAHQ copyvio issue are solid on several articles, several other aren't. Many article existed long before MAHQ upgrade their profile into Burke's type. These articles only borrow general info like spec, which state at MAHQ that it's free-use. Some articles was translated from Japaneese article. In short, if you made seperate nom on each article, the copyvio issue will be solid. But for all of them? Nah... L-Zwei 06:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, those spec fall into the category of factual data and thus any use of them will not hinder any copyright problems. It is just like listing out how many times a soccer player had scored in one particular season. MythSearchertalk 06:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot believe how uncivil the original nominator of this AfD has been on this page. He's also threatened that if this does not pass that he will be giving the "administrator a refresher on AfD". I'm shocked and appalled by his behavior and I certainly hope I'm not the only one. Kyaa the Catlord 11:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've never seen any Gundam, but I have a strong feeling that most, if not all, of these articles are about things that only appeared briefly in an episode or two. Any character/etc. that does not have at least ~30 minutes worth of focused airtime is too minor to have an article about. Can it be established that any of these weapons have had enough focus within the series that they need to be kept? It just gets worse outside of the nominated articles. I mean, Missile truck? Come on, it doesn't even have a name. --SeizureDog 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree that some of these articles deserve AfD-ing, but the majority of them do not. This was a bad nom period. If TheEmulatorGuy wants to have them deleted he should have done so on an individual basis. It is terribly unfair to judge the primary mech which are included in the template on the same level as your mentioned Missile truck. Kyaa the Catlord 11:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replay Those this format of nominating work for you? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Era vehicles Even grouping them together is a major hassle: doing them one by one would be even worse. Plus, I think it's best to keep them together and not scattered about. --SeizureDog 12:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Its better, but I wouldn't suggest making mass deletion noms out of principle. For example, the Skygrasper in this new Nom is one of the more featured air/spacecraft of the show and some of the main characters involved in the story fly them. A lot of those articles I agree should go, or at the very least be merged together. I wonder if there was originally a large article that was split.... Kyaa the Catlord 12:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to get people to review them seperately, but I think most of the keepers are just giving a blind support. I'm welling to accept some of the articles being important enough to stay, but people have to point out which they are.--SeizureDog 13:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that I've become aware that there is a wikiproject dedicated specifically to these articles, I'm more in favor of informing them of the problems and letting them fix them period. Kyaa the Catlord 13:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see in the series, its worst. The mass-production models appear in the series as paper boards and have probably less than 5 actions each. They fly out and get destroyed by the main characters without even having the need of dodging or aiming(aiming is done by an automatic fire control system, much less powerful than the F-22 onboard FCS). The same sequence keep on and on just to show how powerful the main characters are(failure attempt to most people with normal level of judgement, i.e. that are not blind). That is why I am really into merging those into one big list. As per WP:FICT. No voting is needed according the WP:FICT for minor characters to be merged into a list, if there isn't already a AfD tag on the page, I would have done so when I knew pages like this exsisted. I only followed a vandal's path of vandalism and figured these mecha have their own page and someone tagged AfD on it so that nothing can be done to blank them, yet. MythSearchertalk 14:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm in favor of merging for most of the "grunt" suits, may I suggest merging them by national affiliation? A general "Mecha of Gundam SEED" article that possesses large enough descriptions of each mobile suit to remain useful would actually be well beyond the size of this AfD discussion. Iceberg3k 17:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, one big list is too long, it should be shortened by nation or series(like the list of RGM-79 GM) if the list became too long. That is what we did on the Characters of Negima page. MythSearchertalk 17:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there are fancruff, and thus they should be improved, not blindly deleted. MythSearchertalk 14:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there ought to be a WikiPolicy to explicitly ban mass deletions, myself. Each article submitted for deletion deserves a complete, thorough and individual investigation, and mass deletions strike me more and more with each one as a deliberate abuse of the rules. If the deletionists think that's a pain in the ass, that's too damned bad, you can't just say something is useless and needs to be deleted just because you don't like it. A lot of mass AfDs are attempted, most of them fail. For very good reason.Iceberg3k 17:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep allthe article does hve element from mahq with there primission given on the site faq. there info may have been lifted from here. but if we remove this article hat's next are we removeing all cult scifi like doctor who or are we removing anything not north american i say wee keep it and let the fans fix it - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.124.3 (talk • contribs) — 128.118.124.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Also note that this is the second keep all registered by this IP.

The fans had a chance to fix it. They had a whole year in fact, but all of the articles are still highly confusing, in-universe, full of trivia, and have no sources. Nothing is going to change. --TheEmulatorGuy 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not for you to decide. WP:CE exists for a reason. Iceberg3k 20:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the birth of WP:CE, which followed many of the formats found in WP:DIGI. That project never really got off the ground, which is too bad. This AfD might be what is needed to start the project back up again in order to do this large scale cleanup. My point is, WP:CE.. really isn't a project right now. Currently, WP:CE does not exist for a reason, and isn't a functional WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 00:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Alliance

ZAFT

ORB Union/Clyne Faction/Terminal

Other

It's a rough outline of how each article should be merged, but at least it's a start regarding how to consolidate this mess of articles into a more streamlined construct. WP:CE just might find something to set its sights on after all this time.--Kira Matthews 03:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To all inclusionist (Keepers)[edit]

Anyone who actually wanted to keep the pages, at least show some motivation in using the above listed source(by me) in the articles (make a template, it would be much easier) to reduce the number of people coming here saying the articles should be deleted because they are unsourced. 機動戦士ガンダム MS大全集2006―MOBILE SUIT Illustrated 2006 and This is Our Gundam, Seed-Destiny version should serve as a secondary and primary source(respectively). I am no fan of the Cosmic Era, only someone who dwelt in the Gundam Community long enough that I know what sources contains information for them so I can win arguments against Cosmic Era fans without any sources backing them up and still try to say bad things about other series. I have no motivation in contributing in Cosmic Era series related pages unless they contain major error like fans saying there are Newtypes in Cosmic Era when I know no sources can back them up. Thus you guys have to do the job yourselves if you are to protect any page you like. I hate people who sit there and say that what services need to be provided but keep sitting there without any actual work. Be warned, if I ever got the motivation to go through those pages, I am going to be bold and redirect most of them to a list instead of adding sources to them. MythSearchertalk 18:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I've got some work to do. I'll attempt to correct some sources to be more accurate, dig through my pile of magazines and books as well ASAP.--216.186.174.146 00:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — 216.186.174.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Anime(GS, GSD, GS Stargazer) by Sunrise
  • Novel and Manga(GSA, GSAB, GSDA, GSAR, GSXA, GSDA) by Kadokawa
  • Manga(GS, GSD) by Kodansha
  • Anime(Gundam Evolve) by Bandai
  • Model by Bandai, note: GS and GSD series model kits are dedicated to the series itself and is not notable here, I only refer to the MG series kits and EX model series kits where Bandai made kits not only for Gundam but also Patlabor, Dunbine, L-Gaim, Ace Combat and Yukikaze.
  • Game(Alliance VS ZAFT, Alliance VS ZAFT II, Never-Ending Tomorrow) by Bandai
  • Game(SD Gundam G Generation series, Super Robot Wars series) by Banpresto
  • Anime(Magical Nurse Komugi) by Tatsunoko
  • Book(MS Encyclopedia 2003, 2006) by Media works
  • Book(GUNDAM CG WORKS―MODELING TECHNIQUES FOR MOBILE SUIT) by ビーエヌエヌ新社
Keeps:
CAT1-X1/3 Hyperion: GSXA Kadokawa, Evolve Bandai, Game Bandai, Model Bandai, Book Media works.
5 G(Strike, Duel, Aegis, Buster, Blitz): Anime Sunrise, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Manga Kondansha, Book Media works, Book ビーエヌエヌ新社.
ZGMF-X10A Freedom and ZGMF-X09A Justice: Anime Sunrise, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Manga Kondasha, Manga Kodogawa, Book Media works, Game Banpresto, Anime Tatsunoko
YMF-X000A Dreadnought: Anime Bandai, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Game Banpresto, Manga Kodogawa, Manga Kondasha, Book Media works.
Merges that should not be merged into the big list due to notability in the overall importantness of them in the series and some level of separatedness of them and other Generic Paper board targets:
TMF/A-802 BuCUE and TMF/A-803 LaGOWE, Merge these two, due to their design impacting the design of Gaia in GSD anime and also their oddness of the Gundam series of non-humanoid MS appearance: Anime Sunrise, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Manga Kondansha, Manga Kodokawa, Game Banpresto.
ZGMF-X19A Infinite Justice and ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom be merged to Justice and Freedom, they are not very notable other than being the mecha main protongists pilot, esp when they are just kinda like upgrades of those two: Anime Sunrise, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Manga Kondasha, Manga Kodogawa, Book Media works, Game Banpresto.
Astray Red, blue, gold frame, separated from main list due to all the manga story are based on the Astray series(and thus all of them carry the name Astray in them): Anime Bandai, manga Kodogawa, manga Kondasha, model Bandai, Game Banpresto.
Arguable items
The GS and GSD both have a team of three piloting three different Gundam units that the main protongist fight against, these units mainly appeared only in the series and games by Bandai, they are not even a main element in the plot(none of them stayed in the series for more than half of the series). They recieve a little more treatment by having models in the GS and GSD series but not much in the Bandai regular series like the MG models. (Almost all important ones have MG models). I do not view them as having any appearance in the model because it is only one of the GS and GSD series models which are named as dedicated to those two series. Even if they exsist outside the main lists, they should be merged to the three in the team instead of having their own page.
MythSearchertalk 14:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are also, IMO, four articles from GSD that should be kept: ZGMF-X56S Impulse, ZGMF-X42S Destiny, ZGMF-X666S Legend and ZAFT Armored Keeper of Unity (though this article namespace ought to be changed to "ZAKU (Gundam Seed)"). These ones are the main character suits from GSD that aren't sequel units to the ones in GS.
Iceberg3k 22:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I knida oppose keeping these, since they don't even have their own model kits out of the series(like MG and MIA). MythSearchertalk 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a good example to work from. Those articles are [mostly major] characters in World of Warcraft, not [mostly minor] weapons in Gundam. They're different situations. You haven't explained why these articles need individual consideration - it would help if you gave PROPER real-world impact (not obscure model kits) to ONE of the articles in order to separate them from others. As an administrator has commented at the start of the page, blanket nominations are not improper at all, unless you have GOOD reason - so far you've just stated your opinion with no reasoning. --TheEmulatorGuy 22:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Emulator, all you have done in this whole discussion is continued reassertion of your initial premise. It's already been firmly established that you believe there is no viable content to be had from these articles, which is debated by other posters (including posters who are not fans of the Gundam Seed universe), so further reiteration of this argument is pretty well pointless. If by this point, where viable post-AfD plans have been mentioned and posted, which satisfy the requirements of policy, you are still sticking to your original premise and demanding that the entire article complex be thrown away, in spite of all apparent evidence that contradicts your original argument (which was based on a pretty twisted interpretation of policy to begin with), you simply have nothing meaningful to contribute to this conversation from this point on (really, you have contributed nothing meaningful since the initial nomination). The consensus appears to be keep some, merge most, and that is probably what the discussion should be closed on. Iceberg3k 23:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? Ahahahaha, oh dear, ahahaha. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I linked to that debate was for the opening. I don't care what the subject of the AfD was, merely the following lines:

"The result was USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE. This isn't going anywhere, as far too many articles were bundled together into a single AFD.
If someone wants to open a much smaller (not more than four articles at a time, please) AFD on one or some of these articles so that the individual merits of specific articles can be discussed, feel free to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)"

It doesn't matter what the subject is, you've constructed an AfD that is fundamentally impossible to evaluate because it presently requires every editor read 84 articles in order to give a valid opinion. I'm not reading all those pages, you doubtless didn't read all those pages, there's no way we can expect the rest of the voters to read all those pages either. Because of this, any conclusion made as a result of this AfD will be invalid. --tjstrf talk 23:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, fine, have it your way. If you require 7 months to get rid of the articles (that's how long it's going to take) instead of 2 weeks just for "individual merit" reasons, that's fine, I give up. I've claimed to give up many times, but only because the constant ignorance infuriates me to keep coming back. I'll let you ignore the fact ANY separate article for a weapon in Gundam is against policy, because obviously we need fucking "individual merit". Before this bastard of a debate closes, just tell me one thing - A FUCKING VALID ARGUMENT TOWARDS THE POLICIES GUNDAM WEAPON ARTICLES VIOLATE. It hasn't happened yet, and I don't think it will. Congratulations, you've won. Who knows why you wanted to win. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I hate mass AfD noms, essentially. They generate these utterly massive deletion discussions that ALWAYS close no consensus, which means the nominator just wasted hours of numerous peoples's time. And if it takes 7 months for you to merge these pages, you must type really slowly. Also WP:CIV, swearing doesn't help anything. --tjstrf talk 07:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I could pick 84 Wikipedia articles at random, and some of them would be good-quality, while others would be tripe. I'll bet the situation's the same with these ones. The nest is well and truly stirred, now let's all take a deep breath, and find a place to discuss which articles are good and which ones need work. AfD is NOT the place for that discussion. I did quite like the citing of TRAINWRECK precedent, though. Made it worth the read. Quack 688 10:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply comment I guess it is because it happened that all the 84 randomly selected articles are not of good quality? lol I must admit the work going into these articles are towards a not very good direction. Most of them are just going for 1) plot summary of what happened to that unit(or the series of them) and 2) the settings spec of them. While little can be found on what they have impacted, even with the handful of sources I can just pull up that should be included into the articles long ago. (I have not read any of these articles before, even if I made like a little edit on them, it is most likely that I am tracing a vandal's path of vandalization and only revert those without actually looking at the articles.) Most of them could be improved, at least the lot of Seed mecha can be said to have impacted the Seed-Destiny mechas and have appearance in Super Robot wars. However, little was included in these, and I have no interest and time in improving these because I have an even longer list of Universal Century Mechas to work on, before some deletionist list the few hundred mechas AfD, I have to do what I can to either merge them or improve them to a point where it is good enough to meet any policy creep keeping criteria. MythSearchertalk 14:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact of requiring so much discussion is evidence that the subject is worthy of presentation in WP, There would not be so much heat over a truly non-notable group of characters.
And there is so much heat that an outsider must wonder whether ther is some subtext about this particular series. Anime AfDs come up frequently here, and do not get anywhere near this attention. Why this one? DGG 06:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not so. The only reason why this has generated so much heat is because of the sheer size - this would set a massive precedent if all of the articles were deleted. So all of the editors are jumping into this melee, inclusionists and deletionists alike, to put their two cents in. "Intense discussion =/= worth of inclusion." GNAA had to go through 18 nominations and dozens of talk page archives, but it was eventually deleted because it did not adhere to the standards of WP:V and WP:RS. Those two policeis overruled all discussion about the "notability" of the topic. Hbdragon88 06:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply In this case, the original poster should not have used the afd process in this manner. This is a clear case where these articles need work, in some cases they need to be tagged for cleanup, in others they need merging, in yet a few more they need to be deleted. This is a bad case in which to try a mass proposal. Kyaa the Catlord 07:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Kyaa. The only situation in which a mass nom will work is if you run two-three test case pages, then nom the rest and cite the previous debate. Also, the GNAA should never be cited as a precedent for anything, ever. --tjstrf talk 07:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've been aware that mass noms have not worked since watching Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles go down in flames. Hbdragon88
Not that the Warcraft AfD was the first attempt at such a thing, of course. It was just the most memorable one, what with AMiB's flair for drama and that trainwreck line. --tjstrf talk 08:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only way it would work is probably listing items out like in the other mass AfD for the CE vehicles. Never treat every article listed as generic, because they are not the same, especially to fans, they are never the same and thus treating them the same is only going to make things worst. I have learnt that lesson long ago. MythSearchertalk 09:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep, User:martin_00792 Important anime, I can argue that most of the articals could infact be CHARACTERS THAT INFLUANCE PLOT, and they are present in more that one medium.

Whee! Section Break![edit]

For the sake of all that is non-flamewar-causing, let us do some editing and merging before any new AfDs go out. This AfD is a train wreck because the initial poster was so goddamned determined to get the whole mass AfD deleted without any sort of compromise that he was willing to ignore policy to try to get it done (recall that he threatened to immediately re-nominate the whole thing if the result came up "no consensus" and to "teach the administrators a lesson" if the result came up "keep"); emotions need time to settle before further delete action should be taken, IMO. And I don't think ANYBODY will benefit from a precedent that shows that a huge group of articles can be summarily, collectively deleted by somebody with an obvious axe to grind. Iceberg3k 16:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Also, he didn't "threaten" to simply repost the AfD; he said that if it came up no-consensus for being overly broad he'd make individual delete nominations, which is exactly what should be done. BCoates 22:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out somebody's bad behavior isn't a "personal attack." Please learn the difference between criticism and fallacy of attack ad hominem. Bad faith has been demonstrated, I don't need to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. Iceberg3k 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent hours going through the debate and looking at the articles, I can only say that the nomination is correct in every respect. Delete Emeraude 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VERY STRONG KEEP As one has already stated, Gundam is a very notable anime. Besides, from what I've seen, those who want it deleted...you're not doing so well...only one article is gone...so, I think I've made my point. GrievousAlpha95 4:09 PM, December 4, 2006.

I say KEEP as all these mobile suits have a part in the sotry although some are lightly listed like the hyperion and why dont we seperate some on the same page (except for the Duel gunam with assault shroud our should that be split... anywho we need to keep this even STRIKE FREEDOM is listed for deleton i mean come on im using this page for specs on the gundams--Spartan117009 03:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Restate, reword suggestions, hoping for a consensus[edit]

More and more people pop in and say keep, I hate to say this, but if we can say we have the least consensus here, it is merge, not keep, most of the articles. If you only want spec data for something, go to [www.mahq.net MAHQ.net], or the trans wiki link posted somewhere in the middle of this trainwreck. Or if we merged the pages, the spec will still be there. Here is what I propose, and is probably closest to people who actively participated in this discussion want. (I do not count the people who just come out and drop down a sentence without actually wanting to contribute and wished a blind keep).

Keeps[edit]
Reasons - Influenced at least 2, if not 3 later design in the sequel of the series, the only Perfect grade model of the series, used as the front page of a 3D modeling teaching book about all Gundam, not Seed only. Said to be one of the more realistic military based design of the mechanical designer Kunio Okawara by Dengeki Hobby. Been a featured topic of a model convention in Japan by Hobby Japan.
Reasons for merge of others - they are of a subdivision of Strike, either mass-production or special unit. They have not recieve any special treatment from the company Bandai, and thus are generic enough to be merged, if not deleted.
Reasons - Influenced said merge mecha in the sequel, recieved treatment of having a Master Grade model of its own and the same series only have Strike Gundam having the same treatment. Featured in the Game Super Robot Wars along with a lot of well known mecha in Japan, and have a cameo appearance in the anime Nurse Witch Komugi, produced by Tatsunoko productions, which have no relationship with Bandai and is actually sort of a rivaling company.
Reasons for merge of others - Strike Freedom is more of an upgrade of Freedom, although it is going to have its own Master Grade model soon(December, 2006), more have to be shown in a keep since it does not influence anything, yet. I see no reason for keeping it for now, if it can recieve more attention by publishers and the company, it could be split back out at any time.
For Strike Freedom and Infinite Justice: Not quite usual upgrade. Not even a variant. That why we place F-15 and F-15E, F18 and F18E/F, separately. They are quite distinct, they have quite a story (Though original Freedom has more). Though they take much previous design, it is quite different, except some source say so. I never see any source which say they are upgrades. This may be only speculation, however, Freedom, Justice, Strike Freedom, Infinite Justice, receive different code (X10A,X9A,X20A,X19A respectively). I may agree if asked to merge Infinite Justice, but not the Strike Freedom based on notability. Draconins 12:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keeps[edit]
Reasons - First appeared in MSV, influenced the author of the manga to include them into the manga(which is not a retell of the anime), no out of the series model kits have been made for it, but it is featured in Gundam Evolve, a series not dedicated to Gundam Seed or related series, the only other appearance of a Seed series mecha is Strike. I would like to say merging them but having only 2 in a list without any relationship in the design plot is kinda wierd. Hoping for a better suggestion here.
Reasons - This one influenced the designer of the sequel Destiny to design ZGMF-X88S Gaia Gundam and another sequel Stargazer the TMF/A-802W2 Kerberos BuCUE Hound (which is, fortunately, already under this page) One of the rare non-humanoid Mobile Suit of the Gundam series. (Stated by Degeki Hobby and Hobby Japan magazine model reviews.)
Reasons for merge of others - A comander type of an exsisting mecha is not notable enough for a new article, please, by all means, merge them.
Any source that this mecha is only commander type and just mere upgrade? Draconins 12:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested Merges (special)[edit]
Reasons - They are pretty much the same thing, but the model recieved a bit more attention for the Gold frame is an event limited item in a Japanese model convention not dedicated to Gundam. Also for the new technology in modeling in hiding the cut between the useful pieces and the backbone of the injection moulding piece. It is not the first to have such treatment, but the second of the Bandai modeling series, after Hyakushiki. And since the other astray articles should tag along, I'd say merging them to a page for the Astray series is not a bad idea.
Other Merges[edit]

I would like to say the others should be deleted, but redirects to big lists would greatly reduce the chances of them being recreated by randomly dropped by fans. Since merging everything left into one page is definitely going to exceed 32kb, I propose 2 methods of merging:

  1. Merge by fictional nations
  1. Merge by series
Last notes[edit]

I will not work on the above articles until I have finished a major part of the Universal Century mechas having similar pages like this one. I have provide sources and what I have listed in this page should be enough to improve the articles I have listed as keeps to a point where they meet wiki's policies. If nothing has improved for some while (like more AfD pops up), I will not back up those pages any more. Because it is obvious enough that nobody cared to improve those pages. However, I see that there are people who seems to be willing to do so in the above discussion and I am assuming good faith on this. MythSearchertalk 07:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm fully supportive of these proposed merges and shuffling. Kyaa the Catlord 07:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support merge No. 2 for out-of-universe reasons.--SidiLemine 10:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are we having consesus?[edit]

So.... if we are having consensus which either keep or merge, let's propose ini the Wikipedia:WikiProject Gundam. Or may be still a deletionist to argue? Draconins 12:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stoneman3x[edit]

Delete, vanity page, nn San Saba 23:37, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MindTree[edit]

Tagged as repost but not actually a repost, a new article about the same firm. Looks like a great place to work, bit dies that make tem notable? Looks a bit spammy, too. Has been dleeted more tan once at various places but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MindTree and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MindTree Consulting seems to be the most relevant past AfD. No awards in the article back then. That's about all that's changed. Just zis Guy you know? 23:38, 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 speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted page, and as a non-notable group. Turnstep 03:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongview[edit]

Non notable. -- Szvest 23:55, 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 speedy keep as an incomplete nomination. This should have no bearing at all on future nominations. Turnstep 01:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Żydokomuna[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 speedy delete as patent nonsense. Turnstep 03:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lalaba[edit]

Nonsense. -- Szvest 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 06:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nfomedia[edit]

Totally non-notable and fails WP:WEB. Even if it did, this is nothing but marketing material.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coren (talk • contribs) .

(Sorry about that, nom was indeed by me) Coren 03:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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


More