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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Yurgens[edit]

Delete This is an NN Vice-President of an NN Russian employer-side labor union. Here's his bio [3], which indicates that he had been a minor government official in the trade ministries, and worked in quasi-gov't organizations. Apparently he's been interviewed by the BBC [4] and mentioned in Business Week [5] on Russian industry issues. While that's terrific, that doesn't make him notable. He was not the subject of the coverage, and he's not a significant player by any means in Russian industry. For those who can read Russian, here's the largely Russian, largely useless website of his employer [6], on which he is apparently not mentioned. My thanks to User:Monicasdude, who contested prod here, found some of these links, and who makes my Wikilife interesting. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Crz's perspicacious nom (which properly concludes that, though he is mentioned in the articles that Mdude nobly adduces toward notability, he is mentioned only tangentially and less-than-substantively). Concur also in his sentiment that Mdude surely makes Wikilife interesting, for which one is, on the whole, grateful. Joe 04:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL, yes, drafting this nom made me rather perspiracious, indeed. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Crz. Doesn't look all that notable, as the union he represents only has 1000 members who probably don't read this Wiki... if he is notable in Russia he needs an article in the Russian Wikipedia.--Tollwutig 14:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. One-sentence article and unlikely anything will be added. NN person anyway. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 14:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Since he's treated as notable/authoritative by news media like the BBC and Business Week, he's presumptively notable. Russian economic issues aren't exactly well-covered by web-based news media, but he turns up relatively regularly in articles that do appear [7]. Whether the BBC or other should treat him as notable is a different issue; once he's been treated as notable in major media, and mentioned with some frequency in news articles, whatever the sources, he's someone who a reader might quite reasonably want more information about, and therefore notable for Wikipedia purposes. If the article in inadequate, expand it. Monicasdude 17:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so you know, MD, I've been mentioned in a half-dozen newspaper articles as well. Tangentially, of course, like IY here. Interviewed even once. I am starting to think I might be presumptively notable. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's interesting. Do you actually have any real claim to notability? (other than being a crazy Russian of course, I presume this is hardly exclusive :) -- Heptor _talk 11:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, only presumptive notability per User:Monicasdude - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you in charge of some significant country-wide organization, or did you make research that was published in a serious publication more than a few times? I am quite serious, I have actually met editors here who have articles about themselves. -- Heptor _talk 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 17:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only thing the article mentions him is that he's a vice-president of a union, and even the union itself doesn't have an article. How is this encyclopedic? JIP | Talk 17:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if he's still being mentioned in the media. One of the very useful things I have found with Wiki is information of this type which wasn't available, or at least easily available, through other sources. I feel that it contributes to Wiki's comprehensiveness and gives it an edge over competitors. Tyrenius 18:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the organization is more notable but doesn't even have an article --Ajdz 23:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is an argument for starting an article on the organization, not for deleting what minimal information exists about it via the article under discussion. If the labor union article existed, then this one could be merged with it perhaps. Tyrenius 00:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable. What, it's not like we are running out of space here. -- Heptor _talk 23:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but in order for the reader to consider WP a creditble credible source of information, all our articles need to be about worthy subjects. Every time a reader encounters an unworthy inclusion, s/he will put less value on the properly included articles as well, and the perception will be that WP contains a buncha crap w/o quality control. Imagine yourself a judge who is doing research on a technical issue. Would you cite WP in your judicial opinion? I want to see WP reach that kind of quality. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not see how stating that "Igor Yurgens is vice-president of the Russian Union of Industrialists" (which totals the content of this article) can be understood as discrediting for Wikipedia. -- Heptor _talk 14:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This page is accessible to any member of the public and I think that a level of argument which describes the mention of an organisation's official as "a buncha crap" is far more likely to discredit it, as are spelling mistakes such as "creditble". I share the same goal of wanting to make Wikipedia respected. However, if we are to achieve this, then it is necessary to address the arguments, and my previous points have been ignored, not answered. Tyrenius 18:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok. For the record, I wasn't referring to IY as "a buncha crap", but to a theoretical unworthy article. Misspelling has been corrected. This is in the project namespace. It's ok to say "buncha crap" here. Doesn't discredit WP. And as for creating an article for the Union, upon further review, I could go for it. We can then extend a redirect from IY. Go ahead! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Following the suggestion there is now an article (stub) Russian Union of Industrialists which contains all the info from Igor Yurgens which can now be used as a redirect, if everyone is in agreement. The Union is more important than has been suggested, becauses the 1,000 members aren't individual employees: they are 1,000 businesses, factories etc. Tyrenius 20:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The sources provided imply that this fellow doesn't meet the professor test either, so I must concur with the Crazy Russian. Kuzaar 04:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 07:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CrazyRussian's well reasoned arguments _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Heptor. Zeq 12:09, 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. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rapidan Game[edit]

Non-notable; I can't find any reference on this game anywhere. J.reed 01:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete much as I love banana-collecting side-scrolling games - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ConDem^Talk 02:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Google search on the phrase "Rapidan Game" returns exactly one result... a Wikipedia page. A search for Rapidan and the phrase "Lightning Round" returns 5 results. Definitely fails WP:SOFTWARE. WP:NOT may also apply. Morgan Wick 03:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 03:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Aeon 06:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on the basis of not referenced, which is a requirement. Tyrenius 18:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick&Matt[edit]

Non-notable comic strip. prod and prod2 tags removed.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per s/his nom. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 03:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per his Mom. --Lockley 04:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  "his mom"? :) Kimchi.sg | talk 05:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you ment Nom Aeon 01:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delelte WP:Vanity WP:GOOG Test didn't show many returns Aeon 06:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom M1ss1ontomars2k4 14:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, obvious hoax

Slovandia and Quakertown (Slovandia)[edit]

joke article Doctor Whom 01:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Add this to nom for expediency sake: Quakertown (Slovandia) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Joke. Aside: having seen how well-developed the article is, I can see that maybe there ought to be a larger playground rather than just the one Sandbox.
• BJAODN 64.12.116.67 02:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not funny enough. Ripoff from San Seriffe. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bye bye! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:13, 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 keep all as per other recent deletion nominations related to this. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CAT1-X_Hyperion_Gundam_series and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GAT-X102_Duel_Gundam for detailed analysis of arguments. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TS-MA4F Exass, TS-MB1B Euclid, TSX-MA717/ZD Pergrande, YMAF-X6BD Zamza-Zah, YMAG-X7F Gells-Ghe[edit]

More Gundamcruft. Indiscriminate collection of information, unencyclopedic, appeals to a niche audience, original research. Please keep the personal comments out of this discussion. If you need to attack me, second-guess me or otherwise question my motives, leave a message on my talk page. Mangojuice's objection to small group nominations is noted, however, I don't see an alternative. Brian G. Crawford 01:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki Seriously, I haven't heard a reasonable argument to keep these articles on Wikipedia. They're on the Gundam Wiki. What's the point? Danny Lilithborne 01:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that logic, we don't need to have any Gundam content at all. Or Star Wars or Star Trek, for that matter, since they've got Wikis too. For that matter, nearly everything on Wikipedia can be found somewhere else on the Internet (though not necessarily on a Wiki). If information being available somewhere else is in and of itself a reason for deletion, then Wikipedia serves no purpose. Also, the fact that people went to the trouble of creating a Wiki solely to contain these articles certainly can't make them less notable. Redxiv 09:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete übercruft. Transwiki to what? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a Gundam wiki. And most of these articles are there already, but arguments for transfering the articles wholesale, history and all, have some validity IMO. Danny Lilithborne 01:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the countless other Gundam AfDs from today. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it would be nice to keep these articles. Adv193 03:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to wikia:c:Gundam. See other AFDs. Kotepho 03:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki --Yannick 04:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per others. --Arnzy (Talk) 04:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki Some interesting stuff here but doesn't belong here.--Cini 04:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep once again, a group nomination. I brought the alternative to the nominator's attention on his talk page: either make one big group nomination, or nominate individual articles. All this small group business does is fragment the debate. For those who don't know what I'm referring to, see the other three nominations of groups of Gundam robots, all currently active. Mangojuice 05:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. If anything, you're being too specific with your delete requests... By that logic, you'd have to delete every Gundam article on Wikipedia, along with most other Anime articles - in fact, there are several more obscure series that should have been targeted first. And I'm not in favor of that - I enjoy having the information on this and other series all available in one place. Furthermore, varying amounts of data on the subject (Gundam) are found on the Japanese, French, Spanish, Italian, and German Wikipedias shows, in my opinion, that at least the general subject deserves coverage here. (Posted in other pages too...) Golux Ex Machina 06:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't be that bad is we lost the Zamza-Zah with crushers extended, would it? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to wikia:c:Gundam. Aeon 06:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I see no reason for them to be deleted, they're not harming anything or against Wikipedia policies that I'm aware of. I really wish you would stop nominating this stuff, but that's obviously not going to happen. Calaschysm 06:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Calaschysm most here want to see it transwikied not deleted per say Aeon 06:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was responding to it being on "articles for deletion" though I guess that covers transwiki...ing as well. Calaschysm 07:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, as per my reasoning in the other Gundam AfDs. Redxiv 09:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep If these articles are deleted you would have to delete about every single anime character plus Star Wars and Star Trek articles. - Plau 10:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just because the subject of the article is fictional does not mean that article should be deleted. NoIdeaNick 12:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, as per my reasons in the other Gundam AfDs. L-Zwei 12:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Star Wars comparison is worthless, because Star Wars is well known, and this isn't. GWO
• Comment That's why sales of Gundam model kits have made billions and billions of dollars, right? Calaschysm 16:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki & merge per my comments on earlier AfD's... this should all be handles as one big AfD or each individually though... really this small group stuff is getting tedious.--Isotope23 17:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep As outlined already, I object to the creation of multiple AfDs for small groups of articles without outlining the criteria by which they are divided. It only serves to complicate the debating process and comes accross as obnoxiousness rather than a legitimate concearn regarding the articles in question. Argument about the subject matter should be postponed untill all these AfDs are concatinated approrpriately. --KefkaTheClown 18:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and Weak Merge to "List of Faction Gundams", unless it can be shown that the Gundam is a major player in the associated anime series. Then nominate all USS Enterprise articles for deletion per nomination. -- Saberwyn 21:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it these articles violate none of wikipedia's article rules, there is no reason why they should be deleted. Fact that someone can argue that Star Wars is different is completely selfish, you may not like the subject of the article, but that gives someone no right to delete it because of that fact. Star Wars and Star Treck should both be on the choping block to if these articles are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.210.148.160 (talk • contribs)
• Delete, nerdcruft. incog 02:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP as other users above have explained. Lone Jobber 06:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - for the reasons described above, as well as the fact that Wikipedia is a vertiable Hitchiker's Guide to Earth - 'Cruft' or no, Wikipedia is to inform. Just because it's not important to you does not automatically make it useless. For example, in the early Middle Ages, no one in Western Europe could read, save those outside monestaries... and even then, reading was still a rarity. Said monestaries were full of old parchments and books - some dating back to when Aristotle and Socrates were philosophising about reality. The church could easily have tossed it all out - because all they needed was the Bible, and the rest was basically 'cruft' to them. Yet they kept the knowledge, because they knew it'd be important to someone some day. What is being done here may just be with pop culture - but it is still information to be noted, logged and provided for everyone in this Hitchiker's Guide to Earth. Aside from all this, the only reason the Gundamwiki exists is to hold these articles that are being nominated for deletion (in such a way that abuses Wikipedia's regulations, might I add) in case they actually are deleted - not because someone made their own Wiki. (Posted in other topics)--NewtypeS3 10:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually, the church did have a reason to keep all the old stuff around: Classical education was important for the churchmen, who had to know the historical context of the scriptures they were reading, even if the historical context was seen in a light that glorified the Christian church above competing schools of thought. 'Bible only' is a relatively modern invention in the history of Christianity. Iceberg3k 12:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE there are related mass deletion requests in recent days 132.205.45.148 18:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT correct merge target is : Cosmic Era Mobile Units
• DELETE 132.205.45.148 18:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Fan yes, "cruft" no. all of the information in the articles is a compilation of information that can be found elsewhere. one thing that people have forgotten is that if these articles should be deleted, then all X-Men, Superman and the rest of the American comic book characted should also be deleted. to those that say that the Gundams/Mobile Suits that have been put up for deletion are not major people are basicaly saying that any articles about Klingons, Stromtroopers, and other such things should be deleted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.210.148.160 (talk • contribs)

STRONG KEEP MarineCorps 12:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Space Pirate Minagi 17:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep Most of the information is actually translated directly from various sources, including direct references in the show, books, magazines, and model boxes and instructions. However, there are too many sources to actually list. This entire thing seems rather random and pointless, really.--DNAlpha 17:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment none the less, it would be a good idea to find a source that verifies the technical statistics...--KefkaTheClown 01:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply MAHQ.com its all there

• Transwiki to the Gundam section of Wikia. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimina collection of information. Stifle (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP, and an abuse of the AfD policy from a person whose primary "contribution" to Wikipedia is to delete other people's contributions. Iceberg3k 21:48, 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 the current form and make a true redirect to Lord Voldemort. (There seems nothing to merge, as pointed out below). While the intention of spoiler prevention is a good one, this case really seems to be stretching things. It's quite common knowledge and hard to avoid at this point: anyone searching Google for Tom Riddle is going to see the WP article Lord Voldemort as the first hit. Search for Tom Marvolo Riddle and it is the second hit. This soft redirect seems like far too much trouble for the very unlikely case that someone comes across the term "Tom Marvolo Riddle", and decides to jump to that page on Wikipedia, without consulting any other sources, without searching Wikipedia, and without looking at any other Harry Potter pages on Wikipedia. Once they do hit this page, all they find out is that Tom Riddle is a character in the book, one short sentence of content about him, and that he is important enough to warrant some sort of spoiler (which is a type of spoiler itself). If they follow the spoiler link, then the soft redirect was not needed. If they don't follow the link, it begs the question as to what they were hoping to find, if not information about the character that they might not know yet. Finally, arguments for a soft redirect might have more weight for a more recent spoiler, but the book revealing the connection was released in 1998. - Turnstep 17:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Marvolo Riddle[edit]

Orginal merged into Lord Voldemort, This article provides little in the way of information (To put it mildly) and the series has been around for some time (in both book and Movie form) that a stub of Tom Riddle with a redirect is not needed has this plot detail is not much of a secret - Delete Aeon 02:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm not sure... having this soft redirect sure looks silly, but I can imagine someone, in the middle of reading Chamber of Secrets, looking up Tom Riddle on Wikipedia without expecting to have such a major plot point spoiled for them. Is there a precedent for anti-spoiler redirects like this? --Allen 02:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is the first one I've seen and I agree it is pretty silly. Aeon 02:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only other example I can think of is Scabbers (talk page) and Peter Pettigrew (talk page): more from Harry Potter universe. The PP page was originally created to contain spoiler information, but the information was rapidly returned to the Scabbers article as well. Subsequently I merged them. Telsa (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Kids love this Harry Potter stuff, but I don't see the need for all this fandom in an encyclopedia. Brian G. Crawford 02:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is part of the second book, many many later plot details are revealed in the main article. This is really ridiculous. Grandmasterka 02:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Lord Voldemort & delete Bridesmill 02:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want us to delete Bridesmill? He's a perfectly good user :) --Lambiam^Talk 09:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i shall nominate him for deletion. ;) --M1ss1ontomars2k4 14:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can AfD users?--Tollwutig 14:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case this was a serious question, no, you cannot. Turnstep 17:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Brian G. Crawford. DarthVader 03:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Act per any prior precedent per Amcbride. If there isn't one, keep. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 04:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I'm generally more of a deletionist, or at least a mergist, but my abhorrence toward undesired spoilers trumps those right now. It's an odd little article, but it has some value. I'm going to make this a weak keep, however, as I remember the dispute over whether or not certain characters should have a heading titled "Death" in their articles, lest the article's very table of contents contain a spoiler. I agreed in those cases that after a reasonable amount of time, certain information changes from "spoiler" into "common knowledge". In those cases a quirky soft redirect like this wouldn't be possible, so it's not a perfect comparison. So in consideration of these factors, I'm making this a weak keep vote. --Icarus 05:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Huh? What does that have to do with this? I still just don't see why a piece of the plot of a series should be arbitrarily taken out and put in a separate article like this. It would make for an impassible encyclopedia if we chopped up a plot into ten different articles to avoid spoilers, and this is clearly not the precedent... This makes no sense to me. Grandmasterka 05:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, This IS an encyclopedia. Small little and very useless redirects like this should be deleted. Aeon 06:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your question. What that has to do with this is that this article exists primarily as a way of avoiding the inherent spoiler that would come from redirecting it to Lord Voldemort. That's why I was talking about spoilers. --Icarus 07:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Lord Voldemort & delete. I would expect this sort of thing on a Harry Potter reference site but on Wikipedia as an abuse of redirects. WP does just exist to pander to those Harry Potter fans who don't know about these plot developments. This would set a ridiculous precendent if novels and television series were to have their story arcs explained in separate articles.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As this is a perfectly valid name for a major character, I think that even if the consensus is that this article has no place here, it should be turned into a redirect (or deleted and recreated as a redirect, if there's any reason do to so) to the main Lord Voldemort article rather than being totally deleted. If nothing else, this might serve to protect against re-creation by someone who discovered that there was no article of this name, but who did not know that there had once been. --Icarus 07:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as per aeropagitica. Seriously, nobody would ever bother to learn about Lord Voldemort on Wikipedia first before reading the books, and to purport otherwise is dumb. Common Wikipedia practice should not be subverted at the whims of Harry Potter fandom. Proto||type 09:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - this should just be a straightforward (ie, not soft) redirect. This was tried with Anakin Skywalker being a soft redirect to Darth Vader, but was eventually overturned and the Anakin Skywalker just states what happens (following a spoiler warning). This is different, though, as this article is two lines, not a lengthy article, and it may as well just be a redirect. Proto||type 09:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I considered this very example when deciding how to vote, but decided that it's different because the Star Wars spoiler is over 20 years old at this point. I don't know where I'd draw the line, and made my vote weak because a case could be made for this spoiler being too old to be a real spoiler too, but for what it's worth, I thought I'd just mention the huge difference between a 20+ year old spoiler for a trilogy that was finished 20 years ago and a more recent spoiler for a series that isn't done yet. (Hm, maybe that's where I'd draw the line... Except for serieses that have no set ending point, of course.) --Icarus 19:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Unlike Grandmasterka, I don't think this is a "plot detail". If you read Lord Voldemort front to end you expect to encounter possible plot spoilers, but if you innocently just look for "Tom Riddle", it is potentially a major spoiler to be redirected to You-Know-Who. The article should be rewritten a bit, making it more like a typical article, and I think it is safe enough after a plot spoiler warning to say something like: "More about his identity is revealed in the article on Lord Voldemort." --Lambiam^Talk 09:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I really don't understand some of the recommendations. "Merge"? There is nothing to be merged. Have those recommending this even looked at the situation? "Delete"? So do these users propose that the next user looking for "Tom Riddle" gets to stare at a page stating: "Wikipedia does not have a page with this exact name. *Start the Tom Riddle page or add a request for it."? I can assure you that such a page would be started in essentially zero time. Lambiam^Talk 09:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've never seen a "soft redirect" before, and it's a little fishy, but for someone as culturally big as Lord Voldemort I think this is a reasonable use. This should not be construed as an invitation to create soft redirects for every minor character in every fantasy series; I would reserve this sort of thing for only the biggest exceptions. bikeable (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't see why having this soft redirect hurts anything. Certainly don't delete, we need it as a hard redirect if nothing else. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 15:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Lord Voldemort. It says in the Wikipedia FAQs that Wikipedia contains spoilers, so there's no point in keeping this as a separate article just to avoid spoiling the second book. Anyway, most Harry Potter fanatics have already read it almost immediately after it came out, and most Harry Potter non-fanatics won't care anyway. JIP | Talk 17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think it hurts to have this redirect, given that we do acknowledge spoilers by having spoiler warnings. Vashti 18:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's currently not a redirect, it's a separate article whose only reason for existence as a separate article is to avoid spoiling a plot point. If it were to be changed to a real redirect then that would be fine by me. JIP | Talk 19:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a "soft" redirect with a little additional commentary. I just checked that guideline page, and it actually does explicitly state that it can be used in cases where a spoiler would be inherent, such as when a character has an alter ego. --Icarus 19:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Woot. In that case, I'd say that for something as big as Harry Potter, which new people are discovering all the time, the soft redirect can be justified. Vashti 22:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. This is silly. We are an encyclopedia, which is supposed to contain information, not pander to people who whine about spoilers. I you don't wish for spoilers, then have the common sense not to go to Wikipedia. Simple as that. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 21:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Having a soft redirect with so little information is pointless, and it in a way gives away the alter ego of Riddle....why even bother. Aeon 22:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Icarus and Wikipedia:Soft_redirect. --Allen 22:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and Speedy Keep per this being a perfect example of Soft redirects for spoilers. Shadowoftime 02:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment If having extra information on Tom Riddle is the reason that people think this article is somehow hurting Wikipedia, the info can always be deleted as long as the spoiler and soft redirect stay. A soft direct is better in this instance because it doesn't spoil an important part of the story while there is no reason for a hard redirect over a soft one here. Shadowoftime 02:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I created this soft redirect. The fact is to simply redirect Tom Riddle to Voldemort would reveal a spoiler to someone who is simply asking for information on Tom Riddle. Suppose someone hears the name from a friend or is in the middle of reading the Chamber of Secrets. They could possibly believe that Tom Riddle is a minor character and is not any more complicated then what they were reading at the time. It is simply safer to include the soft redirect, then not too. The Filmaker 16:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This AfD is about the article Tom Marvolo Riddle, specifically. I don't have the book in front of me, but I seem to recall that "Marvolo" is introduced as his middle name, like, three sentences before he's revealed to be Lord Voldemort, so the chances that anyone who knows enough to search for all three names wouldn't already know his true identity is extremely small. It might be more justifiable to move this soft redirect to Tom Riddle, and have Tom Marvolo Riddle go ahead and redirect to Lord Voldemort (although personally I think that anyone who uses Wikipedia to look up stuff about an eight-year-old book while reading it deserves what they get). --phh (^t/_c) 22:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tom Riddle redirects to this page, though. Vashti 22:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Lord Voldemort. Stifle (talk) 01:51, 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 all articles. Mailer Diablo 05:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sector 1 (CityRail)[edit]

I am also nominating the following related articles for deletion

• Sector 2 (CityRail)
• Sector 3 (CityRail)
• Sector 4 (CityRail)
• Sector 5 (CityRail)

The notable information from the above nominated pages are in the CityRail article, thus all pages are redundant. So Delete All --Arnzy (Talk) 02:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. redundant duplication.Bridesmill 02:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: From what I can tell from the CityRail website, 'sectors' are not used in any published materials, and, I'm guessing, refer to some internal technical division of the rolling stock and track. Non-notable. Peter Grey 04:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ALL Per Nom Aeon 06:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If anyone was looking for information on this, they'd try Eastern Suburbs railway line, Sydney or Illawarra Line. Capitalistroadster 09:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 09:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as above. --Roisterer 12:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - With great respect to everyone, I wish Americans and Canadians would keep out of debates like this. I don't think you guys know much about CityRail (if you do I am very sorry), but I wouldn't just jump on US and Canadian votes and randomly vote for their deletion for reasons that I may not know anything about. Anyway, the train types which the Sectors determine are listed on CityRail's webpage and the sectors are not obscure as people have suggested. However, I will agree that the five articles don't warrant their own page each - one page will suffice when the CityRail article is improved and that information doesn't need to be on the front page. I have merged all the information in the articles onto the front page so you are now welcome to delete them.

That's a Delete all from me. (JROBBO 13:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I spent almost an hour trying to find out what this topic was about, and came to the conclusion that if CityRail didn't think it was that important, Wikipedia probably didn't need it. Peter Grey 18:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies then - I did note that you at least gave reasons for the deletion - so thank you. Some people on WP don't give any and if they don't know anything about the subject and can't give a good reason from their own research, they shouldn't be voting. You have made a good effort, so thanks - I appreciate it. (JROBBO 07:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment Not a vote, but the info in these is very redundant. Adding more would be a good idea. M1ss1ontomars2k4 14:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on the basis that the arguments put forward are persuasive and no one has put any counter points. Tyrenius 18:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this not-particularly-useful soft redirect. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, utterly useless page. -- Heptor _talk 23:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and JROBBO. JPD (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm all for railcruft, but this is too much. Ambi 01:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete un-necessary stubs.--cj | talk 06:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with question Information exists in cityrail as per nom. (Is this a merge and delete? Would that be GFDL compatible?) Andjam 07:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable bio. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joel_H_Parkins[edit]

Not a prominent person, has been vandalizing the St. Thomas, Ontario page. StumpyRaccoon 02:11, 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, no need to disrupt things to make a WP:POINT. There's no way this is getting deleted, so we may as well end the discussion. Proto||type 09:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forest moon of Endor[edit]

Fancruft, original research, speculation on a supposed Ewok holocaust, niche interest. From what I've heard, there are already two Star Wars wikis, so Wikipedia isn't the place for this. I'll apologize in advance to all the teenage boys, video store employees, and comic book collectors that this nomination offends and insist that this isn't anything personal. I don't expect this to get deleted, but it would be such a happy, joyous day if it did. Direct personal comments to my talk page, please. Brian G. Crawford 02:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Question. About the Endor Holocaust stuff, that originally had its own page, but I nominated it for AfD, and it got deleted. Since it was deleted, the stub on the Endor Holocaust in the Endor page has grown from people merging stuff from deleted page back in. Your reason for deletion seems to stem entirely from that section though, so instead of deleting the entire Endor page, why not just delete that section? The topic of the Endor Holocaust has already been deemed unworthy of being included in wikipedia, so the Endor page could be fixed quickly and easily by removing the offending info. I do believe that the Endor page deserves to be Kept though Geedubber 03:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. The moon is one of the central locations of Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. It's clearly significant and notable within the Star Wars universe. The wiki is not paper, so we can cover areas traditional encyclopedias do not. Probably could use some more sources, but so could half the articles on Wikipedia. Certainly some Star Wars-related stuff is too obscure for Wikipedia, but this isn't one of them. BryanG 02:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep you seem to be confused. Endor is a moon not a planer. The Endor seen in Episode VI is the Forest moon of Endor which orbits Endor. The Planet of Endor itself is not seen in Star Wars Episode VI. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable enough to be here even if it also exists on another Wiki; hopefully we are building a holistic encyclopaedia. Certainly rm guff re Ewok holocaust unless it can be verified. Why would it be a joyous day to see this deleted? Articles like this are an important part of Wikipedia's distinctiveness. I think BGC may be on something of a crusade. Sadly my days of being a teenage boy and collecting comic books are long behind me, although I'm still interested in the video store job if the hours are good. Badgerpatrol 02:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This 25 year old guy who doesn't read comic books or work in a video store says keep. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this seems notable enough if we're keeping any Star Wars stuff. That being said, the section on the "holocaust" needs to go. That's OR, and it's OR about stuff that ain't even true, which strikes me as the worst kind of OR. --Deville (Talk) 03:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very important Star Wars location. Carioca 03:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup per nom. Morgan Wick 03:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Crazy rabid Ewok keep. --maru (talk) contribs 03:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup Endor is a very notable location in the Return of the Jedi and passes WP:FICT, "Endor Holocaust" is fanon and does not belong. Dspserpico 03:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable Star Wars location. Might need a cleanup. DarthVader 03:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep setting of three different things? Kotepho 04:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Wookiee Ewok Keep per the Darth Vader. Rise. _-M ^o P-_ 04:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Relevant to the series, plenty of sources for constructive article and notable. Plenty enough reasons for its own article.--Cini 04:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Star Wars has a very strong cultural presence, and the forest moon of Endor (even if many people think it's the planet Endor itself) is one of the three planets (or moon, in this case) that are unquestionably integral and well-known (the other two being Tatooine and Hoth). This isn't a little-known location like, say, Blenjeel, which rightfully has only a tiny entry in a list of minor planets. --Icarus 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Notable enough since we do have Star wars related stuff Aeon 06:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, this is not Starwarscruft as this is a notable place in the Star Wars galaxy. --Terence Ong 06:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, reasonably well-sourced, informative, notable, highly important to popular culture. There may be some Star Wars wikis, but that does not mean that this is not part of "the sum of human knowledge." Nominations like this are why it's vital that people participate in AfD- deletionists seem to abound.Captainktainer 09:17, 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 Move to Wikipedia namespace, delete main namespace redirect I'll refactor internal links to this page as external links (this will ensure that they will work on mirrors only contain the main namespace). --19:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

List of largest wikis[edit]

The meat of the article seems to have moved to Metawiki a while back; what's left seems rather useless. Hirudo 02:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Wikipedia namespace and soft redirect as partial self-reference. We don't hard-redirect users to meta. Morgan Wick 03:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We can't, in fact; it's not implemented in mediawiki. Stifle (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and redirect per Morgan Wick. Kimchi.sg | talk 17:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unuseful soft redirect. Stifle (talk) 01:50, 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 speedy keep, no need to disrupt things to make a WP:POINT. There's no way this is getting deleted, so we may as well end the discussion. Proto||type 09:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curzon Dax[edit]

Fancruft, i.e., ridiculously specific information on a fictional world, of interest to a very narrow audience. Memory Alpha already has an article. Sorry, Trekkies, it's nothing personal, I just don't think this is useful to anyone but hardcore Trek fans. Brian G. Crawford 02:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Colour me confused, but I see no reason why this entry ought to be deleted. It's no worse (or better) than any entry on any other Star Trek character. Fluit 02:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'd rate Curzon Dax at about the same level as importance in ST as Noonien Soong and considerably more than Hugh (Star Trek). If you want to go on a crusade to nominate all the minor Star Trek character articles, be my guest, but you're probably not going to accomplish much. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. Badgerpatrol 02:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the precedent on these characters was set long ago - if this goes, dozens of others would have to as well.Bridesmill 02:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per precedent. Obviously notable and well-known Star Trek character. Carioca 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Curzon is referneced in numerous episode of DS9. Would be interesting to anyone who even casually watched the show Geedubber 03:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. BryanG 03:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I'm starting to suspect a WP:POINT at work, but I will continue to try to assume good faith for now. Not every article on every fictional character is cruft. Morgan Wick 03:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters, Curzon Dax is a minor character and needs to be placed in a list per WP:FICT. Dspserpico 03:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to merge, might I suggest Dax (Star Trek) instead? Just drop it into the Curzon Dax section that lists Curzon Dax as the "main article" right now. BryanG 03:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good, Dax (Star Trek) it is. Dspserpico 04:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable. DarthVader 03:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Dax (Star Trek) and redirect. Relatively small amount of content, no reason for a spin-off. --Ajdz 04:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable. Any discussion of merge can take place on the relevant talk page. --Rob 04:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment merging is a valid vote per WP:AFD. Dspserpico 04:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it is a valid vote. At the same time, a vote of keep doesn't preclude a merge, if there's future agreement for a merge. I just personally find it more productive if the actual editors working on the articles discuss it. I see AFDs being for the purpose of deciding whether a topic belongs in the encyclopedia at all, not for details of placement/presentation. A reason for me making my comment, is sometimes, some peope cite the AFD "keep" result, as a way of preculding any merge. I just wanted to be clear my keep vote isn't expressing an opinion, one way or the other, on the matter of amerge. --Rob 06:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I would agree the Curzon Dax character isn't sufficiently notable by itself to merit an independent article, but this is simply an extension of Dax (Star Trek). (The articles are deliberately organized to avoid duplication.) Peter Grey 05:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Been Mentioned several times on DS9 however the a merge might work Aeon 06:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. --Terence Ong 08:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, highly notable by WP:FICT. Curzon Dax is mentioned in almost every single episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, to the point that he rivals the principals in importance. The number of topics related to Curzon Dax that matter in relation to that Star Trek series and other topics are enough to warrant a separate article.Captainktainer 09:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Turnstep 14:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Esposito[edit]

I brought this to AfD for deletion because the guy lives in my neighborhood, and I've waved at him a few times, so I guess this could be considered a controversial deletion. I don't know him personally, but I do know what he got his press coverage for. In short, he was mayor of Logan, West Virginia (appox. pop. 3000) for sixteen years and was used by the FBI to ferret out political corruption in that town during his run for the W.Va. House of Delegates. I don't think he's of any national importance, and I'm pretty sure he's not going to do anything more to achieve notoriety, since he's now a convicted felon and can't run for office again. Brian G. Crawford 02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable attempt to diss a non-notable figure.Bridesmill 02:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like quite an interesting article to me, and revealing of what goes on "behind the scenes". Tyrenius 02:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, appears to meet WP:BIO anyway. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not an attack to call him a criminal since pleaded guilty. Fails WP:BIO for sure. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Change vote per Cheapestcostavoider. Neutral. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you claim he fails to meet WP:BIO. He's a major local political figure who recieved significant press coverage (second line item), and he recieved notoriety for his newsworthy actions (final line item). --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mayor of a town of 1600, convicted of something. Lotsa murderers get newspaper coverage. 2% of them are notable for WP purposes. Same idea. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Thomas Esposito is an American criminal" is still a POV way to begin an article. However, I'm neutral pending cleanup. Morgan Wick 03:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:BIO and below. Morgan Wick 03:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CrazyRussian. DarthVader 03:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But his rationale is incorrect... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup Thomas Esposito is a "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage" meets WP:BIO. Dspserpico 03:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor. Very minor. To the nominator: after this gets closed for no-consensus, do renominate it, this time addressing directly the WP:BIO concerns and the scope of the press coverage right off the bat. Tends to produce cleaner voting. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm thinking that he's minor (very minor) at a national scale but major on a local scale. It would be a big sotry on any locality if a state legislature candidate helped the FBI expose corruption scandal that involved the local sherriff and police chief. So in the end Esposito is a local politician who gets major press and fulfills WP:BIO. Dspserpico 04:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep newsworthy, but not really national Kotepho 04:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 04:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:BIO appears to be within "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage" and in the apparent absence of an article on the sting itself which received national news coverage --Ajdz 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BIO --Rob 04:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. It's a badly written article but an interesting story and I think he meets WP:BIO. --kingboyk 06:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BIO as stated above. Really, what is the argument against inclusion? This undeniably received significant national news coverage and was a noteworthy event. --Cheapestcostavoider 06:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BIO Aeon 06:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Articles about such minor figures lower the quality of Wikipedia. Bhoeble 09:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cheapestcostavoider. NoIdeaNick 12:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:BIO, seems interesting, even. Mangojuice 14:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've heard of him. I also live 3600 miles away from Logan. This implies that he is notable, does it not? — Haeleth Talk 21:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He's notable. Redxiv 22:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable enough, and verifiable. -- Heptor _talk 23:48, 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, no need to disrupt things to make a WP:POINT. There's no way this is getting deleted, so we may as well end the discussion. Proto||type 09:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noonien Soong[edit]

Another minor Star Trek character like Curzon Dax above. Brian G. Crawford 02:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Good info -Nv8200p talk 02:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the precedent on these characters was set long ago - if this goes, dozens of others would have to as well.Bridesmill 02:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, owrthwhile article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per precedent. Obviously notable and very important Star Trek character. Carioca 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per the above. Badgerpatrol 03:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per the above. Very notable. Dude, he created Data.Geedubber 03:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not cruft, should be merged into a yet to be created list of minor TNG characters. Dspserpico 03:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. DarthVader 03:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bridesmill and Geedubber. BryanG 04:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm no huge fan of Star Trek, but as non-mains go, he's a pretty important character. Danny Lilithborne 04:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. SorryGuy 04:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable character. More then enough content to keep a stand-alone article. --Rob 04:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless there is an appropriate article to merge into. --Ajdz 04:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very notable, plenty of sources to verify, and plenty of content for own article.--Cini 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment although Soong is an important part of several TNG storylines he's still a minor character, like Grand Nagus Zek in DS9. Dspserpico 04:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, if there's sufficient content for an article, why merge? List_of_Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine_characters is an example of what's wrong with such "List of character" articles. It places unrelated characters next to each other, for alphabetical reasons. Merging is appropriate when there's not enough content to sustain an article, or when everything said about one character applies to another character, or applies to a single episode, where its better located. In this case, I can't see what utility is served by a List of Star Trek: The Next Generation characters. --Rob 05:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OMG that list is messed up. So many of those character deserve their own page. Geedubber 05:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment "sufficient material" is not the barometer of whether or not a fictional character (or anything else) deserves a stand-alone article on Wikipedia, notability is. Minor characters should be places on a list per WP:FICT. Dspserpico 05:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, do you think it's ok to take multiple full-length articles and make super-long composite articles? That seems to be a downright lousy system of presenting information. WP:FICT is an out-of-the-way guideline, that reflects the "consensus" of a limited number, and doesn't reflect long standing consensus expressed on AFD results, for a long time. --Rob 05:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment you may be right on Soong, I was staring at the article seeing if there was any good way to pare down the article, there really isn't. Perhaps there's a better way to fit WP:FICT into this, espeically when dealing with a long running TV series. But there is still plenty of stubs of truly minor characters that need to be merged into a TNG list. I guess I just found myself a project. Dspserpico 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I tried starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction). I'm not anti-merge per se. But, we need to think up some better criteria for them. I do agree with you, that there probably are some other TNG stubs that need merging. But, the question to ask, is where to merge them to. I'm not sure another "List of loosely related characters" is the way to go. --Rob 06:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What is with the sudden cause to delete Fictional stuff? Aeon 06:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Soong is vital to a complete understanding of Star Trek, which has so much of a presence in popular culture that it deserves integration of principals such as this character.Captainktainer 09:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Den[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 02:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom, and possibly WP:VANITY Morgan Wick 03:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Morgan Wick. DarthVader 04:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete despite Jason moving from living with his father to living with his mother. LOL. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 10:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete db-band M1ss1ontomars2k4 14:16, 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 delete. Kimchi.sg | talk 04:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Akbar Moradi[edit]

Contested speedy, was originally for a7 (nn bio) Tawker 03:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Tanbur?. J.reed 03:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems like a copyvio (linked source) and should be deleted for that reason, but is probably notable in his genre and this is very clearly not an nn-bio case, as the article contains assertions of notability: "He has won many awards including two honorary diplomas at major music festivals in Iran. Moradi has performed as a soloist and with ensembles in festivals throughout the world." u p p l a n d 04:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, CSD A8 copyvio under 48 hours from Kurdistan encyclopedia [8], no note of fair use and under 48 hours. Tagged as such -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pbnation[edit]

Advert for non-notable business jmd 03:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. J.reed 03:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree its an ad Moriori 04:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CORP. SorryGuy 04:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete peanutbutternation? I mean, violates WP:CORP. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ad, nn company. --Terence Ong 10:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advertising. JIP | Talk 17:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations 2001 Volunteer Service Medal[edit]

The latest edit describes this as a hoax Yannick 03:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete except if shown not to be a hoax. Looks like a hoax, but if someone can provide a source that shows this medal to be true, I will change my vote. DarthVader 04:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete except if shown not to be a hoax as above - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment here is a page that describes HRH Prince Michael of Albany as receiving the award (scroll down to "Saturday August 24th, 2002"). There is also a photo that matches the description that was given on an earlier version of this page. The problem is that the site itself looks an awful lot like a hoax. Google makes HRH Prince Michael of Albany look like a real person, though. Also, this is the only reference to the award that I could find, excluding Wikipedia mirrors. Maybe it was a one-shot deal? ergot 18:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain I'm changing my vote pending more information. That picture of Prince Michael's medal is intrigueing. It does bear the logo of the United Nations 2001 International Year of Volunteers, (and I think that's what it says around the edge,) but the ribbon does not have the correct shade of UN blue. I found a page that says that independent parties have borrowed the IYV logo for medals. Maybe this is one such medal - not quite a hoax, but not a UN decoration either.--Yannick 04:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax, unless verified. Stifle (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Richardcavell 04:53, 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 06:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEZZO[edit]

Appears to be either a hoax or a non-notable website. Google search [9] seems to only bring up other uses of the word/term. No link to site in current version. A link in a previous revision of the article [10] links to a site on freewebs - doubtful this small handled 15,000,000 visitors! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if that's not enough, it was previously prodded [11] --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn website. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete; apparent hoax, cannot find domain name, no Google hits, no Alexa rating... MCB 07:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Digital Liquidity[edit]

WP:NEO Neologism WP:NOR Original research. John Nagle 04:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copied from a blog article at [12]. --John Nagle 04:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rishodi 06:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Dunstan 13:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DO NOT DELETE!The Entry is not a position, yet defined as an ability, and it was not copied, but rewritten and then posted on a blog by the creator of the subject, me! You boys need to do you own original research before you write off everyone's real work!Keep it! I wrote the blog people!If you read the entry note that it says created by Nicholas McGill-and is it wrong to post my own work on my own blog? -Note the owner of the blog is the very same Nicholas McGill. The saga continues. It IS MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH! I have worked on this and used this term for the past 10 years! There are other forms of evidence than just the web, if you are going to challenge this entry, find something solid to base it on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neo34350 (talk • contribs) 01:10, April 26, 2006.

Comment You just dug your own grave by stating that your article is original research, which is not admissible on Wikipedia. Read this policy page: WP:NOR. Rishodi 18:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - wait for someone else to pick up on your original research before you create an article about it. --james °o 16:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Do Not Delete- it, as it is my creation, how does wiki define the THEORY of general relativity- it never ceases to amaze me that arrogance in the tech world-"dug your own grave"-that kind of arrogance does not belong on wikipedia. Furthermore as personal digital liquidity is not a theory and is in fact an ability that anyone can have and if you know an inkling about economics, you know what liquidity is. There are other writers who comment about this quality without coining it, I have a specific definition it is spoken about in PC MAG and other major publications. They speak of the value in flexibility etc. with regard to software hardware. They do not create an all encompassing phrase or go into as much detail about what it encompasses, I thought wikipedia was all about this to include what others dfo not and to stay on the cutting edge, perhaps I am mistaken. Do I really have to have my clients comment on PDL for you to accept it- so far, as it is not a position, and is based on fact, and simply locks in to a definition that others have been working with in terms of the technical world. I do not see any reason to delete this submission. Do I really need a technical .com address to be able to submit- do I really need to have others write about it-just because you have a hard time googling it-doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Comment Read WP:V. Then read WP:NOR. Your original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. And the answer to your question is yes, others have to pick up on the term and write about it before it is considered encyclopedic. Rishodi 16:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOR. ergot 19:03, 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. If anyone wants the info for another site, please contact me or another administrator. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 04:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond R. York[edit]

Sad but WP:NOT a memorial Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like a copyvio. BUT: what if we had WikiProject:9/11 victims, and profiles for all 3000? I bet then it'd be cool, no? Any takers? No vote from this (Greater) New Yorker - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: IIRC, we had a Wikimedia wiki dedicated for 9/11 victims which has since been closed. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain. -AED 05:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, MemoryWiki is far more suited for this. Apart from the method of his death, this chap is unfortunately generally non-notable. No offense meant to the family, it's just that this is not the proper place for this article. --Golbez 05:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --Conrad Devonshire 05:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am publicly calling on the nominator to follow procedure, especially in this extra-sensistive case, and write a note on the creator's talk page. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this should probably go on sep11.wikipedia.org. Fagstein 07:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete --wkpdia mistaken for a memorial website? -- max rspct leave a message 14:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• transwiki to sep11.wikipedia.org M1ss1ontomars2k4 14:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have broader concerns about how Wikipedia handles notability when it comes to crime victims (versus criminals). We have many articles on Wikipedia about notable criminals. If not for the criminal act or incident that gave them notability, they are not notable. This is the case for each of the 19 hijackers. But, somehow Wikipedia judges them notable because of their criminal act is highly notable. Under the very same standard, the victims of these notorious criminals/incidents are also notable. I disagree with the double-standard applied to criminals of notorous crimes versus their victims. If we delete this article, then perhaps the hijacker articles should also go, except maybe Mohammed Atta which is more a familiar name than the others. And in some cases, Wikipedia has allowed articles on crime victims. For example, we have an article on both Laci Peterson (and Scott Peterson), as well as Natalee Holloway, Chandra Levy, JonBenét Ramsey, and others going back to the victims of Jack the Ripper. None were notable until their murders. I disagree with the double-standard applied here, with these crime victims versus 9/11 victims. If we delete this article, then the articles about Laci Peterson, Natalee Holloway, Chandra Levy, JonBenét Ramsey, and other crime victims need to be deleted. In all we need more uniformity in how we apply WP:BIO to both criminals and crime victims, as well as among victims of various notorious crimes. Of course Wikipedia is not a memorial. Any crime victim articles on Wikipedia need to be handled in an encyclopedic manner, be properly cited, verifiable, and NPOV. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of 9/11, I understand that people object to having nearly 3000 individual articles, and object to treating 9/11 differently than other terrorist incidents. (e.g. American invasion of Iraq). Perhaps a solution would be merely a list of victims (rather than 3000 articles), similar to Casualties_of_the_7_July_2005_London_bombings#Fatalities, with a brief one-liner (e.g. "Lee Baisden, 34, an accountant from Romford (East London)") for each. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also understand that http://sep11.wikipedia.org will likely be closed, thus eliminating the option for transwiki. On "7 July 2005" Trilobite deleted "Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks", with the reasoning being that it was transwikied to http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transwiki:Casualties_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks, as per vfd. With sep11 wiki being shut down, there's a void and I think this article needs to be transwikied back to enwiki. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have been working on Wikipedia since 2003 and I seem to recall that we had a huge problem with memorial sites created for 9/11 victims. Also I must register my disagreement with Kmf164: we cannot reasonably list every victim of Pearl Harbor or other incidents on multiple pages. Contrastingly, many, many criminals are highly notable for their crimes and do deserve their own articles. - Abscissa 15:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In that case, lets delete Casualties_of_the_7_July_2005_London_bombings#Fatalities. I am against such double standards. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. What you linked to was a list, that's OK IMHO... but if each of those people had personal articles I would say delete. - Abscissa 15:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Also note that victims are listed in Columbine High School massacre, among some other articles. I understand complications of having individual articles for each victim (due to the shear number for 9/11 and many other incidents). But, somehow we need to find a place at least for a list. I would find such a list to be a helpful, encyclopedic reference. Because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, I don't see why we can't find the space for such a list for 9/11 (and other notable incidents/crimes). Would it be such a problem to transwiki sep11:Transwiki:Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks back to enwiki, clean it up, and include such detailed listings), in the likely event that sep11 wiki be shut down? --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nominate it and I'll vote delete. Criminals are notable for their crimes, victims are not notable for being victims. - Abscissa 15:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. So, should we nominate Laci Peterson for deletion, as an example? I don't necessarily want to nominate, per WP:POINT, but disagree with this double-standard. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I don't see why she has her own article. I would merge it with Scott Peterson. -Abscissa 16:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bizarre! Bytes are cheap, people. Person is notable, clearly. EVERY 9/11 victim got individual media coverage ad nauseam. Don't wanna write articles for all 3000? Fine. Let there be a list, or inconsistency, but once someone goes through and actually writes one, I am not aware of a WP policy that requires deletion. WP:BIO is met. - CrazyRussiantalk/contribs/email 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then it should be easy to find "ad nauseam" articles on this victim. Once we have that, the subject becomes verifiable and will be kept. Fagstein 04:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, lists of the dead not great. Understandable that folk want to remember. Notable? First hand info/original research..? May, lead to en.wikipedia's canonisation (IMHO) of first world english speakers (and in a time of U.S imperial Iraq-wrecking/instigation). Why extend USTV coverage of 9/11?...folk keep putting these up with personal content... What about all passengers in corporate train crashes? There are already plenty of kidnap victims on here. More than an encyclopedia.. and where do we control the development.. proper style. Try Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead People Server . -- max rspct leave a message 21:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is, quite simply, this: individual in-depth coverage in multiple media sources for each victim. If your train crash meets that - include. Iraq was doesn't - except for that kid who went to London for a new arm. Isn't he on here? {Dunno name.) How about that 12 year old Palestinian kid caught in a crossfire Mohammed Al-Durra? How about the sniped on the playground Israeli toddler Shalhevet Pass? Individual in-depth coverage in multiple media sources meets WP:BIO. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like we have nothing for Shalhevet Pass. That's a ridiculous oversight. I'll go write it now. See y'all. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyone wanna nominate that one, too? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom Barneyboo (Talk) 15:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki sep11.wikipedia.org It is an interesting article and there should be room for it somewhere, stills needs wikifying, better tone, and referencing though. There are several of these around e.g. Canal Hotel bombing rxnd ( t | € | c ) 22:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to the September 11 wiki. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Stifle (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep A 45-year-old New York City Firefighter, two weeks from retirement, who risked his life at the World Trade Center after the planes hit, heading towards the site when all others were running for their lives and entering the North Tower minutes before it collapsed. Sounds notable to me. Very few of the 3,000 victims reach the level of the sacrifice made by Raymond R. York. Needs work, but it belongs where it is. Alansohn 04:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heroism does not by itself confer notability. If he got some sort of important award for herosim posthumously or something then we'd have some sources with which to build an article. But we don't. Fagstein 04:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you to all who supported my entry to wikipedia. I just dissovered this page and now realize why my uncle's page was removed. I along with my father created it. Raymond was my dads brother and best friend. Although this website is not specificly a memorial site, I believe that his heroism belongs in history. The deffinition for encyclopedia is "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Key words "A wide range of subjects" He was part of many subjects that also specificly includ September 11th, 2001. I felt heart broken and partically enraged when I discovered his page was removed. I honor his life and legacy everyway I can because he made an heroic desicion that hundreds of thousands of people could not make. Every victom deffinetly deserves a page, but my uncle along with many other first responders made heroic sacrifice's. They were told they may evacuate because the buildings were not stable. However these brave human beings could not leave with innocent lives left behind. I request my uncles page be reposted. Thank you. YORK899 10/4/2010

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MYMUN[edit]

This is a conference for a school. Do we really need a page for every school's version of Model UN competitions? --Hetar 04:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn competition. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fagstein 07:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--blue520 09:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete pernom M1ss1ontomars2k4 14:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn competition. --james °o 16:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why do we have this? Aeon 05:39, 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. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 00:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online Debate Network[edit]

This website has an Alexa rank above 2,000,000. The ((prod)) tag was removed by another user, so I am nominating the article for deletion here. NatusRoma | Talk 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete. It is a fun as well as intelectually stimulating site.
• Delete, nn website. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The lack of any real people's names is a dead giveaway (as is the list of moderators). Fagstein 07:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable.--Cini 08:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Terence Ong 12:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Is having a certain Alexa ranking an official Wikipedia policy? 2 million seems arbitrary. What is the basis of that cut off point? I think the site is certainly notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, despite not being referred to in a published source. In my experience with debate sites over the years, I have found that ODN is a unique phenomenon. It is a well-moderated site which manages to keep a good balance between a friendly atmosphere and disallowing excessive spam. I have found no other broad topic debate sites with a comparable consistent membership and member satisfaction. All other comparably popular and professional debate sites I have found are focused on specific areas, such as religion only or politics only. It is also notable for being founded as a private individual venture, rather than by a large company. Since the disputed NPOV sentence has been removed, and the article has been expanded and reformatted, I believe the current Online Debate Network entry is an acceptable one for Wikipedia. However, if it's decided that it should be removed, I will not argue further, as I respect the Wikipedia project and its organizers. Thanks for considering allowing it to remain. Kevinbrowning 19:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a high Alexa ranking is not necessary, however it is a guideline when it comes to popularity. If the site is not popular and nobody (in the media) has heard of it, how can we find sufficient reliable, third-party sources to write an article about it? Fagstein 20:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the site is relatively very popular, for the type of site it is. Although it is being edited mostly by site members rather than a third party, I believe all NPOV sentences have been removed, and the general tone has been made more neutral. As long as it is written sufficiently impartially, I think it should not matter who writes it. To demand a certain person write it, even if the current writers have written truthfully, seems like the ad hominem fallacy. Thanks for your following up on this. Kevinbrowning 20:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • You're right that it doesn't matter who writes the article, as long as it is written from a neutral point of view. We're discussing whether the site merits a Wikipedia article at all. In theory, the content of the article on this subject shouldn't matter, because even if this article were not neutral, it could be changed into a neutral article if the result of the discuss were to keep the article. NatusRoma | Talk 05:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the Alexa ranking is clearly over the limit, I'm poised to ask, since it's not an official rule regarding Wikiarticles, doesn't that seem a tad arbitrary? Because something isn't as popular as you feel it should be, does that really mean it should be deleted? I'm sure there's a lot of unpopular events, places, or people out there that deserve an article about them. If Wikipedia only hosted the "popular" things, it would be less worthy to come to than Google. Why come here if you're only going to find popular things? What happened to it being a "Free ENCYCLOPEDIA"? An encyclopedia houses unpopular information WITH the popular. Why not let it stay for a little while, allow it to be further revised, and then if it doesn't work out, remove it?Whitestone

User has 2 edits. Kimchi.sg 07:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • You're right that the Alexa ranking doesn't violate a specific guideline. However, the fact that the Alexa ranking is over 2,000,000 means that this really is not a very popular website. Other evidence for this is that many of the top Google hits for "Online Debate Network" -wikipedia ([13]) are mirrors of the Wikipedia article debate, which contains a link to the forum. Furthermore, this search reveals only 40 unique hits, which is very few. There are many Wikipedia users who believe, like you, that what sort of splash a person, event, or entity has created shouldn't matter for whether Wikipedia has an article about it. There are also many Wikipedia users who believe, like me, that the amount of fame or notability that something has generated is important in determining whether there should be a Wikipedia article about it. NatusRoma | Talk 05:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well (NatusRoma), if this article doesn't "violate any specific guideline", then it shouldn't be deleted...period. After admitting that it doesn't violate any rules, you then went on to complain that the site isn't very popular, but this shouldn't matter as this appears to be a matter of your personal bias/opinion, not of Wiki policy. You said it yourself, there are many Wikipedia users who don't care if there is an article about an unpopular site...but there are some who do. Personal preference shouldn't determine deletions, Wiki rules should and you have admitted that this article doesn't violate any such rules. nickmanderson

User has 10 edits. Kimchi.sg 07:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Notability (web). Based on what I have found on Google, this website doesn't fulfill any of the notability guidelines laid out in that page. NatusRoma | Talk 20:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do all Wikipedia entries have detailed notability guidelines, or only Web sites? It seems to me that what's notable to one person may be of very little import to another, and vice versa. I must raise the objection of a double standard applied to Web sites but not other content, if the latter. Thanks again. Kevinbrowning 17:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Notability. The notability criteria pages for the most common content (books, companies and music, among others) are linked to on that page, on the right sidebar. Kimchi.sg | talk 00:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:WEB Beno1000 02:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete is my final vote after reading and considering the arguments of those who believe the Online Debate Network article should be deleted. After reading the notability guidelines, I have decided that it is really quite vague and arbitrary, and in fact many topics other than Web sites are not submitted to nearly as stringent notability requirements, or sometimes none at all. Through personal experience I believe that ODN is a unique and important part of the subculture of online debating, and I think an article explaining what it is and why it has become popular is a credible topic for an online encyclopedia which attempts to cover all areas of knowledge and relevance. I will not argue the point further, as I think there is nothing left to say, and leave the final decision up to the longtime editors and moderators of this resource. However, I will say that several new members have joined since ODN was added as a related site on the main Debate entry in Wikipedia, and the evaluations have been uniformly positive. I leave you with this quote from a recent new member, "paintist," who found ODN after trying and being dissatisfied with several other online debating sites, and then found ODN through Wikipedia's Debate article: "It'd be pretty unfortunate to see this get deleted. As far as I can tell, this is the strongest forum available for online intellectual debate/argumentation on the internet... granted I've only been a member only a few hours. And if that's true (is there anywhere else?), then it seems like good enough information to be rooted into wikipedia." Thanks one final time for actually considering this entry's legitimacy, rather than taking immediate elitist action and removing the entry, as so many inferior Internet communities tend to do. - Kevin Browning, devoted user of both ODN and Wikipedia Kevinbrowning 03:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete: My verdict after reading over and considering the arguments here. The Online Debate Network is a type of site of which there are very few and and given that it is a not for profit site, its Wikipedia article can hardly be considered advertisement. The entry seems fine to me. Arguments against it seem very vague and ambiguous, setting double standards that don't seem to apply to any article here except this one. Further, the popularity of the site seems irrelevant to Wikipedia's giving information about it. Or do those who oppose this article think that Wikipedia should not give information about unpopular books, movies, shows, places, games and products as well? - Starcreator Starcreator 12:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's only 3 edits are to this AfD. Kimchi.sg 06:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Or do those who oppose this article think that Wikipedia should not give information about unpopular books, movies, shows, places, games and products as well?" Yes, of course. Please read our notability guidelines. "Arguments against it seem very vague and ambiguous, setting double standards that don't seem to apply to any article here except this one." Please give WP:WEB a long, hard read before repeating this claim. Kimchi.sg 06:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete is my vote. I don't understand WHY this article should be up for deletion if it hasn't broken any rules, this is supposed to be a site about open information. Popularity doesn't have anything to do with this at all, many things in history aren't popular to look up, many can even be considered irrelevant to history, but it's in there for our use. Keep the article up I say, there is nothing wrong with it. "ShadowKnight 06:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Congratulations! How'd you find this AfD so quickly on your very first edit? Kimchi.sg 06:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: its not about popularity, its about notability. Please ignore the sock puppets. --Hetar 06:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Point of order: There is a difference between a sockpuppet and a meatpuppet. NatusRoma | Talk 06:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Holquist[edit]

Failed prod. Non-notable writer. Her first book hasn't even been published yet, so there is no way to know if she'll go on to be notable or not. Icarus 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn author. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:BIO.--blue520 09:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - let's wait until it's published please. -- Hirudo 15:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above arguments re non notability. Colonel Tom 00:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. First book set to appear from major publisher (Time/Warner) with promotion in progress, in line which regularly reaches audiences well over the 5K audience standard. Wikipedia may not be a crystal ball, but it's not an ostrich with its head in the sand, either. Monicasdude 01:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:NOT a crystalball. No evidence this author will meet [[WP:BIO].--Isotope23 02:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete crystal balling - author does not yet meet standards.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Crystalballism. JoshuaZ 02:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as future prediction. Also, article is practically devoid of content; might as well delete it, we're not losing anything. Mangojuice^talk 14:54, 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. kingboyk 05:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ClassicSciFi.com[edit]

Delete advert, WP:WEB - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 19:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP is not a link repository nor advertiser of websites Maustrauser 22:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, advertisement. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 04:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 04:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 04:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cougar women[edit]

Verifiability is shaky; probably merits a Wiktionary entry (like MILF), but most of this article is POV and unencyclopedic. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 04:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. 95% of this is deletable as unverifiable and POV. Grutness...wha? 05:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 09:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Biased article. POV is there.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, heavily biased and POVed. --soUmyaSch 10:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A simple definition would suffice, if proprely sourced, and that's not enough to warrant an article. PJM 11:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, POV article, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 12:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unverifiable, POV article. JIP | Talk 17:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It has POV and original research issues that have to be fixed, but the topic itself is worthy of an article. Arctic Gnome 21:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article documents a significant (some might say alarming) social trend. The premise of the article is verifiable. davidzuccaro 13:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:V. No prejudice against a proper article replacing it. Stifle (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's a neologism - Richardcavell 05:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well of course a new and emerging social trend is going to need a new combination of words to describe it.davidzuccaro 22:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as being unverified. *drew 04:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 04:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Hart[edit]

PROD tag removed. Appears to be a vanity bio for a non-notable academic. Has some publications and minor awards, but would not qualify under the professor test as being other than a relatively average academic. Delete. MCB 20:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article is merely a copy of his CV posted here. Fails WP:PROFTEST. -AED 07:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Would it have been that hard to do a simple proofread and fix the formatting after a cut and paste job? Looks to me like our professor's kind of sloppy. Fan1967 05:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn-bio, vanity. --Terence Ong 13:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, albeit in a drastically cut down fashion. Way too much unnecessary info in here, but the list of publications does suggest that it meets or comes close to the professor test there. The listed awards fail the test, tho, IMO. Colonel Tom 00:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of word puns where one or more of the included words is used in whole[edit]

Idiosyncratic fork of List of miscellaneous portmanteaus, with the odd criteria that "one or more words are whole" and therefore not actually portmanteau words, a prerequisite I've never heard of. Brought to you by the creator of List of songs whose title starts and ends with the same letter and the future creator of (if the redlinks at List of portmanteau word lists are to be believed) List of word puns with numerals and List of word puns that only truncate only one letter in any of its etymological words. Calton | Talk 05:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Add creator to "List of people who have nothing better to do than to create nonsensical lists" and delete this. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a fan of this list which I view as part of an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 05:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Listcruft.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft. --Icarus 06:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN Would be interesting to look at who spent their time doing all this. SandBoxer 07:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be this fellow.--Calton | Talk 07:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd probably be better at WP:DAFT than WP:BJAODN, too. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Useless listcruft.--Cini 08:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete some list are use full, but this is not (list creep).--blue520 09:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listcruft must be expunged and it must be expunged soon. Proto||type 09:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bad joke here.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because Danny Lilithborne 11:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listcruft. --Terence Ong 13:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Powerdelete with inherent deletion. Just not encyclopedic. Maybe some specialized linguistics text could use some discussion about the topic of the nominated list (I doubt it), but Wikipedia certainly isn't the right place. Barno 13:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete do I even nee dot justify this vote? --Bachrach44 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Might be worthy of a category. Arctic Gnome 21:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete- listcruft. The El Reyko 21:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Exterminate and pour salt over the article so it won't ever rise again -- Hirudo 04:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete This is Listcruft - Aeon 05:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]