< February 24	February 26 >

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --cesarb 22:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rant Denni☯ 23:30, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete gkhan 23:31, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy nonsense --Xcali 23:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete rant. NeoJustin 00:37, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete agreed. UkPaolo 16:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy away, patent nonsense Jdcooper 19:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax, neither Google nor Wikipedia:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board have heard of this, I've tried searching for every possible misspelling of the word I could come up with, but with no result. At best it could be someone's own English translation of the Swedish name, in that case a real article probably already exists. Obli (Talk)^? 23:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Jay(Reply) 00:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Royal Blue ^T/_C 00:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. -- Elisson • Talk 00:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PJM 03:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 03:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cymsdale 11:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom American Patriot 1776 18:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin: if Svelglistigor (battleship) is deleted, the redirect page Svelglistigor boat becomes speediable. Bo Lindbergh 20:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(a)not notable, (b) possibly created by self (user PaulieRaw) Elf | Talk 00:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed. Vanity page, non notable bio. --Jay(Reply) 00:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Royal Blue ^T/_C 00:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Autobiography, non-notable, vanity. Camillus (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. —ERcheck @ 01:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: likely vanity, does not assert notability. Pagrashtak 02:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 03:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V; also remove any "advertising" inserted by him (i.e., at Dog behaviourist). --Kinu ^t/_c 07:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This page is actually a repost of deleted material, and should have been tagged with db-repost. Isopropyl 07:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Isopropyl. --Cymsdale 11:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Isopropyl. --AySz88^-^ 15:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete if Isopropyl is right (I didn't see anything in Special:Log&type=delete&page=Paul Rawlinson, though). Otherwise, userfy & delete --Karnesky 16:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per no, could be self article American Patriot 1776 18:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Dont delete The article compliments Dog behaviourist article, Operant Conditioning and training techniques. The reason Paul Rawlinson is used above any other behaviourist is purely arbitarty, the article is desmonstrative of a modern behaviourist and reflects and compliments the Dog behaviourist article by allowing the reader access to an increased level of information. I would not have been able with any conviction to write about other behaviourists as many are quite secretive in regards to their work. However, Stan Rawlinson is well published I do have information on him and if you would prefer it I will change this page to reflect him as he is widley published in the dog and sporting press. isopropyl is not correct this a first post. PS the shorthand area is heavily biased to the negative. Paulieraw 10:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read the above-cited WP:BIO and WP:V to see Wikipedia's policies. Any arguments for including an article on a person would need to meet these criteria. Elf | Talk 20:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or userfy, WP:BIO. Stifle 13:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair 03:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, content does not match with title Xorkl000 00:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Another one in the Test Article file. --Jay(Reply) 00:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy G2 Royal Blue ^T/_C 00:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article appears to be about Brett Beyer who has had some success in Masters sailing competitions including world championships. [1] If it was in an open class or Olympics, that would make him notable enough for an article although under Brett Beyer rather than this. However, as it is a Masters championship, it doesn't quite meet WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 00:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
• Speedy delete as test page. Tagged. --SYCTHOS^talk 01:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, test page. PJM 03:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI and DELETE. -Splash^talk 19:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

definition of an obscure Inuit word--unclear why page exists! Hynca-Hooley 00:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. --Jay(Reply) 00:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-English dicdef. Royal Blue ^T/_C 00:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PJM 02:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, dicdef. You definitely need to look at the history to understand what's going on here. Ayak used to redirect to AYAK which now redirects to Ku Klux Klan--because AYAK supposedly stood for "Are you a Klansman?". Then someone fixed the double-redirect and someone else decided to unlink to the KKK and... basically it's kind of a collaborative glitch, I think. · rodii · 04:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ku Klux Klan. Pepsidrinka 05:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wiktionary. That is the place for definitions. --Cymsdale 12:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Of random Inuit words!? · rodii · 14:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of all words, more or less. --Tone 14:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Wiktionary. --Tone 14:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary, as above. --Karnesky 17:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary they'll probably want it American Patriot 1776 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ku Klux Klan. Grandmasterka 01:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki 132.205.45.110 22:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki as above. AP 02:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI think this is a good meaning to have here. Wikipedia should not delete this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batmanand (talk • contribs)

Why can't we share what a inuit word is, why do we have to redirect to the KKK. looks racest and selective to share KKK info and not inuit words. its AYAK an obsure KKK meaning. Wikipedia should not have anything on this page rather then redirect to the KKK.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.71.92 (talk • contribs)

• Delete as dicdef, which is not allowed under the policy, and unexpandable. Batmanand | Talk 12:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --SYCTHOS^talk 03:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Etiquette failure — THOR ^=/\= 00:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unencyclopedic. Royal Blue ^T/_C 00:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopædic.  (aeropagitica)  00:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete --Jay(Reply) 00:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, per above. Kuru ^talk 01:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as attack page. (Note: R. Koenig, the author of this page, has implicitly accused me of being such a thing as well.) --Allen 02:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, per above. Tagged. PJM 02:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as blatant attack page. I have warned the creator of this article. --SYCTHOS^talk 03:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect. --SYCTHOS^talk 03:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for "Phillip Graham" + cellist revealed 3 hits...none relevant. Claims to notability in article but provides no source. Possible vandal and possible self-biography. POssibly has been deleted before (he claims this in the article) Joelito 00:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has been redirected to Phil Graham. I believe the redirect is the best solution. NoIdeaNick 00:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed per above. Redirect is fine as is. --Jay(Reply) 00:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article (in Spanish) doesn't seem encyclopedic. Please see the Babel fish translation. King of Hearts | (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A poem or lyric without context or discussion of notability. Unencyclopædic.  (aeropagitica)  00:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Articles written into an ENGLISH encyclopedia should be in English to begin with. --Jay(Reply) 00:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, absent any other contextual clues. Kuru ^talk 01:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As a poem, it does not belong in Wikipedia. That it is not in English would not be a big problem -- there's the translation desk for articles written in foreign languages (that may also be transwikied). Kusma (討論) 02:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete smoothly, not encyclopedic. Pagrashtak 02:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a poem text would not normally be an encyclopedia article. By the way, the poem was written by Ramón López Velarde [2]. As a remote second choice, redirect to him. --Metropolitan90 04:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn, and this is English Wikipedia. --Terence Ong 06:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As noted above this being an English encyclopædia is not relevant, the article could easily be translated. Jcuk 10:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kusma. --Cymsdale 12:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above Computerjoe 22:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unsourced, and a badly-formatted title. We have an article on progressive rock and if that gets too big, it would be logical to split out subarticles such as history of progressive rock and origins of progressive rock. If an article on progressive rock in the 21st century is ever needed, it should grow organically out of a normal article, like as a subarticle of history of progressive rock. It's silly to have an article like this because 94% of the 21st century has not yet occurred. With all that said, I would have just merged it elsewhere except that there's nothing to merge because this is an unsourced list of albums and stuff that somebody decided was important -- hence, nothing to merge, and, even if an article on this topic was relevant, everything here would have to be removed because it is unsourced and opinionated, not to mention badly formatted and improperly titled (should be progressive rock in the 21st century, theoretically, but since this is more of a timeline than an article, it would be timeline of progressive rock in the 21st century). Tuf-Kat 23:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have changed the formatting of the entry. You are correct that the title should be changed. Because the subject of progressive rock is very broad, I chose to tackle recent events because most of those are easily verifiable. I did not realize EVERYTHING, even fairly obvious items, needed to be verified. There are several sub-articles already on the "progressive rock" entry including lists which are full of opinion and debate. I think a timeline of progressive rock (even one that, for now, is just covering events and beyond) is valuable. --Flonkus 02:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Flonkus 20 February 2006 (entry edited by Flonkus)[reply]

• I have sourced the article and tried to conform to a timeline format. I did some research and discovered several other musical genres with "timeline" articles, many of which have uncited sources and opinions. Please consider keeping this one or deleting all music timelines. For now, I requested a move (after asking for help) to change the article title to Timeline of Progressive Rock: 2001-present. I'd be more than happy to take on the task of doing a full timeline of progressive rock in the future as I have considerable knowledge on the subject. --Flonkus 19:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please use normal titles, and create a normal timeline. Why would we need a timeline for the most recent six years but not prior? Why would we start a timeline for a century that's barely begun, focusing on a topic far more closely associated with the 1970s than the 21st century? If you must make a timeline, make a timeline of progressive rock. The sources you've added are nice, but are not sufficient -- this is a timeline of "important, historical events" so you need to have a source that proves more than what occurred, meaning that it's fine to have a source that proves that Dream Theater released an album in 2001, that does not prove that that album's release was an important, historical event. And it's extremely inappropriate to use a band's official website to document something like this. Tuf-Kat 19:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Work with me, please. I'm doing my part here and I am new to this process. I wanted to bring some attention to the current decade as the information on Wiki so far is sparse. I intended to cover other material later, but I will instead create a full standard timeline to resolve this apparent issue. --Flonkus 20:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding Dream Theater, the artwork mishap is certainly historical in this context. And I did not cite Dream Theater's website. --Flonkus 20:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regarding "important, historical events", and "key recordings". I wanted to emphasize these words so that when others add/edit the page, they are discouraged from spamming, bias, etc. as much as possible. If this is the wrong way to go about this, I will just use the words "events" and "albums" that I've seen elsewhere. --Flonkus 20:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You should review these examples: Timeline of heavy metal, Timeline of punk rock, Timeline of alternative rock. They are completely unsourced, arguably preferencial. If you intend to hold a standard, why are these existing documents not held to the same? Thank you for your time. --Flonkus 20:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think those should be deleted too, but I'm glad this article is now at least consistent with them. Tuf-Kat 03:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While sourcing would be nice - I think there needs to be more than just an editor's opinion that a band is a progressive rock band or not - I like the way the article is laid out and believe it would serve the same useful purpose as the other rock timeline articles. Denni ☯ 02:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article meets Wikipedia:Notability. However, it should include references per Wikipedia:Citing sources. It appears to make for a good read as well. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I could use a little help a little more understanding as to what does/does not require proper sourcing. Thanks! --Flonkus 05:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The title of the article seals its fate. Encyclopedias don't write articles about the 21st century until the 21st century has finished happening. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As mentioned, the article's name was changed and now will cover the full timeline of the genre. --Flonkus 05:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. It is a work in progress. Sulfur 05:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm making daily additions when I have time. I will try to get a few others to help out as well. --Flonkus 05:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article now has the title Timeline of progressive rock. I think the article has potential to give some background information that would otherwise make the main Progressive rock article long and unwieldy. The article may currently lack some depth, and it had a bad title to start with, but there's certainly room to improve it instead of tossing it out together. Also, remember WP:BITE. --Elkman 05:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Thanks, Elkman. I made a couple of newbie errors early on, but I have an interest in contributing lots of musical content to Wikipedia. I'm already very impressed at the vastness of the resource to date.--Flonkus 05:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Inclined to Keep, now that the page has moved to a more holistic title and is attempting to encompass the entire history of progressive rock. -- Saberwyn 06:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now the page is in a new format. I'll try to put some work in to improve it. Bondegezou 11:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of work by various people has now gone into the page. Bondegezou 14:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep--AlF 13:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave as redirect that works for me. Just zis Guy you know? 13:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Terence Ong 15:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per JzG. -- Krash (Talk) 22:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Elkman's comments above. dbtfz^talk 03:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Jeff See is not of an elite status. There are many other college runners that have had better success in running than him (in college and high school). Sharpdust 00:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agreed. Non-notable. --Jay(Reply) 00:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't quite meet WP:BIO. After breaking Alan Webb's sophomore record, his performance did not continue on the same pace[3]. In his freshman cross country season, he was 22nd in his regional meet and in the "Top 100" in the NCAA [4]. —ERcheck @ 01:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 02:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:BIO as far as I'm concerned. He was notable for a period of time and shouldn't have to maintain it. --Cymsdale 12:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now, since there is no evidence of genuine notability. This could change, which is fine. We have no need to scoop anybody, let's wait and see if he's still "famous" when the 15 minutes are up. Just zis Guy you know? 13:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 15:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 22:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, prior version was a cross wiki link) xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 02:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC),[reply]

Whopee. Non-notable moderator. Hardly serious. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 00:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete or revert as non-notable person (CSD A7). Tagged. If you wish to revert, please do so to this version of the article. --SYCTHOS^talk 00:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 01:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or Revert back to original context. Kuru ^talk 01:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article's second nomination for Articles for Deletion. An archive of the original discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Collections.

As the Daily Collections is a non-notable collection of flash animations, I propose this page to be removed. The article is very unorganized and polluted with vanity information. It seems futile to clean up the text, as it is very likely the article will gradually deteriorate to its present state in the future.

From the past discussion, I have recovered the following:

I apologise for not providing this before. Almost nonexistant Google, even when too broad a search is used. Nothing on news either way. As I see the recomendation to date, we have a three naked votes without any backing rational, one "important" and one "helpful". As always, I would be happy to see this included if any evidence of notability is presented. WP:WEB has further notes on how to demonstrate this for websites. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply] Actually, it's "Daily Collections", not "The Daily Collections" - try this search instead ("daily collections" newgrounds → 180 results). r3m0t talk 15:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the above, one or more of four actions should be taken:

1. Delete. The article's contents and history will be removed.
2. Merge. The article will be briefly summarized and placed into Newgrounds as a short section.
3. Redirect. The article will redirect to Newgrounds.
4. Userfy. The article will be placed onto the user pages of the original editor, 24.109.9.205, and all primary editors.

My recommendation is to perform all four actions. Delete, merge, redirect, and userfy, all speedily if possible. --SYCTHOS^talk 00:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there was no legitimate reason to keep the article in the first discussion. All keep comments are shown below:

Keep or merge with Newgrounds. --Liface 22:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply] Keep or Merge as per Liface B.ellis 16:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep or userfy. A large amount of work seems to have gone into this--which is by itself insufficient reason for a keep. However, this article is helpful in identifying a "genre" (if you will) of online media creation.--eleuthero 20:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep per comments above. -- JJay 00:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only appropriate argument given was by Eleuthero, but as the "work" can be userfied, there is no need to keep the article.

• Proposal editied to include R. fiend's suggestion below. --SYCTHOS^talk 02:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal editied to include addendum. --SYCTHOS^talk 23:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please post comments and suggestions below.

• This was a redirect to Newgrounds, and that was working well. Restore the redirect and protect. I have half a mind to do this right now, but I'll wait for more comments. -R. fiend 02:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article as non-notable (I don't seem to get any more than 20 unique pages, nowhere near all of which are relevant). I will support redirecting or recreation as redirect, but if we merged one article about a flash series to Newgrounds, we'd have to be fair and include every flash series in that article (the mind boggles), and I'd only be inclined to userfy if the editor(s) involved requested it. -- Saberwyn 05:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We could ask the editors whether they wish to userfy, and conform with their requests. We could also allow the editors themselves to add the redirects at their discretion. --SYCTHOS^talk 23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this, re-create the redirect per R.fiend. Just zis Guy you know? 13:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per R.fiend. --Terence Ong 15:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. --Billpg 18:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable website. An excellent display as to why re-nominating is and should be permitted. Lord Bob 20:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. -- Krash (Talk) 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per R. fiend. Grandmasterka 01:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lord Bob. Stifle 13:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. I count 12 deletes, 5 merges, and 3 keeps. On a strict vote-counting schema, this translates to 60% consensus to delete, which is not enough. These articles should probably be merged because that's the highest number of non-delete votes, but even among the five merge votes, there is exactly two for InfoWorld joke languages, one for Joke programming languages, one for InfoWorld joke programming languages, and one with no suggestion. Where these articles should be merged to is a debate that doesn't need an AfD to determine. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... is a fictional programming language invented by John Unger Zussman as a spoof of ... and San Fernando Valley slang (valspeak). It appears in a humorous list of "lesser known languages", published in InfoWorld in 1982 and later posted to Usenet. This is the original text pertaining to ...:

Oh my... —Ruud 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Ruud 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable programming languages. --SYCTHOS^talk 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Joke programming languages or similar. These are an important part of computer humor culture. You are obviously taking them too seriously. --ZeroOne 01:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...important part of computer humor culture. Evidence? I can't find it. And don't find them particularly funny no. —Ruud 01:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess it depends on your definition of "important" ... it's widely known at any rate. Try this search. At least 100 hits for VALGOL, including grammars, derivative works, compiler implementations, mentions in other sources. A lot of it is just references to the same material but that does show notability. That it is not particularly funny is not particularly relevant to whether it's part of a culture or not. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was just a response the me "taking this too seriously" and did not influence my vote. Also, this search only gives me 167 unique hits, most not very relevant. —Ruud 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak merge (and conditional on finding a place to merge it to). RJFJR 01:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC) on further consideration I retract voting either way. RJFJR 01:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and wasting our time. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom unless claims of being "important part of computer humor culture" can be substantiated. VegaDark 02:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to WikiSource; barring that, merge all and redirect to InfoWorld joke languages or delete. Usenet publishing is public-domain, isn't it? The articles describe interesting languages, I'm just not sure they're encyclopedic. --bmills 04:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These articles aren't causing anyone any problems. Let them be. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. KramarDanIkabu 05:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - these are all entries from a single mag article?! worst case, merge them all. (No need to transwiki this anywhere, unlike the source code articles). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-25 05:47Z
• Delete Yup, I saw these ages ago, didn't want to AfD because there's that many articles and AFDing them is a lot of work, coincidentally I was going to go prodding these today seeing how there's a lot of esoteric languages in prod and no one's really contesting those... anyway, the point of the ramble is: Delete the lot. These are joke languages. It's an old joke, it's a well-known joke (included in the fortune(6) database at least in Linux), but I really don't think it's a notable joke and you can't get much more fun out of it than just the quotations out of the mag article. Certainly the heck not worth making separate articles for each! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perhaps a mention in Internet humor (or such), but certainly not separate articles. Camillus (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this cruft per WP:NFT Just zis Guy you know? 14:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge them in one article. --Tone 14:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 16:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Either Keep or Merge into one article. Old joke, but well known... people have written grammars for some of these languages. This comment is NOT under any circumstances to be interpreted as straight delete without at least a merge. I remember reading about these back in the 80s... an InfoWorld article is, with all respect to my esteemed colleauge JzG, not something made up in school one day. ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense to the person that wrote the grammar, but even that could easily have been done in "one school day". It's still nothing more than an extended joke. The grammar wasn't that well-thought out, e.g. "Y*KNOW" translates to the multiplication of Y times KNOW, which is not what the valleyspeak intends. If we merge them all we have to delete the giant quotes to avoid reconstructing the Infoworld article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-25 19:39Z
    • Well sure, it's not a perfect grammar and could have been done relatively quickly but the language phenomenon is more than just something made up in school one day by one person. I mentioned the grammar to substantiate notability for the language, not because it's perfect. People refer to VALGOL in other works fairly frequently. Heck, even some of the delete votes (User:Wwwwolf for instance) concede notability, saying it's well known. I don't see why this needs deleting. At most, merge into one article (although that was proposed before for the 70-odd minor languages but not done). ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ALL as unencyclopedic. -- Krash (Talk) 22:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Just for the record: Previous AfD round results: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming language related --ZeroOne 00:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all (preferred) or merge all into single article. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge. Interesting, entertaining, and certainly worth the space they take up. Rinne na dTrosc 00:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not really a question of whether they're interesting, entertaining, or worth the space. Rather, the question at hand is, "do these articles belong in an encyclopedia?" —bmills 00:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, that indeed is the question. And the answer is: Yes they do, because they're a notable (published in a major magazine as a complete article, not just a mention, and then repeatedly referenced in multiple sources) enough part of computer culture/lore to merit inclusion. One article for all of them authored by the same author is fine, and set up redirects for all of them to that article, sure... but delete? No. Wrong answer. (as I said above) ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Not notable individually, but notable collectively as part of hacker culture so merge to a single article. Suggest title InfoWorld joke languages per bmills. —Blotwell 03:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to InfoWorld joke programming languages, or somesuch. Stifle 13:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge merge them. Snakes 22:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 08:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anshe Chung is an important pioneer in the virtual world economy and has been featured on television and in countless newspaper articles. Her status can be rightfully described as a "celebrity" of this new medium. Deleting this Wikipedia entry would be a loss to everybody who is using Wikipedia to research virtual worlds and their economic and social dynamics.

Actually, this article should be merged elsewhere for now. But why did you create this AfD subpage? +sj + 04:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 19:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and do not merge. There is more to say about the ramifications of this business' actions than is appropriate for a section in Second Life. Anshe may be a big fish in a small pond, but big fish make waves, and they have been the subject of media attention. The article as it stands is not perfect, but there appears to be material and references in the talk that should help with that. GreenReaper 14:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no merge. Perhaps at some point there will be more such businesses and it would be appropriate to make this a section of an article about such businesses. At this time they seem to be in a class by themselves. Tualha (Talk) 15:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, This article pertains to an entity that exists in only a small number of online spaces, and doesn't reflect internet at large. --Ice 16:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, As far as I can tell Anshe Chung has been the subject of more media attention than any other Avatar in the history of MMORPGs, placing her well above Wikipedia's threshold of "ecyclopdia-ness"Carl Henderson

• Keep, 22,400 results from google, many from media outlets, is notable enough.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be more than a Japanese-English translation, which is not what wikipedia is for. Delete. Fightindaman 01:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.The term Oyako Ryugaku is entering the English Vocabulary to describe a particular type of Japanese visitor expanding around the world. There appears to be no English Language equivalent to describe this form of tourism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicholsp02 (talk • contribs) .

Comment: A google search for "Oyako Ryugaku" yields 16 pages in English. I would hardly say it has entered the English language sufficiently. By contrast, a search for "Au Pair" which you used as a comparison on the articles talk page, gets 21.5 million hits. Fightindaman 01:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "entering the English vocabulary"? Gee, doesn't that mean neologism? Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 04:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mitsukai; non-notable neologism, admitted as such in article, and unable to verify widespread usage. Note: also see AfD for Ryugaku. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since there is no evidence of actual English currency. Just zis Guy you know? 14:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 16:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above; NNN. PJM 17:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic translation. -- Krash (Talk) 22:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to wiktionary 132.205.45.110 22:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to System testing per nom's withdrawal. -- JLaTondre 04:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Non-notble minor term. Also, wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Hetar 01:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think redirect is the best solution, lets just do that and get this off the AfD list. --Hetar 02:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to System testing. In fact I will boldly do just that. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 01:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I admire your boldness, but isn't that a bit out of place once the article has been marked AfD? :) --Cymsdale 12:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aha. "You should not turn the article into a redirect" is the suggestion in WP:GD. Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. Well, I don't think it's controversial in this case, but I won't do it again. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 19:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per George. —Ruud 03:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. PJM 03:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect is good. Just zis Guy you know? 14:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect works well. Suggest withdrawl per WP:SNOW. -- Krash (Talk) 22:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 07:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This article was prodded and then de-prodded without explanation. Useless list that links nowhere, see WP:NOT. --Hetar 01:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have managed to find a few links for the page, among others, the capitol of Samoa was listed here. I shall add more later. Nmpenguin 04:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It has some links now and it linked from Samoa. Now agree with Schizombie below. Merge. --Bduke 05:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of cities, towns and villages in Samoa Schizombie 07:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Schizombie. Capitalistroadster 09:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is good as it says villages too. Although lists of villages are apparently otherwise acceptable as we have List of villages in Serbia and Montenegro, List of villages in Northern Ireland, List of villages in Nebraska, and List of villages in West Virginia among others.--T. Anthony 09:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in some jurisdictions or geographies the term village has a different connotation than cities or towns which are incorporated and exclusive. Village may be more like township in certain Midwest or East Coast US States which may encompass land both inside and outside of an incorporated city or town. That said, I don't know what the situation in Samoa is. Carlossuarez46 02:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 09:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Merge for now, although precedent seems to be to have regional lists of places rather than national. This would mean creating List of places in A'ana List of places in Aiga-i-le-Tai etc. Jcuk 10:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Schizombie. Just zis Guy you know? 14:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per Schizombie.--Tone 14:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, delist. Pavel Vozenilek 15:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Schizombie. PJM 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delist as per Pavel Vozenilek. NoIdeaNick 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete. -- Krash (Talk) 22:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have done the merge to List of cities, towns and villages in Samoa so this material will not be lost. Of course in the what seems the unlikely event that the decision here is 'keep', my merge can be reverted. --Bduke 22:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now it has been merged (Salelologa was left out), so this can be Deleted. We should of course keep the information on the other page. Sorry for the confusing use of three bold words. Ardric47 04:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Japanese to english translation, does not appear to have much content besides this. Delete. Fightindaman 01:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "entering the English vocabulary"? Gee, doesn't that mean neologism? Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 04:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mitsukai; non-notable neologism, admitted as such in article, and unable to verify widespread usage. Note: also see AfD for Oyako Ryugaku. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary (particularly for foreign languages) or a slang or usage guide. Also I agree with Mitsukai, if it's "entering the English language", it's a neologism. JIP | Talk 10:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no evidence presented of English usage currency Just zis Guy you know? 14:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wictionary--Tone 14:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I doubt they want this on Wiktionary. —Cleared as filed. 15:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic translation. -- Krash (Talk) 22:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to wiktionary, along with Oyako Ryugaku and OYAKO 132.205.45.110 22:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's got no currency to speak of so Wiktionary won't be interested. Stifle 13:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy redirect to Andy Milonakis. Aaron 02:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This page's title is a misspelling of the intended person's name. Thus, this article is unnecessary. Wickethewok 01:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Andy Milonakis to orient users who may inadvertently make the same spelling mistake in the future. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to correct spelling. Humans make mistakes, and are well known for hitting the wrong keys sometimes. -- Saberwyn 01:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have consensus from the deletion nominator to redirect to the correct spelling. Can we get a speedy redirect and early close, please? -- Saberwyn 01:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the exact same case we had with Super Mario 4. But this is worse. Super Mario 4 was at least a little humorous while it lasted, but this is completely pointless. I'm putting it up for deletion for lack of importance. Plus, it has the wrong categories. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luigi III (talk • contribs) .

• Delete, speedy if possible per nominator. --SYCTHOS^talk 01:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Sycthos, is this your nomination or is it someone who has forgotten to sign in. 14 Google hits including Wikipedia article and no reliable sources [5] leads me to a position of delete as unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that was actually Luigi III. I have added the ((unsigned)) tag. --SYCTHOS^talk 03:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry about that. LIII 22:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 02:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Pagrashtak 02:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --OneEuropeanHeart 03:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 06:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons given by the nominator. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn and unverifiable. --Cymsdale 12:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cruft Just zis Guy you know? 14:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 15:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteus, per nomus. PJM 17:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as cruft. -- Krash (Talk) 22:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to database. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to say anything significant. It sounds to me like it is saying that a database instance is an instance of a database. RJFJR 02:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to database. This definition isn't right anyway [6]. —Ruud 03:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to database or ODBC. Sounds like a misguided description of particulars of ODBC on Windows. --bmills 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. It defines database instance as in terms used by Oracle. Other systems use different definitions. Pavel Vozenilek 15:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to database. PJM 16:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Pepper spray, although I'm not at all clear that this would improve the article, so I'm just going to redirect. If someone can write better sentence than this article currently contains in Pepper spray, then great. -Splash^talk 20:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense with link to commercial site Blastwizard 02:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Pepper spray, without the commercial link. There seem to be enough such rings for sale to be mentioned in a sentence or two. (You can see several relevant hits at [7].) –Sommers ^(Talk) 02:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge and redirect, sans advertlink per above. -- Saberwyn 05:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• merge per above seems good Just zis Guy you know? 14:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree...merge as above. PJM 16:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• smerge pa Computerjoe 20:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge and delete. -- Krash (Talk) 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Pepper spray and delete advertising spam.  (aeropagitica)  23:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as an attack page. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. Vanity Joelito 02:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this article is very useful . Antonio is notable.He is a very known person. DO not delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hummer931 (talk • contribs)

• Delete: Non-notable. CSD A7? Blue520 02:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as non-notable bio (CSD A7). –Sommers ^(Talk) 02:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, A7. PJM 03:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious speedy delete material per A7, also a borderline attack page. VegaDark 03:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untranslated article from the translation desk. Discussion from there follows. Kusma (討論) 02:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this is about or what language it's in. Zelmerszoetrop 08:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's in Polish - Introvert ^~? 08:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It's about armoured cars. If there's anything new there it can probably be incorporated into armoured car. KolyaFrankovich 17:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Polish. The content seems a bit more military-oriented than armored car, with comparisons between armoured cars and tanks, as well as their military uses (recon). IMNSHO nothing from there is worth merging into the English article; straight delete. --your friendly neighbourhood expert on Polish vanity articles (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the guy who knows his Polish vanity. -- Krash (Talk) 22:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is very shallow information about armored cars, far bellow threshold quality here. Nothing specific about Poland's armament here. Pavel Vozenilek 01:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pavel Vozenilek. Stifle 13:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the translation desk, has not been translated for two weeks. Discussion from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 02:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found loose in Category:Wikipedia articles needing translation. Portuguese, about the "curso de liderança juvenil". Kusma (討論) 14:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that means 'leadership course for youth'. Chris Chan.talk.contribs 18:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete looks like a religious course of no particuler relevance to an Anglophone audience (note: that's working with automated translators, I have no Portuguese). Just zis Guy you know? 14:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If nobody cared to translate it in two weeks, it's probably not up to much. Stifle 13:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stifle.--み使い Mitsukai 01:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 05:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by anon, no reason given. AfD ophaned, listing now VegaDark 02:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable but needs fixing with relation to NFL player bios Tawker 01:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep unless we are prepared to delete hundreds of NFL bios. I think the unwritten rule is they are noteworthy enough if they have ever played in the NFL, let alone a current player. Also, nominating this for deletion was the user's 13th edit, many of the others of which were AfD tags to pages that got reverted. VegaDark 02:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, per above. PJM 02:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable. Pepsidrinka 05:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Sulfur 05:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web forum that the article claims was opened in December 2005. Site has an Alexa rating over 3,000,000 while Google has only 21 hits, none of which appear to qualify as a reliable source for the purposes of verification. Delete as per WP:V and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Allen3 ^talk 03:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and per WP:WEB, which this article fails. bcasterline^talk 03:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB. VegaDark 04:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per above. --Hetar 05:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:WEB violation.  (aeropagitica)  09:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, all Internet fora with fewer than 330 members are non-notable. JIP | Talk 10:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:WEB --Cymsdale 12:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per good points above. Just zis Guy you know? 14:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. -- Krash (Talk) 22:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. Originally speedied, contested, moving to AfD. 121 Google results, but summarizes to 8 displayed hits. nefisa.co.uk has no Alexa ranking. Copied author's talk page response below. Delete _└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 03:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nefisa website is something that needs documenting as it's got a big following and is somehwat like a web. I have made the article about it's creator because he's someone who has released music publicly - if it's going to be deleted then I shall change it to be just about the website. I have spoken to Y.Misdaq aka Yoshi before, but am not a friend nor is he aware I am making this page. I believe it to have value because the site is influential in many ways. One has to experience it to know this.

Thanks, J,

• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since neither the subject nor the website have significant coverage Out There, as far as I can tell. Just zis Guy you know? 14:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 22:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. --SpencerTC 22:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, per WP:CSD A7. Some websites and corporations are listed on Wikipedia, although their founders are not. Re-tagged. If the author disputes the tag, a seperate discussion can be held on the talk page. --SYCTHOS^talk 23:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not a speedy (he has asserted that he released two albums, which is enough to avoid that CSD) but it's unverifiable. Stifle 13:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by consensus and consent of author. Friday (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried deleting this via WP:XD, but the author reverted it and insists that because he plans to go to film school next year, his film company needs an article. But, it's really just some guy with a camcorder, there's nothing verifiable or significant here. However, since he insists on Afd, here we are. Friday (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I'm not just a guy with a camcorder, and I am going to film school next year (Columbia in Chicago, which is a highly accredited art school). The person trying to delete my page has no idea who I am, so he can't accurately judge me. Until he has actually met me, he cannot say for a fact who I am, or that I'm "just some guy with a camcorder". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.12.222.203 (talk • contribs) .

I suppose I've been rude. I'm sorry. This is not meant to be any judgment on the quality of your films. But, you're right, I have no idea who you are. And, since there don't appear to have any reliable sources talking about your work, I have no way of knowing who you are or what you do. It's for exactly this reason that your film company does not belong in an encyclopedia. We get articles about garage bands and amateur filmmakers all the time, and we don't consider them significant or verifiable enough for inclusion. This is not meant to be a judgment on your work, it's simply a judgment about what does or does not belong in an encyclopedia. No offense is intended. Friday (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CORP. As above: the only thing being judged is notability; and with 0 Google hits [8], this article qualifies as non-notable. bcasterline^talk 03:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CORP and probably WP:OR. I visited the delgripofilm home page and the hit counter read "21", though that may be incorrect. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 04:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My film company will not pop up on any search engine because I don't want to pay to have it listed. I don't care anymore, delete the page. I just wanted my page on wikipedia so I could gain more notice since wikipedia is used by many people. And since I don't have to pay anything to get an article on wikipedia, I liked the idea of it. I don't have tons of money to spend just so I can get recognized. My previous abbrasivesness was, somewhat, uncalled for. I hope you understand what I've tried to say, and my intentions.

• Sorry, we're not the yellow pages. Strong delete.--み使い Mitsukai 04:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I know, back off now.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as rewritten. -Splash^talk 20:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to serve no purpose; links to French articles go nowhere Jim62sch 03:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sulfur 05:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that the content has changed. Sulfur 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails to establish context or importance. Link to OMR goes to a disambig page, Interwiki articles at fr: do not exist. JIP | Talk 10:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. JIP | Talk 08:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks context; might change my mind if some were added. --Cymsdale 12:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain Removing my delete vote after article change. --Cymsdale 14:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

I have now rewritten the article to be about two uses of timing mark, one being on an engine flywheel, the other being on an OMR sheet. I won't vote since it's now "my" content. Just zis Guy you know? 14:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & redirect to top dead centre. -- Krash (Talk) 22:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the rewrite. Stifle 13:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Vaughan City Council. Although there appears to be no overall consensus it looks to me as if the parties that are most interested feel that a redirect is the best compromise. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be deleted because it is a promotional page for a nn person. The top 3 Google hits for Alan Shefman are: the same Shefman's home page for his company, the Vaughan Ward 5 homepage, and this article. It doesn't help that his son is the main content editor, as per history. MSJapan 03:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No Vote Fine, I have a conflict of interest here so I won't vote. That being said, we have already agreed in the past that all members of Vaughan Council are entitled to Wiki articles. I strongly encourage people to vote down this AfD as we are already in the process of adding the articles for other Vaughan Council Members. pm_shef 05:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Shefman (second nomination) came down to a keep, after the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Shefman was shut down due to an utterly absurd and out-of-control partisan bickering match that rather closely resembled what's beginning to unfold at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchik (and I wouldn't be overly surprised if that one involved some of the same people). Although I understand that not everybody is convinced that city councillors deserve articles, actual AFD precedent has tended to favour the view that they do...and I'm less than eager to start up a debate again, especially on an article that's already gone through this process and survived. I have to say speedy keep, if only on the grounds that there's no valid reason to revisit this yet again. And, frankly, I strongly suspect that the sole reason this was nominated at all was as a payback shot against pm_shef — there's no other conceivable reason for this to happen now. Bearcat 05:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not even Canadian, nor do I live there, and it's interesting that you ascribe this to a personal motive, because that tells me there's something going on that maybe shouldn't be, 'especially' since there's seems ot be a whole group on WP concerned with Vaughan politics, if the other AfDs are any indication. Anyhow, I happened to come across the name "pm_shef" on a talk page, clicked on it because it looked interesting, saw that said Shefman wrote an article about another Shefman, looked at the article, surmised the relationship (and was proven correct), saw non-notability and a conflict of interest, and thus requested the AfD. MSJapan 05:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be correct that there's something going on that shouldn't be. Review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchik (and the constant vandalism of Talk:Simon Strelchik today by multiple brand-new editors) if you need background. See also past partisan foolishness at Susan Kadis. There's clearly some axe-grinding going on; for what it's worth, my interest in the discussion is limited to the fact that I'm a Wikipedia administrator who was involved in sorting all the bullshit out last time. Bearcat 05:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete to the entire City of Vaughan if it will end this endless debate on their no-name, non-notable city councillors. --Dogbreathcanada 05:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• IDEA-- perhaps instead of going through these AfD's every 3 months, we consolidate. We could get rid of the individual Vaughan Councilor pages and create one big Vaughan City Council page similar to Hamilton City Council, we could also expand that format, annotating the members names with short paragraphs detailing their previous career. There's even a Category for it Canadian City Councils. This probably isn't the place to have the discussion... but it could make everyone's lives a lot easier. pm_shef 05:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability is good enough for me given positions with City Council, School board, library board, Human Rights League, and Ontario Commission on Whatnot. -Joshuapaquin 06:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per precedent of prior AFD. And no, we shouldn't have a page for the Council, as we wouldn't be able to properly talk about non-council activity in such an article. Also, there's no precedent for every member Vaughan Council either. Also, generally, people wishing to do a renom, really need to give a good new reason. --Rob 06:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per previous debates. - SimonP 06:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable. Per WP:BIO WP:BLPand precidents, this is not a notable nor national office. Local officials are not inherently notable, and this person not notable for other reasons. Can anyone guess how many similar people there are in just English speaking countries?Obina 10:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since city councillor is well below the levels per WP:BIO and there is no evidence of any other claim to notability. Obina is right on the money. Just zis Guy you know? 14:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, if only in the name of the most basic fairness and because nominating this article for the third time in three months is excessive when the two previous consultations showed strong consensus for keeping the article. The first consultation showed 7 keep and 0 delete (discouting the anonymous user who voted four times) and the second showed 10 keep and 2 delete. I understand there's no limit to this and people can merrily continue to put up the same article for deletion again, and again, and again, and get their point on their thirty-sixth attempt when they have exhausted everyone. I also understand that the nominator was acting in good faith and seems to not have initially realized that this particular case had already been discussed at length and settled. Note that I have no particular interest in this debate and before today I had never even heard about the city of Vaughan. Actually, on the general principle I would agree with the nominator's reasoning, if we were to discuss a general rule or guideline. The mere fact for someone to be or to have been a city councillor is not in itself much of a claim to notability unless it is accompanied by some notable elements. But at the present time, the choice of this particular article for target in order to make a point is especially ill-chosen and especially unfair. People have actually been doing work in good faith in application of the previous decisions on this very case. Changing the decision now on a whim would be a waste of time both for the people who did that work and for the participants to the AfD discussions and would be detrimental to the trust and the cooperative spirit of the community. Therefore, if someone feels like proposing in the appropriate forums a discussion for explicit guidelines on the matter, let's do that, it's a good idea. Then we'll act according to whatever guidelines will have been agreed upon and for all similar articles. But until then, let's leave this article alone, there is no reason to single it out. It has earned some respite. Asclepias 03:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the last argument is fair. Two previous yes votes should settle the matter once and for all. Jameswilson 04:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SimonP. Ardenn 21:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am torn on the concept of city councillors being notable enough for articles, but it seems to me that any city larger than Prince Edward Island should be entitled to pages for its councillors as no one would question the notability of members of the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island. - Jord 22:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AfD precedent. Mangojuice 16:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong vote for Redirect to Vaughan City Council. This solution seems reasonable to the involved parties. It's too bad this all had to happen here on AfD: an example of when process fails us, maybe. It does seem a shame to lose all the information in this article, though, so I hope the article will simply be changed to a redirect rather than deleted. Mangojuice 14:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Please note continued blanking by user:70.29.239.249 - pm_shef 01:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This man is NOT notable. The Mayor of Vaughan has 2 or 3 sentences, though a veteran of Vaughan Council for 21 years; the local Councillor Alan Shefman, chosen in a by-election 13 months ago, has 2 pages.

Why? Because Alan Shefman's son is pm_shef and he is a staunch Liberal. Why do councillors Mario Ferri and Sandra Yeung Racco have two pages (before I shortened them today) and councillors Linda Jackson, Joyce Frustaglio, Peter Meffe, Tony Carella and Bernie di Vona have two lines? Because both Ferri and Racco are proclaimed Liberals, and everybody else is not; even Racco's spouse, Mario Racco, is a Liberal MPP. And being a Liberal seems to be the criteria for receiving glorified, self-promotional encyclopedia listings in Vaughan. And help from pm_shef .

To the admin reviewing this article, I plead with you - for the sake of objectivity, of encyclopedic integrity, remove this article and place it among the heap where over 5000 other councillors of Ontario are confined. *Delete VaughanWatch 04:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then expand the other councillors' articles, sunshine. Nobody here has a responsibility to do the work for you; if you think something needs to be expanded, then expand it yourself. The only reason this guy has a longer article than the others is because somebody who knows something about him took the time to write it, not because anybody thinks he deserves special treatment. So if you know something about Joyce Frustaglio and Linda Jackson and Peter Meffe and the others, write them up. Bearcat 05:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Bearcat. The point is that these profiles should not be expanded. I don't think it should be deleted, however, I believe it should be scaled back to a couple sentences. 70.29.239.249 05:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a maximum length restriction on articles. The only two choices available are "the article can be as long as it needs to be to cover what's encyclopedic about this topic", or "the article doesn't belong here at all". There's no provision for "this person can have an article, but they're not important enough to permit it to be longer than two lines". If they're not important enough to warrant whatever length of article can be written about them without dipping into trivia, then they shouldn't have articles at all.

Whether city councillors deserve articles or not has been a point of contention on AFD, with decisions in both directions. But it's not within your authority to dictate how long of an article these councillors deserve or don't deserve; they either get as long an article as somebody feels qualified and able to write, or they get nothing. Them's the rules. Bearcat 06:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is their a process to remove biased administrators? 70.29.239.249 06:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're alleging that an administrator has behaved in a biased manner, you can directly address your allegations with them. Otherwise, you can kindly stop with the ad hominem attacks and start providing specific details about what specific content you're actually disputing. Bearcat 06:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification Basically, theirs two choices, either all incumbents and candidates articles should be deleted or all kept. No in betweens. I vote Keep but if one is deleted then they all should be Deleted both incumbents and candidates.--Eyeonvaughan 06:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal incumbents, maybe; Wikipedia precedent on that question has been mixed. Municipal candidates, however, absolutely do not merit encyclopedia articles. Bearcat 06:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is their consensus for the following: pm_shef the author of this article and the son of the subject, along with MSJapan and Mangojuice have suggested one central page, like Hamilton City Council, that should store all Council information. I have just created such a page: Vaughan_Council.

Here is what pm_shef has to say about this *Idea: "perhaps instead of going through these AfD's every 3 months, we consolidate. We could get rid of the individual Vaughan Councilor pages and create one big Vaughan City Council page similar to Hamilton City Council, we could also expand that format, annotating the members names with short paragraphs detailing their previous career. There's even a Category for it Canadian City Councils. This probably isn't the place to have the discussion... but it could make everyone's lives a lot easier."

We would then *Delete this page and add it to Vaughan_Council.

VaughanWatch 07:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If people would agree to the deletion of all individual vaughan councillor articles (excluding the mayor) as well as candidate articles (which shouldn't be there in the first place), then I'll go along with that (since it was my idea anyways). pm_shef 16:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As far as I can tell, fails these two applicable WP:BIO criteria: (1)Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature; (2) Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 18:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per consensus on election talk page. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete No claim of notability; council member for Ward 5 is not one. . I may well express the same opinion on the other articles. Septentrionalis 19:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok again it looks like we have consensus for deleting this page and all councillor pages except the mayor, but including councillor information on Vaughan_Council. Am I right? VaughanWatch 20:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged them all for deletion per Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion. If there is a consensus, no further action will need to be taken and the pages will be deleted in five days. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I tagged the councillors Ohnoitsjamie missed, all vaughan councillors (except the mayor) have now been tagged for WP:Prod and we can make the single council page. Glad this could be worked out. pm_shef 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in favour of the merger; it strikes me as a positive solution to the dilemma. Bearcat 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So according to user:TenOfAllTrades we shouldn't be deleting these, but redirecting them to the new amalgamated page... something about the license. So I guess whatever admin reviews this, if it could be kept please, so that we can turn it into a redirect.. pm_shef 00:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy redirect everyone has come to a consensus that all vaughan councillorsand candidates are to be redirected. Why is this still up? when all the others has been redirected--Eyeonvaughan 04:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only an admin can end the afd early. The others had prod tags, which can be removed outside of a formal process. Anyone who is in agreement with the consensus can change their vote accordingly. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note User:Eyeonvaughan's continued blanking of a page currently undergoing AfD debate in contravention of WP policy. pm_shef 18:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Can an admin do their job and delete this thing? 70.29.239.249 20:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The admins job is to decide on the consenus view when the proper time has elapsed, there is policy for this kind of thing, and WP policy needs to be respected. pm_shef 21:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Original research. The term exists only on Wikipedia and an unmoderated mailing list, and the source is a thread from several years ago. The previous nomination got bogged down in a discussion of the merits of the criterion, which is irrelevant because it's original research and has no published source. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would rather see this be an en bloc deletion nomination that includes all Mike Ossipoff's criteria as well (with the possible exception of favorite betrayal criterion and summability criterion), otherwise I can't vote for just this single criterion for NPOV reasons. -- Dissident (Talk) 05:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi there. You are free to nominate the other pages if you believe, in good faith, that they should not remain on WP. En bloc nominations have a tendency to produce no clear consensus, since some participants will judge the entries as one while others will make individualized decisions. Hence individual noms may be preferable. Regards —Encephalon 07:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research. Few Google hits. This criterion was mentioned only in a single thread in a single mailing list. This thread is more than 7 years old. And this mailing list is unmoderated.

This article is obscure. Even the author of this article is unable to justify his statements about this criterion. Whenever he is asked to explain his claims about whether a given election method satisfies or fails this criterion, he refuses to answer and he claims that all those who don't see that he is right were dishonest and Mike Ossipoff devotees. Markus Schulze 09:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Schulze, if you don't stop with these unfounded personal attacks, then I'll be forced to start a request for comment concerning your behavior. If you simply disagree with my argument on talk:sincere expectation criterion, JUST SAY SO, but don't claim it doesn't exist. -- Dissident (Talk) 17:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete original research, possible vanity. A voting system with no academic reviews presented, actually an article about one thread on one message board some years ago proposing something which clearly never caught on. Just zis Guy you know? 13:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JzG. Pavel Vozenilek 15:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 18:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable original research. -- Krash (Talk) 22:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Hope this helps build the consensus that was lacking last time. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm persuaded by rspeer's comments here and in the DRV. —Encephalon 07:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nn, advertising. Out of 512 possible hits on Google, item only has 1, an indexing directory which has archived this particular article. Anything else is likely mirrors of this article. み使い Mitsukai 04:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No real releases, website doesn't exsist, per nom --lightdarkness ^(talk) 04:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sulfur 05:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article was last edited in April 2005, and the upcoming web site doesn't exist. If it's only popular in the area of Rosario City, then it probably doesn't meet Wikipedia's test of importance. --Elkman 05:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advert. --Cymsdale 12:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as any fule kno, ravioles is the English plural of "raviole", the singular of "ravioli". Or something. Just zis Guy you know? 14:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT. -- Krash (Talk) 22:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as either copyvio or unwanted. -Splash^talk 20:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does does not seem notable enough for inclusion, references in the article seem to be to others whose identity is not established in the article (Lee, is this General Lee?). I did not WP:PROD As I realsize this is debatable. SailorfromNH 04:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep magistrate, judge and representative in the State Assembly, notable. Blue520 05:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as unsigned poster below points out is copyvio Blue520 06:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete article is copyvio [9] (forgot to sign) Sulfur 06:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This unfortunately cannot be speedied as it is beyond the time limit. If it weren't copyvio, I would support keeping and expanding. As it is a copyvio, it should be deleted unless the copyright problems are sorted out. It has been reported as a copyvio. Capitalistroadster 09:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete copyvio. No judgment on the subject. Just zis Guy you know? 14:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave to WP:CP. Stifle 13:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advert for a startup company. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per CBW. I went to AFD it and you were already there! :) (Note, deleting this will orphan Image:Tec42logo.png.) FreplySpang (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I dont see this as an advertisement. It was very informative about water cooling, helped me out a lot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.162.58.214 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 25 February 2006.
• Bummer, theres no "cite this article" link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.162.58.214 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 25 February 2006.
• water coolings the bizomb, someones reading too much into this shiz. MarryPoppins(Talk) 04:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.162.58.214 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 25 February 2006.[reply]
• Um. too close to call on advertising, i say leave it for a few days.DUkeofPete(Talk) 05:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• God, this screams "advertising" so much that it's not funny. Strong delete.--み使い Mitsukai 04:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note this edit by 69.162.58.214 to remove a delete comment. Also this edit to forge MarryPoppins signature. Also the only edits by 69.162.58.214 and DUkeofPete at this time are to this article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 2nd comment User 71.162.37.175 only edits were two to this AfD, five attempts to linkspam the TEC42 website and one rather odd edit.
• Wow, you guys sure get down to business. TEC42 is my company and I posted this article. I dont know much else to say about it so I am sorry you feel it is advertising. I will continue to revise it tonight and hopefully by tommorrow I will have something more acceptable?Slopigyo(Talk) 0:31, 25 February 2006
• Yeah, clean it up a bit, I don't think we should delete it right away anyhow, appears someone out there likes it.. Sl33pingRules 05:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)User's only edit, quelle surprise --Calton | Talk 05:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not meet WP:CORP. --Hetar 05:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:CORP, and the obvious sockpuppeting ain't helping. --Calton | Talk 05:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks fot the help, and that is not me. You dont have to believe me but I think I know who it is. A friend of mine who finds the internet a playtoy. Slopigyo(Talk) 2:11, 25 February 2006
• Delete as advertising. The article goes on about how hip and cool the company is, but without previous knowledge, I find it hard to find out what the company actually does. JIP | Talk 11:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looks like vanispamcruftisement to me :-) Just zis Guy you know? 14:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:VSCA. -- Krash (Talk) 22:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete due to lack of context (CSD A1). Tagged. Sockpuppets are also tagged (with 69.162.58.214 as the sockpuppeteer, not Slopigyo, as the latter did not vote on the AfD). --SYCTHOS^talk 00:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Never mind after reading above comments. I will re-consider the speedy delete when the new version is published. --SYCTHOS^talk 00:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nn, advertising. Google only logs 721 hits (many of which are mirrors) for "Egg Box Publishing". Alexa doesn't have it ranked. み使い Mitsukai 04:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB --Cymsdale 12:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:WEB (and the Alexa rank, come to that) are surely irrelevant, since this article is about a publisher, not about a website. AndyJones 14:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete probably vanity/ad. First book quoted is The Zoo Keeper which has an unimpressive 900k Amazon UK sales rank (see here). (About the same as my book, come to think of it. Oh dear.) Anyway, notability not established, for me. AndyJones 14:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Just zis Guy you know? 14:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PJM 17:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. -- Krash (Talk) 22:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Shanel as recreation of deleted material and CSD A7. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 05:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. Probably vanity Joelito 04:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as non-notable bio (CSD A7). –Sommers ^(Talk) 04:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy this same article was deleted last week. Xtra 05:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the fandom around this is hardly significant for it's own article, let alone to define a term found in it. The information pretty much seems useless, so I don't think a merge with other fanfiction type articles would be appropriate either. Ned Scott 05:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. fancruft, pure and simple.--み使い Mitsukai 06:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fancruft. JIP | Talk 11:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Fancruft should be (at best) a secondary factor for deletion. The appear to be minor characters, so they should probably be merged into the main Digimon article per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters. --Cymsdale 12:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but this is likely non-canonical, which tends to be a consideration. Note one of the terms used: seme, a term from yaoi fanfiction, which is almost always non-canon. This is likely nothing more than some rabid fangirl trying to get attention for her favorite "pairing". I have no problem with the individual characters having their own slots here, but that's a far cry from this.--み使い Mitsukai 15:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it was non-canonical, that would convince me. I don't know enough about the source material to know. --Cymsdale 15:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

they are "not minor character", though. They're two of the main characters in Digimon Adventure, and play a sizeable role in Digimon Adventure 02. Circeus 23:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing my vote for merge. I don't know enough about the topic to judge. --Cymsdale 23:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, definite fancruft. Circeus 19:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as indiscriminate, unimportant fancruft. -- Krash (Talk) 22:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are so very many Foo-Bar pairing neologisms and they are so transient that it is far beyond WP's scope to cover them all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it goes anywhere, it'd be under "fan interpretation" in the appropriate series article. Circeus 00:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And promptly be deleted from that series article as speculation/fanfic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think NPOV discussion of the fandom (i.e. the whole pairing debates in this case)would be inappropriate. Circeus 00:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see a problem with that either, if covered in a general sense. But under a seperate article for one pairing alone? That's opening the door to all kinds of chaos.--み使い Mitsukai 01:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Definitely. That's the whole reason I voted delete too ;-) Circeus 01:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think NPOV discussion of the fandom (i.e. the whole pairing debates in this case)would be inappropriate.
          Agreed, but some case would have to be made that this is a common or significant pairing in the fandom; after all, every character ever has been paired up with another character in the same (or another) fandom at least a dozen times. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. BS and Rubbish. - plau

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A list of highway exits. That's it. Wikipedia not being a list of indescriminate information, I say toss this. Was PRODed, but tag removed on the grounds "...exit lists encouraged, per WP:IH". WP:IH is not policy nor even guideline: it's Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways, and the "encouragement" is a single sentence inserted into it. Calton | Talk 05:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I agree -- Ned Scott 05:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Useless list, see WP:NOT. --Hetar 05:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There's some WP policy that mentions not including bus stations and this is along that line, although there are an awful lot of insignificant train stations that have entries as a result of a WP project on trains. Schizombie 06:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless list. Can you not use a map for the same information? I don't believe that this list would be useful to a researcher, nor that the justification on WP:IH is valid.  (aeropagitica)  09:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I was gonna vote merge, 'til I read the I-95 article and found the relevant information encouraged in WP:IH (bulleted list of intersections with other Interstates and Major roads) is already there. Change vote as per info from Rschen below, to Keep Jcuk 10:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually, if you read further down, you will find that exit lists are encouraged. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Information is too cumbersome to work into the article on I-95 itself. A single article with the content is a preferable solution to splitting the content across 15 articles for I-95 in each constituent state. List is useful to a researcher; many maps do not provide this information readily. Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents says that this type of article should not be created, but due to the length of I-95, splitting the exit list off of the main article and into its own article is an appropriate and limited exception. C.Fred 13:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. They still sell maps, as far as I know. PJM 17:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP is not Mapquest. Fan1967 17:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's long enough for its own article, and it's a pain to split it up among the individual Interstate 95 in New York and similar pages. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per C.Fred. Comment. In its current state, the information is not particularly useful. However, if at some point the article includes a map of the road, and presents itself in an intuitive format, this information could become useful. Section-ifying the article and improving the data format would be a good start.  Cdcon  18:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways#Exit lists. Format properly please. -- Krash (Talk) 22:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move exit lists in to the seperate "Interstate 95 in (state)" pages. The Maine list on here is two years out of date anyway. Kirjtc2 00:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and if information is out of date, please correct it. Do not merge; the purpose of lists is to keep this information separate from main articles. Lists of this sort function as appendixes, an important and valuable function in reference works. Fg2 01:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but article needs improving badly. More information on what county/town the exit is in, its mile point, anything notable about the area the exit serves, etc. Polaron 02:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the point has been raised repeatedly, yes, the article needs significant attention: formatting, adding location information (county/city), mile marker numbers, (old exit numbers for GA, FL, etc.?).... The original author is continuing to go ahead with the raw data entry. Once this discussion clears, then we'll be going in and formatting, sorting, expanding, and otherise getting the data into final form. --C.Fred 07:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very badly formatted; should be split among states like Interstate 95 in New Jersey. Redirect to Interstate 95 without a merge. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A single redirect, or a list of "the exit lists can be found on the following pages," so they're one click away and not two? —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either way, it's a single click. The mileage table can have direct links to the state pages like on U.S. Route 30. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the page on the highway, at best. Getting seriously close to violating Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle 11:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Split into sub-pages per state and format per Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways. Mangojuice 16:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original fan material CNichols 06:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• And the fancruft keeps on coming! Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 06:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright,that's enough! Listen,I'm the author of this page and I just wanted to show this to my friends tommorow at their sleep over! Besides,I'm so lazy,this is probably the busiest night I've ever worked! So please, wait two days. Thank you. Oh, and Don't delete-Cptmike

• Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. - CNichols 06:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh,please! As Bender Bending Rodregiuez would say, "Not a free host,blog, or webspace provider, my ass!". OK,so it isn't any of those things,but still,can't you wait like, two days? Cptmike

Cptmike, feel free to copy the content of your article over to your user page. Then you can show that to your friends. --Xyzzyplugh 07:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is merely a discussion that will go on for a week. After the week is over, an interested admin will try to determine the consensus. However, do not remove the afd tag from the article. happy editing. TheRingess 07:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, Xyzzyplugh, how do I do that? Cptmike
  • If you click on your own name (at the end of the last sentence you typed, there), this will open up your user page, where you can enter any text you like. --Xyzzyplugh 07:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh,wait,today's the sleep over! OK guys! Sometime this afternoon,K? I'll show it to em' then you can feel free to delete it. Cptmike
• Delete obviously, given the above. Just zis Guy you know? 14:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Miscalculation! I haven't left yet! Leave it!Cptmike

• Speedy Delete Plenty of free websites to post material to show your friends. If exceptions are made for this, then everybody and their granny will want to have page to show their friends too. Green Giant 02:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nn, advertising. Alexa gives it a rating of 2.5M, Google hits for McDev McDaniel Development only garners 416 hits. Lastly, page has not been touched since 23:03, 22 April 2005, when it was created. み使い Mitsukai 06:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable website, WP:WEB violation.  (aeropagitica)  09:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Just zis Guy you know? 14:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PJM 16:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. Punkmorten 14:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, google search on this term suggests that article is factually innacurate Xorkl000 06:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Google search [10] suggests that it's legitimate, not a hoax. bcasterline^talk 06:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Not only referencing BCaster's google notes, but note that it was referenced on other pages, such as the Arc of the Covenant, to quote:

The first chapter of the Mishnayot describes the vessels that were hidden - including the Ark of the Covenant and the Tabernacle of the Lord, i.e. the Mishkan, the Tablets of Moses, the altar (with cherubim) for the daily and seasonal sacrifices (the ushebtis), the Menorah (candelabra), the Qalal (copper urn) containing the Ashes of the Red Heifer (ashes from a red cow sacrificed under Moses, necessary for ritual purification of the priests), and numerous vessels of the Kohanim (priests).

Better justifications than simple Google searches will probably turn up more, but this is very notable regardless.--み使い Mitsukai 08:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, agreed that it is notable and should stay, however still poorly written and lacking in context - can we send to cleanup?--Xorkl000 09:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep inaccurate? Quite possibly. Notable? For sure. Yes, send to cleanup. Just zis Guy you know? 14:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• To cleanup it goes. Punkmorten 14:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Non-notable. Googling for one of the Album resulted in only 67 pages. Wikipedia Page was created one year back and has only one edit from anonymous user.. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Searching for this doesn't convince me that it meets WP:MUSIC, though I am willing to reconsider vote if verification/evidence to the contrary is presented. (Alternatively, redirect to Kobayashi Maru? Nah... :P) --Kinu ^t/_c 07:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 17:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 01:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing worth merging with Al-Qadr Xorkl000 06:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. PJM 17:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does nothing to aid a reader's understanding of the word Green Giant 01:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — advocacy with no critical analysis. — RJH 02:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with redirect to Qadar (if you look at the author's note, "(Qadr (destiny) is one of the six articles of Islamic faith)" it's a reference to Qadar), or a disambiguation page for Qadar and Al-Qadr Schizombie 04:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 01:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Quidditch. -Splash^talk 20:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally useless except for select Harry Potter maniacs who honestly have nothing better to do than to look into the history of a fictitious event of a magical sport from some children's book. Seriously, why isn't "Battle of Honour" from Romance of the Three Kingdoms the novel an article? JK Rowling's idea of the world cup probably came up after watching football's world cup, and getting a rush of feeling that it should be created for Quidditch too. Delete. Colipon+(T) 06:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete However, why was the page for it blanked? Schizombie 06:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 07:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to either Quidditch (this topic should be treated there, at best) or Harry Potter: Quidditch World Cup (the video game)... take your pick. This seems like a reasonable search phrase, so it's worth the cheap-and-easy. An article about this one event seems like Pottercruft, however. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Quidditch. While you're there, merge information into the "Fictional History" section, eliminate the speculation on the dating error. -- Saberwyn 08:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Quidditch or the Goblet of Fire. Not that I've read them, you understand, it's for my kids... Just zis Guy you know? 14:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Quidditch. Should definitely be redirected. Guy: Well I have read them and their great. But in my defense, when I first began reading the series I was a child around Harry's age. --Jelligraze 14:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The autograph-hunter's invariable protestation: "it's for my wife/kids/friend/mother/whatever". Of course I've read them all multiple times! How can I not, with two school-age sons? Just zis Guy you know? 18:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Quidditch. --Terence Ong 15:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Saberwyn -- Waggers 22:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong redirect to Harry Potter: Quidditch World Cup which should dab back to Quidditch anyway. This is also the common name of a (terrible!) real-life video game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A simple redirect to Quidditch is all thats needed. I think an aggressive call for deletion is a bit over the top, as is the uncalled for baiting of Harry Potter Fans which somewhat lacks civility. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Quidditch. --Optichan 18:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Quidditch, then merge Quidditch into Harry Potter, redirect Quidditch to Harry Potter and fix the double redirect for Quidditch World Cup to point to Harry Potter. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. I'd happily support User:Doug Bell's suggestion if he's willing to do it! --kingboyk 19:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is for Quidditch World Cup not for the main Quidditch article, so any such suggestions about merging articles, that are not part of this AfD process, should be done on the relevant articles talk page as per normal Wiki procedures. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 23:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, important event in the Goblet of Fire book. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually I think the Quidditch World Cup was only put in the GoF for two reasons: 1. There is no other Quidditch match in GoF thanks to the Triwizard Tournament, 2. It allows the reappearance of the dark mark, which unites Voldemort with his Deatheaters, in an eerie situation for all to see which inevitably creates a very dramatic scene of chaos. From what I can tell the Quidditch World Cup was equivalent (in length & importance to the story) to that of any other Quidditch game played in the other HP novels. Granted in the HP world it is a very important event, but in the story itself it equates to all other Quidditch events. --Jelligraze 16:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Quidditch — maybe make a new section — and dablink to Harry Potter: Quidditch World Cup. Hermione1980 23:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Quidditch Dalf | Talk 03:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything useful (there doesn't seem to be much) and redirect to Quidditch. --Deathphoenix 04:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Quidditch, per WP:CRUFT. Stifle 11:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original fan material - CNichols 06:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Kill the fancruft!--み使い Mitsukai 06:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete more fancruft Just zis Guy you know? 14:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mmmm....crufty-licious. PJM 16:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete for similar reasons as Ryku_Uchiha below. Green Giant 02:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original fan material CNichols 06:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• And the fancruft keeps on coming! Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 06:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright,that's enough! Listen,I'm the author of this page and I just wanted to show this to my friends tommorow at their sleep over! Besides,I'm so lazy,this is probably the busiest night I've ever worked! So please, wait two days. Thank you. Oh, and Don't delete-Cptmike

• Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. - CNichols 06:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh,please! As Bender Bending Rodregiuez would say, "Not a free host,blog, or webspace provider, my ass!". OK,so it isn't any of those things,but still,can't you wait like, two days? Cptmike

Cptmike, feel free to copy the content of your article over to your user page. Then you can show that to your friends. --Xyzzyplugh 07:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is merely a discussion that will go on for a week. After the week is over, an interested admin will try to determine the consensus. However, do not remove the afd tag from the article. happy editing. TheRingess 07:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, Xyzzyplugh, how do I do that? Cptmike
  • If you click on your own name (at the end of the last sentence you typed, there), this will open up your user page, where you can enter any text you like. --Xyzzyplugh 07:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh,wait,today's the sleep over! OK guys! Sometime this afternoon,K? I'll show it to em' then you can feel free to delete it. Cptmike
• Delete obviously, given the above. Just zis Guy you know? 14:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Miscalculation! I haven't left yet! Leave it!Cptmike

• Speedy Delete Plenty of free websites to post material to show your friends. If exceptions are made for this, then everybody and their granny will want to have page to show their friends too. Green Giant 02:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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