< March 25 March 27 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

March 26[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Havana Affair[edit]

Delete, blatant vanity page. Originally ((prod))ded by Ohnoitsjamie, prod tag removed by author Ward k without explanation. Royboycrashfan 23:49, 25 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 00:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Shokoloff[edit]

Almost certainly hoax. No Google hit on neither English or Russian name (there is unrelated Russian emigre composer Ivan Sokolov, living in France, the Soviet composer of such prominence that he influenced Stravinsky as claimed in [1] would certainly be known at least to the Russian section of Internet. Both book references appear to be bogus abakharev 00:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment for closing admin: note that a duplicate of this article also exists at Shokoloff. Tying it to this AfD now. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 11:59, 26 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 00:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nihau[edit]

Is this a joke? Created by an anonymous user (with quite a bit of past vandalism) about 10 months ago, this article claims to be about a Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame player who hit 741 home runs. I don't know Japanese, but he's not on the list of players in the Hall of Fame, and he's not mentioned in the Japanese Baseball article in my 1995 edition of Total Baseball (which has biographies of twenty or so Japanese greats). I smell a hoax. Andrew Levine 00:34, 26 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 01:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Key to the Living/The Key to the Dead[edit]

I'm really not sure about this. It sounds believable, but I can't find any reference to any of it anywhere on the internet, which leads me to think it's a hoax. Also, it's the author's only contribution and his/her userpage says "Jest R Wicked is a Frustrated Writer of Dark Children’s Books." I'd like to be proved wrong, but I suspect it's not true. Cherry blossom tree 00:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On re-evaluation, I am not going to vote either way. +Hexagon1 (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On re-re-evaluation, a keep. Authors often do research into old folk tales that may not be very common. Contact the author perhaps? +Hexagon1 (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep can be sort of a less-known folk tale or similar, which can be found in old books. But I must admit, the story is gripping. --Soumyasch 10:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand that it's a myth, but I can't find any reference to any of it, anywhere on the internet. I'd love to keep it if there's a way of establishing that it is a real myth, rather than something the user in question has just made up.--Cherry blossom tree 11:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's wait for a response from the author, if we don't get any then delete it is. +Hexagon1 (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I quite agree. Even if the response comes after this has closed I doubt anyone would object to undeleting it if there were references to add.--Cherry blossom tree 12:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response About ten years ago or so I was working in the secured Unit of and old Long Term Care Hospital and came amazingly upon two sisters whom suffered from Alzheimer’s. They BOTH however told me on separate occasions the story as related to them by their supposed Gypsy Traveler Mother. Their mother had apparently learned of the myth by way of a man claiming to be of the O'Tool linage, and was still carrying the curse of his ancestors. I apologize for not having any verifiable online information to make the story more credible, but it comes to me from more of a verbal history and is such an amazing one that I just had to include it. jestrwicked 17:03, 29 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 01:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ircrobots[edit]

Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB and is horribly written. discospinster 01:08, 26 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. JeremyA 01:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cttv[edit]

Article about a non-notable group of friends. Delete JeremyA 01:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough--it's gone. JeremyA 01:37, 26 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 01:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netviagens[edit]

Delete as non-notable non-English website; doesn't meet WP:WEB. Only 333 unique ghits. Royboycrashfan 01:31, 26 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 01:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bell & Wyatt[edit]

First, it is an advertisement. Second, it is non notable Exir Kamalabadi 01:35, 26 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 George Chisholm (musician). Mailer Diablo 02:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Chisholm (actor)[edit]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Sitcom[edit]

This is a list from another one of those trivial cheap-to-make "list of the best" TV programs - typically a collection of clips and talking heads of B or C-list celebrities. It has no real authority. Wikipedia shouldn't have an article for every "list of the best" produced out by these tv programs or by popular magazines. Bwithh 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official ratings, the show was watched by an estimated 1.5million viewers when it was first shown. In comparison, the show "Get Famous, Get Fit, Get Rich: Celebrity Fitness Videos... Exposed" on a rival channel in roughly the same time slot attracted 1.3 million viewers.

TV ratings: January 2 3 January 2006, The Guardian TV overnights: Ken Stott was an instant hit in his new role as Edinburgh detective John Rebus last night, with his first outing attracting 8.4 million viewers to ITV1. Rebus got the better of BBC1's terrestrial movie premiere, Catch Me if You Can, which attracted 6.1 million viewers and a 24% audience share between 8.30pm and 10.45pm. On BBC2 from 9pm, Victoria Coren's new factual show about the origin of popular words and phrases, Balderdash & Piffle, made a promising start, drawing 3.2 million viewers and a 12% audience share over 50 minutes. The former ITV director of programmes, David Liddiment, asked Who Killed the British Sitcom? in a Channel 4 documentary between 9pm and 10.15pm, winning 1 million viewers and a 4% audience share. Then for 100 minutes from 10.15pm on Channel 4, list show The Ultimate Sitcom grabbed 1.5 million viewers and a 10% audience share. Channel Five preyed on viewers' concerns about festive excess from 9pm, with documentary Larger than Life - Eating Themselves to Death consumed by 2.1 million viewers, a 8% audience share. On the same channel between 10pm and 11pm, another topical treat - Get Famous, Get Fit, Get Rich: Celebrity Fitness Videos ... Exposed - drew 1.3 million viewers and a 6% audience share. Critically lauded BBC4 comedy The Thick of It made a steady start on BBC2 last night, attracting 1.6 million viewers and a 7% audience share between 10pm and 10.30pm. Bwithh 22:21, 26 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 02:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pilotram[edit]

Delete per WP:WEB, non-notable. Article neglected by anonymous user since October 31. Exhibits:

Royboycrashfan 02:16, 26 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. Sango123 (e) 02:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Santa Cause: It's a Punk Rock Christmas[edit]

Contested PROD. Non-notable Christmas album. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 02:19, 26 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. Sango123 (e) 02:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strikerworld[edit]

This website is not notable enough to warrent its own article. A google search only ends up with the website itself and Alexa doesn't even have a rating for the website. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:31, 26 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 COPYVIO. Until permission is dealt with, this AfD is moot. Just because a publication is distributed for free they do not surrender their copyright to their work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splash (talk • contribs)

Statistical Analysis and Design of Integrated Circuits[edit]

This article reads like an abstract to what could be an interesting paper in an IEEE publication. It is more or less copied from a newsletter that reports recent research in the digital design field. [4] As such it contains a very well written intro, but zero development or real encyclopedic content. Furthermore, the topic is so specific and specialized to digital design EE, I can't see it ever being improved into a readily-accessible encyclopedia article. Short summary: unencyclopedic. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-03-26 02:49Z

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 02:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kos (Persian)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Khoikhoi 03:05, 26 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 speedily deleted by JesseW as a copyvio. Flowerparty■ 12:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy statements[edit]

Just excerpts from the THIMUN INSTRUCTIONAL GUIDE, that could even be copvio, and, no matter what, mere excerpts from something else don't belong in Wikipedia. A massive cleanup come make it work, but I rather doubt that. Cool3 03:14, 26 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 03:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamnadas Nandal[edit]

Hi - this article is on a non-notable person. It has been created by a relative of this person. Although I empathize with this person (made a similar article myself), I must submit it for deletion. Rama's Arrow 21:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 21:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Weak keep - asserts notability, imo and provides sources - it wd be difficult to corroborate though, since the source is a 1975 news article. Not sure if he is a relative of the contributor of the article; if the decision is to delete, it should probably be userfied. --Gurubrahma 10:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 03:22, 26 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. Mailer Diablo 03:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Light Bearer[edit]

Delete book reveve of nn novel San Saba 19:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 03:28, 26 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. Mailer Diablo 03:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Faulkner[edit]

Delete vanity page San Saba 19:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 03:33, 26 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 - Liberatore(T) 16:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Doboszenski Farmstead[edit]

Delete not notable San Saba 19:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 03:48, 26 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, but a strong suggestion to merge. Thryduulf 00:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysler_G_platform[edit]

Article cites no refrences contrary to WP:V. Doesn't conform to same standards as Chrysler K platform, for example. C3H5N3O92010 04:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Support Script[edit]

Doesn't state notability, possible WP:AUTO. External link to developer is no longer working. Terrible ghit score for a computer related search [10] Eivindt@c 04:11, 26 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, non-notable band. Sockpuppets please go home. Ashibaka tock 19:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Kills[edit]

Vanity (although well written) about a band that does not pass WP:BAND as of yet. Google turns up a lot of unrelated stuff other than their MySpace page and such. Delete. Grandmasterka 04:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete: Why be so harsh they are a good band trying to get their share of the wealth in this world.

DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 15:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kudzu Gazette[edit]

Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox or an indiscriminate collection of information (things this page seem to be.) AfD IS a forum to discuss the merits of articles though. Student publications have been an ambiguous area of notability to me and I would like to see some dicussion about it (so I brought it here instead of prodding the article), but I think this particular one should be deleted as vanity. Grandmasterka 04:39, 26 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. Sango123 (e) 05:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Day of the Birds[edit]

Probably a hoax. If the day exists at all, which it may, I doubt it exists on April 1 (April Fool's Day, of course). On the other hand, Google does show a few results that appear to be reliable - they have different dates, they don't seem to align with what the article says, but an International Day of the Birds may well exist. If it does, though, I don't think it's notable, and it should be deleted. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:44, 26 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. Mailer Diablo 08:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liaison Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International[edit]

Delete Permanent stub about a minor group that lasted for less than ten years. Violates WP:V. Article not updated since May 2005. --metzerly 08:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Article has been rewritten, in the interest of making the right decision I think this needs further consideration.W.marsh 04:48, 26 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 MERGEd to Human rights in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. -Doc ask? 14:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship in Iraq[edit]

Originally ((prod))ded by Alex Bakharev saying it "does not look like a coherent article", but the author removed it saying they were pressured to finish it. I am now brining it here. Delete as a mere excerpt from an interview and copyvio. Royboycrashfan 04:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just merged the quote to Human rights in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq and redirected. I hope it's OK for all. Raphael1 19:02, 27 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. Mailer Diablo 08:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C.E.R.E.S.[edit]

  • Should also probably be renamed to just "Ceres (coalition)" as I don't think they ever use the acronym CERES, and certainly not with the periods. Kuru talk 00:20, 27 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 to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 08:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

80 members of the parliament who voted against Vichy France[edit]

Unencyclopaedic listcruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. --Rory096 05:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Rory096 05:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing them is important, because after the war, "the opposition of these 80 people received an increased recognition" [15]. Those who didn't oppose basically killed their political career afterwards and those who opposed formed of the post-war politics. Tony Bruguier 16:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But do we really need articles for every issue that was a turnkey for every politician? --InShaneee 18:18, 27 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 08:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett Hardness Scale[edit]

Appears to be non-notable, and possibly original research. -- Filliam H Muffman 05:50, 26 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. Mailer Diablo 08:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbor Daze[edit]

nn amateur film. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 06:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I didn't vote. I consider this one right on the borderline. It is an actual film, though the odds of your ever seeing it are pretty slim. Fan1967 16:09, 26 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.--Alabamaboy 16:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allah Is in the House[edit]

Non-notable defunct blog. Gflores Talk 06:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And for what it's worth, the fact that this article is being linked to by Michelle Malkin (who has like 11.3 million Google hits), and that the person who is the subject of the article is guest-editing for her, seems to remove any question of whether or not the subject of the article is notable.--Alabamaboy 16:51, 30 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 08:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NinDB[edit]

Non notable website, makes no claims to notability. --Rory096 06:16, 26 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 both. Mailer Diablo 08:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saipacs[edit]

Nominator had made a mess of the nomination. I'm not sure it had even been orphaned. Anyway. Listing now. Also tagged Mail Manager, an associated page. Delete both. Note SaiPACS, which redirects to Mail Manager Proto||type 13:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 06:32, 26 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 08:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Corwon[edit]

Relevant policies: WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:RS

Bio-stub for a person that does not show up on Google (except as a flower show director); the supplied "sources" are not linked. PROD contested without comment. Sandstein 07:15, 26 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 08:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myth Maker[edit]

Relevant policies: WP:NOT (crystal ball, advertisement), WP:SOFTWARE [proposed], WP:VAIN

Software that is said to be "currently in development". Eminently non-notable (with no user-base) and speculative. PROD contested without comment. Sandstein 07:26, 26 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 08:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badunk[edit]

Relevant policies: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NEO, WP:VAIN.

Apparent neologism for a sexual act, no references in the article, no such (or indeed any one) meaning apparent from Google results. Judging from last paragraph, possibly some inept advertising for someone's porn films. PROD contested without comment. Sandstein 07:36, 26 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 08:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wailing Jacks[edit]

Band doesn't seem to meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. Eagletalk 07:57, 26 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 08:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario releated things[edit]

Need I even provide a reason? Unencyclopaedic fancruft. Spelled wrong. --Rory096 08:24, 26 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 08:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genderfuck day[edit]

nonnotable ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:36, 26 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 08:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ClearView[edit]

Relevant policies: WP:NOT (advertisement), WP:SOFTWARE [proposed], WP:VAIN

Flight simulator software for hobbyists. Unlikely to be notable with a forum of 55 members and 112 posts. Reads like an advertisement from the software's author. PROD contested without comment. Sandstein 09:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

skirtz I am the author of ClearView. This software allows RC entusiasts to create and share virtual rc models and flying fields. The entry is not advertizement and is only factual. The fact that the community is small not a reason to delete the page.

Sorry, but yes, it is a reason to delete the page. See our standard WP:WEB. Sandstein 20:48, 27 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 08:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Magnet Pub[edit]

Non-notable subject matter, no signficant content. Google returns only Wikipedia and directory listings. *Satis 09:50, 26 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. JIP | Talk 11:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edakupeta[edit]

This is completely irrelevant to the rest of the world... Captain Awesome 10:48, 26 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, as there's now a unanimous move to do so. Flowerparty■ 07:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molinology[edit]

Pseudo-definition already at Wiktionary with a little additional information found at Mill BigBlueFish 21:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Flowerparty■ 12:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add: the individual named in the article as having coined the term seems to have been an academic with some notability in his own right: João Miguel dos Santos Simões --BillC 14:57, 26 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. 14:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article admits to speculation (albeit with claimed proof).➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 12:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - speculation. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was thought to be GTA: TOkyo, that doesn't mean Tokyo should have had its own article. --Philo 12:24, 26 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 12:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conscripts[edit]

Non-notable band. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Claims to be "world famous" so not speediable.➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 12:25, 26 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 12:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blues(Rockman Exe)[edit]

Original research (ie written in the first person). Nonsensical (but not patent). Lacks context to a casual reader, but with time and effort you could work out what it's on about. Just misses speedy criteria on three fronts!➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 12:33, 26 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 12:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PAjax[edit]

Speedy delete. Redirects to deleted article Sleepyhead 13:22, 26 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 Speedily Deleted due to pointless replication of information already present in correctly-spelt article.  (aeropagitica)  19:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examiniation[edit]

Duplicates material better presented at Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination. -- Picapica 13:56, 26 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. Flowerparty■ 11:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kryptonsite and Kryptonisite[edit]

Both articles are identical. Proposed for deletion, but an anon objected. Article concerns a fansite for Smallville and is essentially unverifiable due to lack of any reliable third-party sources. The website is already linked from Smallville (TV series) and does not need its own article. Delete. Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seen it. That's not a third-party article about Kryptonsite, that's an interview with Al Gough. It verifies that the site exists and does interviews, and nothing else. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most fansites do not get interviews though. It might qualify as reprinting but I don't think the Hollywood North Report is notable enough. kotepho 19:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that redirects are cheap, but it seems implausible to me. It's neither phonetically similar nor an obvious typo (at least on a QWERTY keyboard). --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 22:25, 27 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. Flowerparty■ 11:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the New Jersey Devils[edit]

redundant copy from New Jersey Devils ccwaters 14:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you put it that way, I'm just trying to save us the trouble of a merge request a few days from now. Find me any other sports team that has a standalone History article. ccwaters 14:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never noticed those before. The word count of the copy in History of the New England Patriots is roughly 8600 and the copy in the related section in New England Patriots#Franchise history is roughly 2000. The Patriots are a 46 yearold team. Compare that to the 1200 word count in the 24 yearold New Jersey Devils history. I could see such an article being warranted for an original six NHL franchise, but not such a relatively young team. ccwaters 17:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Granted they are a younger franchise, but they still have an extensive history, having been one of the most dominant and respected team of the last 10-15 years. As Gene Nygaard said above, I just created the article last night, and I haven't even had substantial time to work on either article yet. Please give it some time before AfD is considered. I understand your position, but let me flesh it out. If you still think it's excessive, then AfD it in a few weeks. But don't nip it in the bud before it has a chance to get going. Even if the main Devils article doesn't reach full FA status (for one reason or another), it will still be a vast improvement over what is there now. Anthony Hit me up... 17:54, 26 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, although the debate appears to move on towards the end: this is a set of editorial decisions, however. -Splashtalk 17:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Weebl and Bob cartoons[edit]

A flash animation series. Surely one article on Weebl and Bob must be enough? Forty different articles on the episodes seem a bit much

I am also nominating all the indvidual episode entries (listes on the nominated page), that or merging SELECTED parts of them to the main article Weebl and Bob. Mackan 14:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nova SS 20:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I agree on having an article on Weebl and Bob but having each for every single episode? Basically all they contain are the scripts, if you're that into it, look at the damn cartoon, it's on the web for free and they are really SHORT and simple. Concerning the List of Simpsons episodes, I don't think I'm the only one to realise that's a completely different thing. How well known do you think the average Simpsons episode is compared to a Weebl and Bob episode?? Weebl and Bob gets 40 000 hits, which I think is enough for ONE (1) article, but flash artist Joseph Blanchette aka Legendary Frog gets 47000 hits and he almost didn't get a single entry (see listed AFD). Weebl and Bob are well known and deserve an article but not every single episode does. Also, I appreciate the work of Macromedia Flash Cartoon Collaberation but if they spend all their energy towards writing an episode list for Weebl and Bob I think they are greatly misguided. There are so many famous flash artists not represented in Wikipedia, please write about them instead. And if you do, please use the category "Flash artist" I made recently. But don't waste your time here! Mackan 01:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFD's purpose is not for us to be server administrators. I am not aware of any Wikipedia disk shortage.
The only valid reason to delete these would be non-notability, and and as you seem to agree, Weebl and Bob are notable. Also, there is not a sliding scale of notability. Either it is notable or it isn't. If it is notable, then it is allowed the same privileges of any other notable subject. How deeply it is fleshed out depends entirely on user interest and content volume. Weebl and Bob will never have the level of detail as The Simpsons, but that's mainly because there's just less subject matter. As this example episode shows, there is enough detail to be extracted from individual episodes to justify a separate article.
If it's OK for The Simpsons to have episode lists, then it's OK for WaB to have episode lists.
Nova SS 01:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There IS a "sliding scale of notability". Just because it's barely big enough to get one entry doesn't mean you can all of a sudden have 40 new about the same subject. Also, if Donkey_(Weebl_and_Bob_episode) is the best example you've got, I feel sorry for you. Besides the script there is one line ("This episode is the origin of Donkey, as well as the origin of the popular phrase "How rare!""). ""The origin of the popular phrase "How rare""??!?Mackan 02:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD is wrongheaded. Votes in favor of deletion are votes in favor of violating the policy laid out in "Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability" section of the Notability policy.[20] Also, votes in favor of deletion are votes against puppies and kittens. Do you hate puppies and kittens? Nova SS 02:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a policy (as explicitly stated on the top of the page, "This is not a policy or guideline"), that's an argument. And if you scroll up just a little bit you'll see there are also Arguments for deleting non-notable articles... which you obviously would know. Please don't throw around false accusations like that. Mackan 02:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right: it's not a policy. It's a tool, and it is a valid yardstick for this AFD.
If that's not good enough, check out Jimbo Wales's comments on fame that have strong bearing on this AFD. Also check the discussion. As long as it's verifiable, and it is, then notability is unlikely to be a valid argument for deletion.
Again, it is not our job to be sys admins. I promise: Wikipedia has enough disk space, and nobody's asking for our help in reducing disk space by deleting verifiable information.
As to your other point, please tell me which of the arguments for deletion under non-notability apply that wouldn't be fully canceled by the counterarguments.
Nova SS 03:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it's just two lists of arguments, I don't think they are fully canceled by anything, I don't think that's the nature of what they are saying. They are both just examples of what some editors think (and as it says at the top of the page, not even what most editors think).Mackan 04:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so obscure that it has its own plush dolls [21][22] and DVD[23] and a whole series has been featured on MTV UK[24]. Nova SS 01:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand what you're proposing, and it makes far more sense than deleting List of Weebl and Bob cartoons. Nova SS 03:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still proposing deleting the list, don't put words into my mouth. Well, I dunno, maybe the list could be kept but the individual episode entries are definately too much. Even the episode list seems so redundant, it seems like not even fans would care much about it.Mackan 04:20, 27 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. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pivotal Corporation[edit]

Hi - this is a promo article. Rama's Arrow 03:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From its website, there doesn't appear anything notable about this firm. Rama's Arrow 04:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article does needs substantial work. It doesn't state who started Pivotal, when CDC bought them, nor how their products are different than those of competitors, but the answer to that is to flesh out the piece and deglurge it of the puffery, not to delete it. ClairSamoht 15:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused how you can say "per nom" at this stage in the discussion? We've already established that a non-promo version of the article exists and I believe we are now voting on that. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 01:47, 31 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. This gets over the two-thirds level and the crystal-ballery arguments do seem sound. BorgHunter's comment appears to deal with another article altogether. -Splashtalk 17:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Riders 2[edit]

(My vote is Delete)The guy only said it might happen. The Game is just as planned as Sonic the Hedgehog Revolution. Ac1983fan 19:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree And I can give you a few reasons why the article should stay:

  1. Even if it is a rumor, it shouldn't be deleted until someone can bring forth evidence that the game is not being produced. (Right now all evidence points to its creation.) If not it could still be developed as a rumored game that didn't come about, like the Sonic Crackers article, and would improve Wikipedia.
  2. You can't get more definite than "definitely yes".
    [25] Speaking at a press event in London this week, Yuda-san told Eurogamer, "there will be a sequel to Sonic Riders, and it will definitely be on PS3 and Xbox 360". Definitely, we responded, parrot-like to the last? "Yes."
    Besides in the article quoted it was dependent on Sonic Riders being successful, which it has been.
  3. That "the Game is just as planned as Sonic the Hedgehog Revolution" is not concrete rationale because Sonic Riders has actually come out, unlike the PS3 and 360 editions of Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 game). (said games are dependent on advertised earlier games so mentioned.)
  4. Unless I'm mistaken, shouldn't this have been discussed on the Sonic Riders 2 talk page before adding ((afd)) like that?

--DavidHOzAu 11:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Now that this is already an article, it makes no sense to delete it only to create one once again in the future. Since Sega started to release Sonic games ever year, this game shouldn't be that far off in the future. Lord Falcon 01:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:51, 26 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. Flowerparty■ 11:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danglish[edit]

As currently written [26], this appears to be some kind of joke ("correct" versions of phrases are as incorrect as the "incorrect" versions). -- Curps 14:54, 26 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, discounting most of the 'keep' comments. Flowerparty■ 15:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norgs[edit]

Neologism. Few hits on google for this meaning--most appear to use this word as slang for breasts. Delete, and possibly redirect to Breast. JeremyA 14:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have added "critical mass" [27] and "meetup" [28] if the entries did not already exist. "Norgs" has entered the language in the same way. Many of the blogs cited are read more widely than many printed products. Carl— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.199.102 (talk • contribs)

Keep - The meaning of this word is changing by the moment, and elevating to a higher and useful purpose. I would think again before removing it because some Australians have used it childishly. If you insist, keep it singular: Norg. -- Daniel Rubin, the Philadelphia Inquirer/blinq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielrubin (talk • contribs)

  • Fan-1967, can you clarify what you mean by "widespread use"? Where is the threshold, and how is "widespread use" measured? Tattered_Matt 05:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know where you'd draw the threshold exactly, but wherever it is, "norgs" is clearly below it. I find less than 1000 google hits, half of which seem to be about breasts. Fan1967 05:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is no measurable threshold, I find it hard to understand how norgs is "clearly" below it. Tattered_Matt 07:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say there was no threshold, I said it isn't precise. IMO, a few hundred references doesn't cut remotely qualify as "widespread". Words in common usage get tens (or hundreds) of thousands of hits. This is a new word that hasn't caught on yet, and there isn't even consensus as to what it means. Fan1967 07:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While some have said the meaning of this word is changing by the moment, I would argue there is a solid definition of the word - but its implementation will change as the web changes.

"Norgs are news organizations that support "acts of journalism". This support can sometimes include legal, financial, organizational, and instuctional components in different combinations, regardless of medium. Products may include printed newspapers, websites, forums, wikis, podcasts, blogs, video, or any combination of these. As such, a Norg operates independently of format and medium, a break from how many traditional media organizations view themselves."

I've editted the Wikipedia entry to firm it up a bit - but I think Will Bunch, fairly much defined the term appropriately. It's "newness" or lack of poularity should not be a cause for deletion. Maybe for it to face Wikipedia's community for further editting - yes - as examples and implementations come along - but not deletion. -- Karl Martino, host of Philly Future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.17.32.27 (talk • contribs)

Keep - Concerning the threshold for widespread usage, is this threshold at all influenced by the authority of those making the case for it? In other words, if the term is in heavy use by executives and veterans of the field to which it applies, how relevant is this vague threshold for the Google-ability of the word? Would it be any more legitimate if two million teenagers were using it online as a slang term? If so, maybe some are misunderstanding (or overestimating?) the legitimate purpose of this site. -- Howard Hall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.174.36 (talk • contribs)

Keep - This term has been used for the last half a year by established people from the main stream media and new media. This conversation has spread from blogs to the corporate boardroom. If credibility is what some are worried about, then what do managing editors, senior writers, an editorial page editor, senior IT people of two established papers in the fifth largest city in the US bring to the table? One of the founders of Entertainment Weekly? The cooperation of an Ivy League school along with the attendence of the Dean of said school? A group of the most involved and widely read bloggers from the community? Representatives from Independent Media from two cities? Among others from across the country who could not make it to the physical unconference due to scheduling conflicts. Yes this is a new term, but as Karl noted, there does exist a solid definition and ideal behind the word. It will be an organic and changing form, but the roots are firmly in place. This term should stay and continue to grow and be edited by the wiki community as the wiki is a part of the essence of the term. Dragonballyee 21:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • protologism is defined as "A newly created word given a definition in the hope that it will be used in that sense." I would argue that what we have here is "A definition given a word by a community of experts in its domain, including members of academia, newspaper publishing, and blogging, except it hasn't taken hold in common usage yet." -- Karl Martino, host of Philly Future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by kmartino (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Your statement "except it hasn't taken hold in common usage yet" is the very heart of protologism. I have to note that just about every "Keep" comment that has been posted here reinforces the fact that this word does not fit Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Fan1967 15:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Searching for protologism on Google finds 579 hits. Searching for "+norg +newspaper" on Google finds finds 773 hits. protologism, by your definition, is a protologism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmartino (talk • contribs)
Yes, which is why you won't find any article on "protologism" in Wikipedia. (There is currently a redirect from "protologism" to "neologism", being discussed for deletion presently). Henning Makholm 16:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the entry for "protologism" to which I linked was on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Also note that it was under a subsection for wiki-specific jargon, which was created to help users acclimate themselves to the wiki environment. "Protologism" had an entry on Wikipedia at one time, but it was deleted.[29] -Colin Kimbrell 16:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find me some print media citations (physical media, not blogs), and I might be willing to change my opinion. -Colin Kimbrell 12:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am querying now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmartino (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House of Prayer Christian Church[edit]

Church in Georgia. No apparent claims to notability. Delete. DMG413 14:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc has always experienced a high attrition rate among its ministry and membership, and in 2004 they experienced a sizeable schism when a segment of their ministers withdrew and formed House of Prayer Christian Church which is comprised of military-oriented churches and based in Hinesville, Georgia. As of March 2006, the church had less than 5,000 constituents and not more than 150 churches/preaching points. However, they were ranked as the fifth most active topic thread among hundreds of religious groups on FACTNet, which is a counter-cult Internet bulletin board.
Just as the Catholic Church is not just a building in Room; the House of Prayer Christian Church is actually between 100 and 150 local churches. That’s why Google returns a page about a church in San Antonio. It also means comparing this article to an article on Westminster Abbey is misleading. This subject is not claiming to be notable because it’s a land mark, be because it’s a national organization. Seano1 19:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Pentacostal" in the intro line needs to be corrected to "Pentecostal." Thank you.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 18:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waveform on the tube[edit]

Contested Prod. Original prod by RHaworth was "badly spelled vanity: http://www.freewebs.com/dincov1 is the website of author user:Unisouth" -- Blue520 15:04, 26 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 this but Free On-line Dictionary of Philosophy remains. W.marsh 23:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOLDOP[edit]

Basically a link farm and advertising for a dictionary. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 15:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Overall Alexa rank for www.swif.it, the parent website where this is located, is #2,520,866. Fan1967 20:32, 26 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 as hoax. DS 18:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Charman[edit]

Nominating three articles: Russel Charman, a soccer team Toronto Tigers and a stadium The Tigers Den. None of this can be found on google, seems like a hoax. Can anyone find any of these? There are "Toronto Tigers" but they seem small local clubs of various sports; none seem to be on the USL First Division as claimed. Everything created by one user Charruss (talk | contribs) and defended by a handful of users with no edits outside these articles (except the random vandalism). Weregerbil 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment. Primary author for most of these is User:Charruss (talk · contribs), which implies vanity is behind all this Bucketsofg 16:45, 26 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. -Splashtalk 18:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KenyaTech[edit]

Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB was created as an attack page since some of the comments on this page were removed from another article Mike (T C) 05:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per NPOV rewrite, please close. Mike (T C) 03:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Joe 05:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If your willing to help me rewrite this with a NPOV then lets do it, i'll withdraw the nomination. But we have to be careful, everything must be documented exactly and be 100% proven from legit independent websites (ie kenyatechwatch is not independent of this article and is not a valid resource, but news articles are). Mike (T C) 23:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, will do. I'll rewrite sometime tonight or tomorrow. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:29, 26 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 MERGE to Alternative lifestyle, seems both natural and in line with the discussion following the rewrite. -Splashtalk 18:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Living[edit]

Appears to be ripped directly from a website. Icarus 07:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Article was rewritten late in the AfD --W.marsh 15:44, 26 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. This is actually difficult to close as a delete because some reasonable points are made in their defence, including the discovery of a second record. Whether this passes is WP:MUSIC is difficult to say, and Iuchiban doesn't actually offer any justification for his claims. That said, Iuchiban does not show any sign of bad-faith and I am inclined, given the material being debated and the weakness of one deleter and the admission by the nominator that he "guess[es]" it's non-notable, I'd like to see a clearer demonstration of deleteability than this. -Splashtalk 18:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unashamed[edit]

I'm guessing that this band is non-notable. It is difficult to research. If it's notable, please tell me so. --Fang Aili 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 15:57, 26 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. Things have shifted decisively since the analysis by Slowmover. -Splashtalk 18:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Hardware[edit]

This was speedy deleted as a recreation of an article previously deleted at an AfD under this title. DRV consensus judged that the recreation was substantially new, and merited undeletion. Relisting for AfD consideration was requested, so here we are. Xoloz 17:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply and revised delete vote. I thought this was a good question, so I took a careful look at the report (all data for 2004). The top 10 companies in the industry represent 53% of sales and 11% of stores. United Hardware is not in the top 10 overall. It's easy to see why. The industry is grouped according to how the stores are organized: (1) publicly held DIY stores, (2) wholesale co-operatives, and (3) wholesaler merchandising groups. Group 1 is by far the largest, with Home Depot respresenting a 30% market share of the entire industry, Lowe's is 15%, and BMHC is a distant 3rd. United is in Group 2. The top 6 listed companies in this sector (Ace, Do-it-Best, True Value, Orgill, Handy Hdwre, United Hdwre) represent only a 4% market share on a combined basis, and the first 4 are MUCH bigger than the last 2. United Hdwre by itself is 1/15th of 1% of the market. So if we looked at the market as a whole, United Hdwre would probably not even get mentioned. It just happens to be 6th from the top in a segment that is only 4% of the market. So, in conclusion, United Hardware is not really notable. I'm changing my vote to a delete, on the basis of this analysis. Slowmover 15:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I crossed out Khoikhoi's accidental second vote above. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:31, 27 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. -Splashtalk 18:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Brodnik[edit]

Non-notable Parudox 07:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have now improved the article. Mangojuice 20:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As pointed out, proceedings articles are common for computer science. As for whether the article is vanity, I wouldn't say "vanity" is the first thing that comes to mind. For some reason, Wikipedia tends to accumulate a lot of bios of Slovenians. Some of these bios are of noteworthy individuals, while some are not. Given the general lack of information in these articles, it can be difficult to tell what significance their work has, if any. This article on Brodnik is no different. There are no backlinks from articles explaining some crucial piece of his work, no indication of what his greatest theoretical advances are, etc. Thanks to Mangojuice, we at least have a selected papers section, which presumably highlights his most important papers. On the other hand, it's still a mystery why those are his most important papers or what they are about or what impact they have had. I would be much happier if this gap was fixed. --C S (Talk) 03:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:57, 26 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 don't understand the original relist: there was already a good participation.) -Splashtalk 18:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Conference[edit]

nn high school atheltic league.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 16:02, 26 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 05:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the volcano[edit]

Fancruft. Article is based on one scene from the movie You Only Live Twice. And it uses the infobox designed for real military conflict to boot. There's nothing here that can't be discussed in the movie article. 23skidoo 16:11, 26 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 05:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for the tanker[edit]

Fancruft article on one scene from the movie Mad Max 2. There's no need for this to have its own article, and it's using an infobox designed for real-life military conflict to boot. 23skidoo 16:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly disagree. Given the impact of this film upon Western culture, having an article describing the battle is certainly indicated. Furthermore, having the battle described seperately from the more conventional details of the plot serves to elucidate the idea that the film is important not only in terms of the cinematography as discussed in the main article, but also as a tactical lesson for aspiring post-apocalyptic commandos. Certainly, the tanker-scene deserves as much coverage as the Battle of the Bulge or Normandy.

68.100.8.218 20:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Andrew Christian[reply]

Sources, as requested.

(1) http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/

(2) http://www.friesian.com/existent.htm

(3) http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm

68.100.8.218 05:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Andrew Christian[reply]

12.44.12.126 12:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Andrew Christian[reply]


I don't see anyone having problems with the Star Wars battle entries, and they use infoboxes designed for real-life military conflicts to boot.--Mole Man 20:29, 26 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. -Splashtalk 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Authority figures in comedy[edit]

Shows no useful information M2K 16:19, 26 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. Mailer Diablo 05:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stir[edit]

This was a contested speedy brought to DRV; deleting admin did not oppose relisting. The rational for deletion is a failure of WP:MUSIC. Xoloz 16:50, 26 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 Redirected to Bioelectromagnetism by Nimur.  (aeropagitica)  19:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bioelectromagnetic[edit]

Subject is covered better in numerous other articles, while this article remains substandard and contains factual errors Nimur 17:05, 26 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 05:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milner madness[edit]

Doesn't seem to be about anything, seaching on Google doesn't provide any help. Jbattersby 17:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a word, I believe it's an archaic form of "milliner", a hatmaker. In this case, I suspect it's the name of one of the author's friends. Fan1967


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. It's clear that there is not a consensus to delete, but there seems to be no consensus on what else to do, so I shall do nothing. -Splashtalk 18:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Halo 2[edit]

This is totally unreasonable for the following reasons:

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The leopoldplatz collective[edit]

Doesn't seem to exist, all redlinks in article A2Kafir 18:05, 26 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 05:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intensive gathering[edit]

One contributor, who signed the article even. Extremely short, made-up topic. Has been there, unnoticed, since SEPTEMBER TonySt 18:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first article uses there term to mean a lot more then weeding, and seem to prefer the term Wild-Food Production. The second looks like it's just gathering with an adjective. Seano1 19:45, 28 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 05:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Studio8[edit]

advertisement for small business A2Kafir 18:20, 26 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 05:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lobb[edit]

This person is not, yet, sufficiently remarkable to qualify for an encyclopedia entry. Shoebert 18:25, 26 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. -Splashtalk 18:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of converts to Christianity[edit]

Unmaintanable list with no clear criteria for inclusion/exclusion. DS 18:53, 26 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. -Splashtalk 18:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden Basket[edit]

Non-notable grocery store; additionally, largely POV and unencylopedic. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:58, 26 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. -Splashtalk 18:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi Lyons[edit]

Contested proposed deletion. Non-notable pornstar. According to the article, this woman's claim to fame is having multiple men ejaculate inside her rectum on video. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 19:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, I thought the article told me way more than I wanted to know. ;-) Fan1967 21:56, 26 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 05:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Legends An Elf's Tale[edit]

Non-notable web comic Nv8200p talk 19:16, 26 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 05:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Rose Invasion[edit]

Band does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (music) at this time. Denaar 19:50, 26 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. The rewrite does not seem to have changed anything. -Splashtalk 18:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Loop (Shopping Center)[edit]

Delete NN retail location. Prod remover said, "arguably notable because growing concept and multiple locations in different regions.. debatable enough that deletion should be through debate process" - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 20:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Help me understand; how is this a new take? Kuru talk 22:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article claims that it is innovative as does press coverage such as this Boston Herald article [45]. I said it seems to be a new take, based on the replacement of an enclosed mall with a Main Street concept with outdoor plazas in a Northern location. Nevertheless, as the Methuen loop is apparently drawing a few million visitors per year, the article should probably be recentered just on that property. -- JJay 23:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not seeing anything terribly original about the design, except maybe its inclusion in a northern location. The branding concept is interesting, though (starbuckification), as is the fairly significant traffic that location is getting. I'm good with erroring on the side of inclusion. Thanks for the info. Kuru talk 03:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm not really trying to make a big argument for "uniqueness" as I was basing it strictly on the sources I found. Would be interested in seeing pictures though. -- JJay 03:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that a keep or delete? Also, as we were discussing above, the Loop has been covered extensively in the press, from the planning stages to the present. I have added one reference that was already linked above. Furthermore, would you please explain what you mean by "not encyclopedic"? If we don't know if or why someone has recomended a course of action, we can't properly evaluate it-- JJay 02:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Article has been rewritten to apply only to the one in Methuen Chitchatjf 02:47, 28 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. -Splashtalk 18:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NFHL[edit]

Non-notable fantasy hockey league. Prod tag was removed. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You never know, it might be a golden untapped market. Fan1967 20:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Count me in. I'll bring the beer. Kuru talk 21:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you help us quantify 'so many'? How many users are there? It looks like your message board is geeting about 10 posts a week - is that normal? There are less than one news items posted per month. Please don't think we're trying to shut you out; we simply have fairly strict guidelines on what is and isn't a notable website (look here for details: WP:WEB). You have every right to be proud of the site you and your friends have built - it's very nice, and very creative. We just have a limit as to what we can include here; per Mr. 1967's concerns outlined above. Kuru talk 21:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, conceivably, theoretically, such a notable fantasy league could exist, though I've never heard of one that would qualify. Regardless, this one isn't it. Fan1967 21:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very much agreed. --Deville (Talk) 21:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nick Dillinger are u from vancouver? from your profile it says your a vancouver canucks fan..im a huge one. kinda rare to find another fan on wiki

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 02:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 20 Year Internet Outlook[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Speculative supposition on the future of the internet. Wikipedia is not a bulletin board, either.➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:20, 26 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 GONE to RfD. -Splashtalk 18:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kokos[edit]

Aleksandar created this page to redirect to Constantine II of Greece. He was heavily involved in vandalism and then reversion of various pages on the Greek Royal Family and has been warned a number of times. He has performed copy/paste moves to Anne-Marie of Greece due to his POV and this page (Kokos) ought to be deleted. Charles 20:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about that... it is now here. Charles 22:54, 26 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Carelius[edit]

The prod tag was removed, nn per WP:MUSIC Deville (Talk) 21:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update:I am bundling Stefan Carelius with Aurorra Borrealis in this AfD. A Google search on the band's name returns 0 Ghits other than Wikipedia and mirrors. Seems extremely nn to me. --Deville (Talk) 21:08, 26 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 05:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pope is a Chicken[edit]

This webcomic doesn't appear to have a substantial following—it draws fewer than twenty independent Google hits: [47]. Although it has been in existence for a number of years, it is only updated 'most weeks'. For reference, I also provide a link to the 2005 archive: [48]. Delete. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:16, 26 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 per CSD A7 Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic5[edit]

This seems to me at least to satisfy the criteria for a vanity page. I don't see its relevance or usefulness. JulianDalloway 22:06, 26 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 per CSD A3. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At First Light[edit]

Only serves to link to a web page that is "under construction" and doesn't exsist yet. Denaar 22:40, 26 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. DS 04:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kampfgruppe Eminem[edit]

Probably a hoax. An anonymous editor has added a note to that effect in the article and is repeatedly trying to "delete" it by blanking, which is then reverted by various editors. No references have been given despite an ((unreferenced)) template being put there a month ago. u p p l a n d 22:40, 26 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. DS 04:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Francovitch[edit]

"...is a Great Man" the article claims, but he's not a man, he's 16. Seems to have won the awards, [51] but does that make him notable? Eivindt@c 23:42, 26 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. Has been rewritten into the topic mentioned by GeorgeBills, but not by him. -Splashtalk 18:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Abraham[edit]

is this person noteworthy enough for wikipedia? Abeneal 06:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the previous article about the student was equally speediable as ((nn-bio)). Sandstein 12:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More