< May 30 June 1 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

May 31[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: Speedy deleted by MONGO. — TheKMantalk 07:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Risen[edit]

I'm completing this AfD, from May 10, by anon user 151.201.18.20. -- Scientizzle 00:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. I found it on RC only because 64.141.56.184 had blanked it completely. -- Scientizzle
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commonist[edit]

Non Notable/unsourced -- Zanaq 22:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. User requested deletion on Hetar's talk page. (EC with BigDT) PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mynetspot.org[edit]

With an alexa rank of 4,202,034 and a google search [1] revealing 1 hit I don't think this is going to be the next myspace anytime soon. With no reliable sources and no claims to notability this subject isn't ready for a Wikipedia article yet. --Hetar 00:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Someday (I Will Understand). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over to You Now[edit]

Article has been on cleanup since December. I stumbled across it with randompage and started cleaning it up, then decided there's no way to save it. It's a song of uncertain status from a Britney Spears DVD. It's not a single, has only barely been released at all and is, as far as I can see, extremely unimportant. Tuf-Kat 23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cory Vatsaas

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 a7 by Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC) as it appears his main achievement is having a company, but there is no assertion as to why this company matters at all[reply]

Derrick Threatt[edit]

Unverified vanity, CV, delete--Peta 01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herstory[edit]

Non-notable subject, lacks sources after years of existence Xombie 01:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Many of those articles shouldn't be on Wikipedia and the race to the bottom is not much of a standard to add articles. --JChap 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article consists of only a definition and references for its definition. It it does not appear to be anything more than a word used within feminism to describe a type of historical revisionism rather than an important concept meriting its own article. --Xombie 12:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice job on the rewrite. However, I do disagree with the notion that being in common usage and in OED makes a word inherently encylopedic. ScottW 18:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Thanks ScottW! However, much of what I wrote has now been deleted. Even so, I feel the article needs to stay. Inclusion in the OED is significant but this is not the time or place to go into why that is. I merely suggest you google the term to see how common it is. You will find it is regularly used in feminist and/or lesbian literature. When I was a Linguistics Grad student in the early 1980s, I witnessed much of the debate over such terms. Herstory was well-accepted in Academia even then because of it's narrow application. It wasn't a word that was being promoted to displace history but rather one to be used alongside it when appropriate or in place of it when referring specifically to women's history from a female perspective. I believe it has more credability than Wymyn, Wimmin or Wombyn - 3 words often used in place of woman. Thank you SO much for your time in rereading the article. I believe the word has found its niche in terms of usage but I agree with others who state that it will never be a widely known term outside it's current usage applications.Lisapollison 18:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A pun (also known as paronomasia) is a figure of speech which consists of a deliberate confusion of similar words or phrases for rhetorical effect, whether humorous or serious." How does this word not qualify? Depending on which person you ask, it can be humorous, serious or somewhere in between (the last position being mine). Any which way, though, it counts. Anville 19:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete just a sentence fragment with no context... speedy deleting under A1. --W.marsh 01:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's gravi constant 's getting smaller all the time[edit]

Uncited, apparent original research. I can't make sense of what exactly is in this article, but it appears to be original research. Metros232 01:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South American Chinese cuisine[edit]

Delete-This article seems rather ridiculous. South America is neither a unified country nor culture, and neither would be expect the same of the immigrant communities in them. South America is a huge landmass, and the history of Chinese immigrants differs drastically among different countries such as Brazil and Peru, and some have no more than an insignificant immigrant population. I wouldn't object to articles on Chinese cuisine in the various individual countries (if they exist), but unless someone does some informed article expansion, it's doomed to always be a one-sentence original research stub. --Yuje 01:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 23:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darius (band), Darius (goth rocker), Live In Hell[edit]

Lots of self released albums, no other calism to fame, I think it fails WP:MUSIC, delete.--Peta 01:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 23:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Thomas Andrews[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Maximusveritas 01:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Laotian Americans[edit]

Maybe if this were "The Laotian Experience in America," it could be encyclopedic, but as a simple list of Laotians, it's not. PRODed and contested. Erik the Rude 01:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 23:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daponte Quartet[edit]

No claims to notability, delete.--Peta 01:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kelvinator[edit]

Delete as NN album by NN comedy group. Prod tag removed by author without comment, unless blanking my userpage and the notifications I left on his talk page is considered a comment. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 01:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable.--blue520 13:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Mini Geo 125. It doesn't make any sense to me on why this page and all the other pages I created are always up for deletion. I look on wikipedia and see all these other groups and artists have a page for them. I'm the only band really to come out of Erie, PA and you guys have to shatter my dreams, nice work guys, nice work on making a fool of me....

Don't blame others. You make a fool out of yourself. Why do you think you deserve to be in an encyclopedia ? Vanity ? --64.229.225.229 14:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pour over[edit]

Complete nonsense, appears to be passing as a dicdef. PRODed and contested. Erik the Rude 01:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotchi[edit]

Complete nonsense. I PRODed it, but that was contested. Erik the Rude 01:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is not nonsense at all. Were it nonsense, the neologism 'Wiki' would not exist, and Wikipedia would never have come to light. Wikipedians itself as a word is a neologism. Why should Wikipedia not support kindred useful neologisms?

To merge Gotchi with Hackergotchi would be akin to merging Wikipedia with Wiki. And Wikipedia then would lose its right of autonomy. Hackergotchis are one category of 'Gotchi.' The entry 'Gotchi' makes the case that this unique and entertaining icon style is spreading to the net, hacker and wider art and culture community. The Wikipedia entry 'Hackergotchi,' is mentioned in the entry for 'Gotchi,' as it should be. A link from Hackergotchi to Gotchi if possible would be useful.

The date of entry of the neologism Hackergotchi is irrelevant. Both Gotchi and Hackergotchi stem from Tamagotchi. Tamagotchi itself stems from the Japanese word for 'egg' but it is the first two syllables - and not the 'gotchi' - in Tamagotchi that refers to the Japanese word for 'egg.' As such, Gotchi is extracted from the link which Hackergotchi has initiated with Tamagotchi and it does so in a clever way. It becomes a root for both neologisms Hackegotchi and Tamagotchi, which both grace wiki nodes in Wikipedia. Why not Gotchi?

As the entry Gotchi clearly attributes, the term also stems from the most valuable source on the Internet, the Open Source community of Linux hackers, thinkers and developers. Some are attributed, i.e. Planet Gnome. Others may be freely added in Wikipedia style.

Let Gotchis live. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.163.215.232 (talk • contribs) .

Dear Golbez - This is a page for discussion not flaming. As author of the Gotchi page, my interest is in communication, perhaps our last diplomat on planet Earth. Wiki itself was innovated to aid such platforms of communication that are based on respect and consensus. I respect any respectful criticism of my entry Gotchi. Through criticism, consensus is built and knowledge deepened. Please, Golbez, keep your power urges to yourself. If Wikipedia wizards condone such abuses of its members' hierarchy, allow individuals such as Golbez to abuse his powers, it will only lead to diminishing the Wikipedia community's initial intention, and perhaps doom Wikipedia to become a disrespectful and therefore disrespected, source of knowledge. I suggest that Golbez give a good reason now why his bad language, his flaming utterance above, should lead to anything other than his speedy retreat from any decision-making Wikipedia wizard role. What does Golbez mean by attitude anyway? His bad language is a blemish on the reputation of Wikipedia and for this Internet pioneer indicates Golbez ought to explain reasonably why his breech of online etiquette toward an equal, is not an abuse or power that could scorn the Wikipedia community. Abuse of power has no place in Wikipediadom! Why shoud Golbez be acceptedd for his off-the-cuff slanderous remarks while I waste time reasoning? If this outburts does not lead to his resigning his role from his own initiative, I will be disappointed that he does not see that he has done all here a disservice, including language itself. Respect is earned not through bullying bad language. It is a sign of a desire to wield power which is in fact a priveledge based on one's acumen, study and knowledge.

Ace of Sevens - You will find gotchis at Flickr - http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Gotchi - for instance - http://www.flickr.com/photos/jp-o/26973829/ specifically (a good example too.) Or check this major lycos site using and visualizing the English word 'Gotchi' - http://www.lycos.de/startseite/news/bundestagswahl/wahlogotchi/ergebnis.html . There are oodles of Gotchi entries for the patient searcher. And there are many misunderstandings of the term to be found. Most think that the root of Tamagotchi has issued the wor Gotchi, when in fact, Tama stems from Tama (related to the Japanese word for 'egg.')

SpacePlace is one major cultural instance where the term Gotchi is used. It is a site made by Internet pioneers, who have been involved with Net culture since the early 1990s. The term has been published in information concerning the SpacePlace project by the world-reknowned museum ZKM Center for Art and Media Technology. Gotchis adorn currently a link banner on its homepage - www.zkm.de - and the SpacePlace Press Release. Google has I believe already indexed these pages. The term Gotchi does not occur as a title word, but in the body of various texts. the word 'gotchi' also occurs since April 2005 on the entry for Hackergotchi - "The "-gotchi" part seems to be a reference to the term Tamagotchi." where it is misleading as Tamagotchi I mentioned above stems from Tama (related to the word 'egg' in Japanese, and not 'gotchi.) Therefore the term 'gotchi' has been around in Wikipedia space for some time, and has not, until now, been defined as a term. This is done now by the entry 'Gotchi'.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 19:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Gaming Brotherhood[edit]

Non-notable gaming group. Isomorphic 01:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The criterion that this article matches is A7 which is unremarkable people/vanity page. You can find it here. Your clan having notability among gaming clans just means that an article like this would be more appropriate for a gaming clan wiki, if there is such a thing. SubSeven 07:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Initiation of Sarah[edit]

A few short sentences of speculation about a TV Movie of the Week that may air in October, crystal-ballism. Erik the Rude 01:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bwithh 19:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 23:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poker dealer[edit]

This article was nominated by Cocopuffberman (talk · contribs), but not completed. I have added this header and listed it on the AfD page. I vote Keep as a notable/verifiable topic. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted by Xoloz. — TheKMantalk 06:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edison - Band[edit]

Non notable band with very few web hits and obvious vanity statements Thetruthbelow (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big bad sex words[edit]

Seems to be to be yet-another-list that has no meaning, ambiguous criteria for inclusion and no encyclopedic value. Clearly the wrok of an anti-gay editor ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grounds for speedy deletion, then? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC) on grounds of nonsense.[reply]

Hayden kirk[edit]

Interesting that there IS a "Sexiest businessman awards, but... sorry. 0zymandias 02:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Star[edit]

Vanity page SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 02:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The comment about Buck Star being an NBC production assistand mentioned on the above referenced page is a rumor and incorrect. I mention this here only to point out that this should not reflect on the validity of an entry for Buck Star.
CommentThese people came here most likely through the Afd page, not through the article. The reason that there is so much dialogue on this is because most people want it deleted quickly. Thetruthbelow (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarcastic note. I don't believe users should vote twice on their first edit ever : Special:Contributions/Unklcid (second vote was removed by User:Zetawoof) -- Equendil Talk 00:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarcastic reply. Yeah, sorry 'bout that. I get a little over zealous sometimes. I still think the page should be kept. -- unklcid 23:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This cracker jack is going to quickly fade into obscurity. Does Wikipedia have entries from frequent contestants of The Gong Show? Delete the entry.mcleanpcv
Comment What bothers me here is that what little name recognition this person may have will quickly fade as soon as he quit serial-auditionning, or to put it another way, his "notability" is volatile at best. Equendil Talk 00:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Doh, I see the user above made that point already. Equendil Talk 00:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Park Little League[edit]

Notability claim is sorely lacking, unless we want articles on the hundreds of Little League teams in the US. cholmes75 (chit chat) 02:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted by CJCurrie. — TheKMantalk 03:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Cooper (library masturbator)[edit]

This is almost a speedy, although apparently there's some semblance of a genuine story here. I doubt this needs to be preserved for all posterity. CJCurrie 02:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 23:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possum Killer EP[edit]

Delete as NN album by NN comedy group. Article was originally ((prod))ed, but removed by a new user account (whose only edits have been to remove the prod tags from this and the other albums by this group) without comment. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 02:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 23:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delicous king's tree[edit]

To quote the article's creator, this is "a new drinking game." Without any reliable sources or established notability, I think well have to pass on this article for a few years. --Hetar 02:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neurotically Yours[edit]

A Web Flash series that has not been noticed in any popular newspapers. Therefore according to the Wikipedia rules, this page should be deleted.

Post your debates on this issue below:

Comment Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean no one else has. Have you done a google search? It has a very large amount of hits. It is also on many websites. Thetruthbelow (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just did a google search for the title of the series, and it only came up with 416 pages, (103 Specific Web Sites) thats not enough to have a page in wikipedia. - Travis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.193.231 (talk • contribs) .
Comment What google search did you do. Mine turned up 128,000 hits. I think that is quite enough to keep the article. Thetruthbelow (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lol Sorry I typod. Anyways, it still only has 712 SPECIFIC Websites that mention them. the 128,000 is based on how many web pages mention them (And several web pages can be on the same website saying the same thing so those wouldnt count). - Travis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.193.231 (talk (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I'm sure nobody will be surprised, this IP has been blocked three separate times. -- Kicking222 03:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought so, this editor is obviously not qualifyied to determine afd, since he is and was a blockee.Thetruthbelow (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentStill 712 hits is more than enough to keep this article. That is a decent amount of notability. Thetruthbelow (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd have to Disagree, but we'll see in the end if this gets deleted or not. - Travis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.193.231 (talk • contribs)
Comment Oh whah whah whah . Im trying to improve this place now and you people are STILL Complaing, what do you want me to do? Im trying to change.. - Travis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.193.231 (talk •
Self-comment This page could become the target for vandal-like activities if certain online groups who vehimantly oppose it find this page. Kevin Breitenstein 04:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Buchholz[edit]

Delete NN minor league baseball player and petty criminal. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shay Laren[edit]

Article doesn't assert any notability other than being in one issue of one magazine. Dismas|(talk) 03:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 23:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MegaDuck/Cougar Boy[edit]

Another article that sucks poop! MegaDuck and Cougar Boy don't yield many google hits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kittyslasher (talk • contribs) .

I read about the MegaDuck and Cougar Boy on other websites, and the documentation claims that the 2 systems have different pin setups; therefore making them technically different systems that are not Game Boy pirate clones; but only similar systems. I concure with Bill (Who is cool); so delete. Also concur with my friend Kittyslasher. --Nintendude userpage | message 03:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted (author requested deletion). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Nunes[edit]

Non notable attorney, vanity page. Equendil 03:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the clients of your uncle might be notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, that still doesn't make *your uncle*, the subject of the article, notable. Equendil 04:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 23:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bauer bag[edit]

Non-notable neologism, or if you will, 24cruft. Crystallina 03:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 23:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zhein[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 23:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wipesaddle[edit]

WP:NEO WP:WEB Neologism. Non-notable web site. 18 hits in Google, almost all blogs. John Nagle 03:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 23:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Entity[edit]

Local band hasn't recorded any CDs and has already broken up (not notable)MarsRover 04:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 23:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German fetish[edit]

admitted neologism, original research, or near-nonsense - take your pick Opabinia regalis 04:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cholmes75 prodded on the 26th, prod contested by Anonymous25 - subsequent request for cleanup got one minor grammar change. Ostensible footnotes are missing. This is a bad thing to stumble across when hitting the random article button. Opabinia regalis 04:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7, only actual contributor has requested its deletion. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viper vision[edit]

Original research and advertisement for someone's brilliant invention; possibly also copyvio. Deleted via WP:PROD once already and now recreated, which means we get to shoot it down via WP:AFD again. Sandstein 04:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to homemaker, content not very useful for a merge but is available in the history. It is not necessary to take an article that would make a good redirect to AfD. -- Kjkolb 05:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

housewife[edit]

Exactly how factual is this article. It doesn't seem that factual to me. In any case, it's totally wrong in that it say that "around 20% of housewives are men", and the truth is, it's impossible for a man to be a housewife, as the word "housewife" refers to wives. Hoof38 04:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. George Hotel[edit]

This article is of a NN hostel, probably WP:CORP vio. Moreover it reads more like a travel guide (move to Wikitravel?). P199 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw proposed deletion - recent serious rewrite made it a (somewhat) informative article. -- P199 13:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't sound notable to me. Press coverage? Otherwise delete. Fagstein 01:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scarborough Highlands Expressway[edit]

Pure conjecture; concept has no status with the province or city and is only a proposal the CAA tried to promote in 2003 (with no mention of Highway 448 designation). Bjhtn 04:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep, per Chan-Ho. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Mathematics Competition[edit]

This competition is nn. I competed in it and for me, is less notable than my local footy team, and that isn't notable enough for WP.Mathguru 05:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Amaurazan[edit]

This page has absolutely no notability assigned to it and only a single person keeps making edits to it. The page is also part of a long sequence of edits to other wrestling pages linking to this and other related stories that none of which are notable and have to be constantly reverted. Lid 05:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless it is established that he, his league and/or his sport are notable in Thailand (or wherever he works). Sandstein 05:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced, nonsense, not notable JohnM4402 06:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 14:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete totally non-notable.JB196 14:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep. Thai wrestlers are no less notable than the numerous American wrestlers we have articles about. However, unless some proof that this wrestler or his team exists can be found, this should be deleted. Zocky | picture popups 17:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've also listed for delete this page which is related to this one: RCW Tuesday Night where the only mention of the fed even existing are wikipedia itself, pretty dubious for a television show. Lid 08:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kolim[edit]

The article is about a London teenager who claims fame first for being a team leader in summer school, and then for being a recording artist with #1 hits in India and Bangladesh. Since I couldn't verify those claims myself, and a request [17] for verification went unanswered, I consulted the notice board for India-related topics. Editors there were skeptical of his claims. Also, the external link to his official site appears to discuss an unrelated recording artist and provides no evidence supporting this article. Delete. --Metropolitan90 05:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unsourced and spurious claims to notability, probable vanity or hoax page. Sandstein 05:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was userfy & delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TJBenoit[edit]

While the subject (also the author) have done numerous things in their life, none seem notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. This should most likely be userfied. Dismas|(talk) 05:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy. No sources. Not Notable. JohnM4402 05:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, userfy, whatever. Just delete this pure vanity. Themindset 06:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with TAB Computer Systems Inc. Since he is the owner, you can post his background on perhaps his most important achievement. (Changed by sens08, May 31 2006
  • Delete, there is no TAB Computer Systems Inc article in Wikipedia. This person has no place on Wikipedia if even his greatest accomplishment is not worthy of Wikipedia. Sens08 16:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete Completely nn person doing vanity edits to his own article. Just userfy it and destroy the article ASAP. -- Kicking222 21:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep and move to For the Love of Money. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For_The_Love_Of_Money[edit]

This is such a simple article and the song is already listed on the O'Jays page. JohnM4402 05:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect to O'Jays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.166.150 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Room for expansion here, it is a stub. Seems notable through connection to Apprentice. -- cmh 13:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've expanded it a little; this was a top-ten U.S. pop and R&B hit in 1974. If it is kept, it should be moved to For the Love of Money. Extraordinary Machine 14:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per Extraordinary Machine (who seems to me to seek a new disaster every day). As the article currently stands (that is, at 5:49 Eastern time), there is enough information on this notable song that the article should remain on WP. -- Kicking222 21:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per Extraordinary Machine. In addition to its success at release, this song has become a cliche in bad American movies, advertisements, and TV shows. ScottW 00:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per Extraordinary M. The song has multiple claims to fame. --Metropolitan90 03:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and move to For the Love of Money. Million-seller for the O'Jays, top 10 on the Billboard Hot 100, theme song for The Apprentice... and that just scratches the surface. At least as notable as Gwen Stefani's singles, more likely more so. B.Wind 06:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and move per Extraordinary Machine. This is one of the most important recordings of the 20th century. Why would we even consider deleting this article, when we have articles on damn near Beatles song, single, album track, or otherwise? --FuriousFreddy 16:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 16:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was uhhhhh...no consensus. Mailer Diablo 12:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid (disambiguation)[edit]

From Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion)." We do not have a disambig on the word The that have The Age, The Bulletin, etc. This seems to apply here. The only true meaning of the word Apartheid is the article Apartheid. There is no way that somebody would refer to Israely apartheid or Sexual apartheid by the simple word apartheid. As such the disambig is useless and only fuels edit wars. Delete abakharev 05:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender apartheid
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual apartheid
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global apartheid
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli apartheid (phrase)
  • Strong keep if the guideline were followed in the manner suggested half the disambig pages on wikipedia would have to be deleted. Given the controversy at the original Apartheid page over listing other uses of the word (see Talk:Apartheid) having a seperate disambiguation page is the only solution to adequately deal with non-South African uses of the term apartheid. The problem with abakharev's examples is that "the" is not the operative word in his examples, apartheid is the operative word in the articles listed on Apartheid (disambiguation) Homey 06:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Similarly, we do not have Fascism (disambiguation) with links to Islamofascism, Fascist regime of Bush, etc. We do not have entries in Terrorist (disambiguation) for Terrorist Bin Laden or Terrorist Yassir Arafat, we have only links to a book and a film with the same name. If there exist an article on Apartheid (book) or Apartheid (painting) etc. then the disambig should be created. Just collecting articles on catchphrases there apartheid is used as a slur term is useless abakharev 06:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for the moment - it's a tricky one. For one, the main Apartheid article is the main article on the topic, and it is the topic that most would want to know about when looking up apartheid. However citing ground for deletion as being that apartied appears in the latter portion of a number of the articles' titles is clearly ridiculous. THE KING 06:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There actually is *no* apartheid article at the moment. Because of the conflict last year over other uses of the term the article was moved to History of South Africa in the apartheid era. Hopefully, with the creation of Apartheid (disambiguation) the main South Africa article can move back to Apartheid.Homey 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should moving History of South Africa in the apartheid era to Apartheid depend on Apartheid (disambiguation)? ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Homey. Even if slightly non-canonical in its status as a dab page, it's eminently useful in separating the primary from the secondary uses in a clean way without burdening the separate articles with unncessary controversy. Lukas (T.|@) 06:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I haven't looked into the troubled past of the main Apartheid article, but looking at the various "Foo apartheid" articles, I think there needs to be some list- or dab-like place that links to them all. I don't mind if it's in this form, or possibly as an appendix to the main Apartheid page, as long as the presentation clearly distinguishes between the primary, authentic meaning of the term and its various secondary polemical uses. Lukas (T.|@) 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. We have a disambiguation page, for example, for "Georgia" becuase you might be talking about the Russian state, the US State, or the US University. Nobody is going to type in "apartheid" expecting an article on Israel. Further, I note that all of the new apartheid articles were created by the same user - User:HOTR. There is a danger here of POV pushing ... BigDT 06:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; clearly disambiguation guidelines and actual practice seem to have diverged, and probably should be reassessed, but bringing up individual articles piecemeal on AfD is not the way to go about that. Especially considering that the page in question has just gone through an unpleasant edit war regarding inclusion of various entries whose titles form part of the disambiguated term, and there was a strong consensus for retaining the entries. -- MCB 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, one do have to start somewhere? This should set a presedent for other disambig articles that shouldn't be. -- Heptor talk 13:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete; An obvious attempt to introduce pov into a disambiguation page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del - Unencyclopedic. As some of us know, the Soviet propaganda generously used such epithets to besmirch their enemies. Since the collapse of the USSR, some pundits try to keep using the same terminology against their enemies. WP is not in the business to push POV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is nothing to disambiguate here, and this disambiguation page is used solely for POV-pushing, giving undue prominence to murky phrases. Pecher Talk 07:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the nom notes, this is not really a disambiguation page, but rather an aggregation of uses of "apartheid", which as such is non-encyclopedic. Deletion will resolve the edit wars on whether or not to include articles of the type "Foo apartheid", which deal with usages of the term "apartheid" as applied to the situation in other countries. Whether or not these articles are encyclopedic is not at issue here, but at any rate there is no chance of confusion between these articles and Apartheid, and thus no dab page is needed. If necessary, they can be appropriately linked to from Apartheid. Sandstein 07:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I agree that if this page is kept as a disambiguation page, these "Foo apartheid" entries do belong on it, as long as they have an article of their own. Sandstein 07:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not really a disambiguation page, but rather an aggregation of uses of "apartheid" -- actually, that's pretty much the definition of a disambiguation page. Oh, the contention is mainly over Israel. Pro- and anti-Israeli editors: kindly keep your pathetic edit warring off AfD. -- GWO
  • Comment. The page also features "Sexual Apartheid", which, IMHO, is far more ridiculous than "Israeli Apartheid". In any case, if this pathetic page belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, AfD is the place. -- Heptor talk 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, no, it is not "pretty much the definition of a disambiguation page". This definition is, per WP:DAB: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia and Wikimedia is the process of resolving ambiguity." There is no ambiguity to resolve here. The reader is unlikely to confuse South African apartheid with the supposed apartheid somewhere else. Sandstein 19:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Homey. --Qwertyca 07:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DAB. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A relevant term used in different contexts, should not be censored. Bertilvidet 09:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DAB. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as I mentioned on the talk page, there is no real ambiguity - phrases like "Basque Apartheid", "Israeli Apartheid" or "Global Apartheid" the word "Apartheid" unambiguously refers to the South African regime. The word "Apartheid" is simply a derogative here - imagine the disambiguation page for "Stupidiy", starting with "Bush's stupidity", and ending with my uncle. -- Heptor talk 13:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bingo - User:Heptor hits the nail on the head. BigDT 13:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. Since the abolition of apartheid in South Africa, the word is frequently used figuratively. But don't take my word for it: the Oxford English Dictionary says: "applied also to any similar movement elsewhere" -- GWO
        • Comment but that's the whole point - using the word figuratively doesn't mean that you have an article about every figurative use of the word. Everyone knows that apartheid means South Africa. Just because someone uses it as an analogy or metaphor to describe a current situation doesn't mean that you make an article about it. BigDT 14:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Everyone knows that apartheid means South Africa. -- Err, no. In fact. the OED disagrees with this assertion. They say it means South Africa, or policies similar to South Africa (i.e. laws that differentiate by race, skin colour or ethnicity). -- GWO
            • That's exactly my point. "The word "Apartheid" may be applied to any [in the opinion of the speaker] similar movement elsewhere", just as the word "stupidity" may be applied to anyone the speaker considers to think bad or wrong. In both cases, the word is used as a derogative. -- Heptor talk 15:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's nothing subjective about "laws that differentiate by race, skin colour or ethnicity". Apartheid does not mean racism/bigotry. It's the codification of ethnic difference as law. One is highly subjective, the other isn't. That's why no-one refers to Harlem as apartheid, Law of Return, for example, is, since it applies only to those of the Jewish faith. -- GWO
                • I am not sure what you mean by this. Law of return does not differentiate citizens of Israel based on race. It does differentiate people who are not citizens of Israel, but most of the Western countries do that - a Russian who can show German ancestry, is allowed to "return" to Germany at a stroke of a pen. In Norway, I know of at least one Russian family who were allowed to "return" to Norway because they had a Norwegian grand mother. But this of course has little to do with the debate at hand. -- Heptor talk 13:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for support, BigDT. Also, in case anyone wondered - yes, my uncle's stupidity is quite notable. -- Heptor talk 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please compare and contrast disambiguation pages like VT, Georgia, or Aaron's rod (disambiguation) with this one. Just as a joke isn't funny if you have to explain it, a disambiguation page isn't useful if you have to explain the link between the term being disambiguated and the things on the page. BigDT 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:DAB. --Terence Ong 14:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless at best, tendencious at worst. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep // Liftarn
  • Keep I don't think we need disambiguation page guidelines carved in stone and I think it's quite possible a person could confuse all these different apartheids and benefit from a disambiguation page. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 15:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's only one apartheid on the disambiguation page, and, as far as I know, only one event referred to as apartheid ever. —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 at 16:35 UTC
    What I obviously meant was, if one were to confuse gender apartheid and sexual apartheid, or get them confused to the extent that all they remember is the word "apartheid", they can come here. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 20:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Bidabadi 15:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete; An obvious attempt to disrupt wikipedia. Whoever created the page or voting to keep it is engagaing in WP:Point this page only creates disruption to the editing process and confuse the reader Zeq 16:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commnet: Pay close attention to Heptor. He explain very elquantly why there is no real ambiguity here to resolve. Zeq 08:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Heptor and I can't wait to read the page about the notability of his uncle's stupidity. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If it stays, based on the OED dicdef quoted above, we should add articles about Indian reservations, Ghettos, Holocaust, and all else that fits the definition. Just because of a catchy word. Carlossuarez46 17:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It is a PoV push. Dominick (TALK) 18:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep while I think the Israeli apartheid and apartheid wall articles should be deleted the other articles are fine and the disambiguation page is therefore needed. Not so sure, disambig page being used to push a pov Abstain Fullsome prison 19:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In addition, all the articles except the main one are on AfD, and (hopefully) will be deleted or renamed without redirect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems you misunderstood a little - not all of the other articles are on AfD, but they should be. -- Heptor talk 19:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree they should all be on AfD. The articles aren't on AfD were all created in the past 3 days, so I'd guess we just haven't gotten around to AfDing them yet. They were all created by the same user, and that same user created the page we're talking about deleting now. Su-laine.yeo 07:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Heptor.Aguerriero (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Heptor. Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I take all the points raised above, however I think the fact is that people may use the term apartheid to descrbie something other than that of the South African Apartheid, and so seems necessary to keep the page. --Wisden17 23:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Apartheid" means South Africa. Any other use of the term is simply a metaphor that refers to South African apartheid. -- Mwalcoff 00:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename Even if it is used as a metaphor to the South African situation (which it must be since the word Aparthied is derived from Afrikaner language word for apartness) if it is widely enough used, even in a derogatory sense, it is still notable and worth of being documented. From my standpoint it is POV to delete this page and it seems more than coincidentally connected to the recent AfD on contentious articles related to Israel. (I did a bit more research and I see how this came about -- I see now.) --Ben Houston 01:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Instead of an apartheid dab it may be more worthwhile to create an Apartheid (metaphor) page that talks about how the term is used as a metaphor -- that the SA system was iconic and thus the term entered into the lexicon on its own, which seems to be the case. This Apartheid (metaphor) article can, besides noting its use as a metaphor, point to a few of the areas in which it is widely used and thus link to those articles if they exist. The main Aparthied article should still link directly to the SA Apartheid article but at the top should be a see macro to the Aparthied metaphor page. To me this would be a decent compromise that continues to build up wikipedia. --Ben Houston 01:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ben Houston. Also, wikipedia is not censored, even if it contains information about ugly things, opinions, or political terms. :) Dlohcierekim 01:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no reason why this can't be a useful disamb page, covering terms in common usage. CJCurrie 01:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per multiple arguments above. Also, I did not know there were other uses until i stumbled across this in recent changes. Is that not the purpose of an encyclopedia, to expand ones knowledge? --Knife Knut 01:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apartheid appears to be South African (instead of the "general" term), so a disambiguation page is in order. If these other articles exist, they must be pointed to from somewhere. Fagstein 01:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've reworked the page as more DAB, less POV. Fagstein 02:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously useful, even if slightly in violation of a little-used guideline. LotLE×talk 03:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I find it prepostorous that some editors are voting to keep while acknowledging that it is in violation of WP guidelines, and that other editors acknowledge they did not even know th eother terms excitsed, yet still find it proper to call it "disambiguation". Isarig 04:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apartheid has entered the English language in uses beyond the South African context. See for instance http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apartheid Bwithh 04:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - note that the reference does not mention Israel. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This is to some extend correct, the word has been used as a synonym for "racism" by some. But even in case "Apartheid" may be considered a general depreciative - imagine the disambiguation page "racism"? Many people have accused for example France of being a racist society. Should there be a page Racism (Diambiguation), poining to French Racism, and perhaps also to Sexual Racism (whatever the latter would mean)? -- Heptor talk 12:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A textbook disambiguation page, targetted by some not-very-subtle POV warriors hoping to expunge an entry they find distasteful. The nominator's argument is certainly a nonsensical fig-leaf, and I'm surprised anyone is taking it the least bit seriously. --Calton | Talk 04:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If you are trying to suggest that this AfD is about expunging an entry concerning Israeli Apartheid, you should know that the nominator originally wanted a link to Israeli Apartheid on this diambiguation page, but then found it wiser to delete the page alltogether. See the talk page. -- Heptor talk 13:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if it's not a perfect example of dab page, it's still useful. Obhaso 05:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have posted a proposal on the article's talk page which I think might gain a consensus; please see my comments there. MCB 06:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The effect, if not the intention, of this page is to imply that the items listed on the page are in parallel. That is a POV. I like MCB's suggestion that perhaps a general article on apartheid would be appropriate. Anyone can create that article next week if they want; I don't think we have to do it for them. The articles that this page currently points to probably should not be on Wikipedia. Only one country in history has ever considered it inoffensive to be labelled as apartheid. Any article whose title is "____ apartheid" is pretty much by definition a POV page that should be merged with a broader article. Do we want to keep a page that encourages the proliferation of "_______ apartheid" pages, by giving them publicity during their brief, pre-AfD life? Su-laine.yeo 07:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly think this is a valid disambiguation page. It distinguishes between several different types of apartheid. Yes, it doesn't distinguish between homonyms, but I don't think that is necessary. --Rory096 08:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apartheid has acquired figurative meaning. Then, move History of South Africa in the apartheid era back to Apartheid as per Homey. Spacepotato 08:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move as per Spacepotato. --Guinnog 12:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete confusing and misleading. RenyD 17:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: User's first edit was today.[18]
  • Delete per abakharev, Sandstein, Su-laine and others. 6SJ7 18:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There is no Israeli apartheid? The United Nations do not seem to believe so: In January 2006, a UN report by John Dugard of the Human Right Commission in Geneva, stated that "the three major settlement blocs - Gush Etzion, Ma’aleh Adumim and Ariel - will effectively divide Palestinian territory into cantons or Bantustans." "Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, Including Palestine - Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard, on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 Satyagit 19:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that link is bad, but I'm sure you may find a whole bunch of good links at UNCHR condemning Israel. That institution disgraced itself so much that it had to be reorganized quite recently. BTW, I wonder why no one paid attention to "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied" before 1967? ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - this page is made necessary only by the wilful misuse of the very specific term Apartheid. It'd be as if we had a "Fascism" dismbiguation, with links to "American Fascism under George Bush", "Wikipedia Fascism" and the like.Timothy Usher 19:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there was ever such a thing as a POV dab page, this would be it. -- Kicking222 20:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment with respect to the "POV" arguments, as long as the Israeli apartheid, Gender apartheid etc. articles exist, there should be a disambig. page, no? I'm not disputing the POV arguments, but they apply to those articles, not to this disambiguation page. Fagstein 20:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. We don't include in the dismabiguation pages all the articles that have the word in question, see WP:DAB. For example, we don't disambig physics to quantum physics, nuclear physics etc. It's highly unlikely that someone searching for "apartheid" will in fact be searching for "gender apartheid". Pecher Talk 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pecher's statement is verified by the rule/guideline quote that appears at the very top of this page. (As I said in the response I was writing, but Pecher "won" the edit conflict, so I'm just referring to the source.) 6SJ7 21:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We don't have disambiguation pages for physics or fascism, but there is ample navigational material (templates etc.) to let the searcher for a half-remembered term move from Physics to Particle physics, or from Fascism to Clerical fascism. Apartheid (disambiguation) serves the same function. Spacepotato 01:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Maybe we could solve this by mentioning in the Apartheid article that the word "Apartheid" has been used as a political epithet, notably on following subjects: "X Apartheid", "Y Apartheid" etc, and that it is generally considered offensive. This should be better than having a disambiguation page without having an ambiguity. This presumes that those other aticles remain - they have all been created by one user, Homeonetherange (who for some reason signes as "Homey"), and now they all are up for deletion. -- Heptor talk 11:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, POV agenda on this one. Gadig 02:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the bottom line on this one is that unless the articles listed in it should have their names changed, then the page should remain to list them. As controversial as the terms may be, they fall under the dictionary definition quoted above under: "applied also to any similar movement elsewhere." As with all things in Wikipedia, only notable terms are listed here, which keeps some random individual from attaching "apartheid" to some random movement and having it listed here, unless it comes into common usage. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please don't attempt to move History of South Africa in the apartheid era back to Apartheid. The reason it's at its current location is to define clearly what the page is about, and thus to avoid precisely the controversy in this discussion. These endless energy-sapping debates have nothing to do with the use of the term in South Africa, and typically don't even involve the editors of the South African article. Moving the page back to Apartheid would reignite the old edit wars and detract enormously from the History of South Africa in the apartheid era article. Zaian 08:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete silly POV disambig page, and delete, delete, delete POV pushers. Stop trying to open unnecessary new fronts on the ideological war du jour, and start writing the encyclopedia. flowersofnight (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since use of 'apartheid' in other titles is to draw a deliberate contrast with SA, and thus to require a qualifier ('Israeli' or whatever), I don't see the need to disambiguate, although I'm somewhat swayed by homey's arguments on the Apartheid talk page, I don't think the editors over there are going to go for it --Coroebus 15:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apartheid was a specific system in place during a specific time period (1948-1990). Any other uses of the word, such as Gender Apartheid or Economic Apartheid are perjorative metaphors and are thus not equal to the word's primary meaning. At most, other uses of the word apartheid should be in an article named something like 'Apartheid (Metaphor)' [as per the above], linked to by a small comment at the top of the main Apartheid article. — Impi 16:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apartheid should definitely continue to redirect to History of South Africa in the apartheid era, but this page is useful. -- TheMightyQuill 17:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Such a disambiguation is no different than having a comparison note in an article (e.g. cp. Gender apartheid), which is completely fine. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 18:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Who the heck would rename Apartheid to "History of South Africa in the apartheid era"? That's bogus. Apartheid is more than just a history; it's a socio-cultural phenomenon. :-) — RJH (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was wondering the same thing RJH, but then I read Zaian's comment above which explains the history of the situation. 6SJ7 19:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is an excellent reason why the disambig article is necessary 1) to allow references to "modern" uses of the term apartheid to go somewhere other than the main apartheid article 2) thus allowing the article to actually be called Apartheid rather than the cumbersome History of South Africa in the apartheid eraHomey 21:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That doesn't make any sense. Your reason number 2 cannot be justified based on what Zaian says, because he is asking, nay pleading, for the exact opposite. (For other people not following all this, Zaian says that whatever else happens, please don't rename the current History fo South Africa in the apartheid era to Apartheid; Homey says that if we have this disambiguation page, we can rename History etc. etc. to just Apartheid. So those are two opposite ideas.) On your reason number 1, these "other apartheid" articles were all created by you (except for apartheid wall, I believe), so claiming that the disambiguation page you created is necessary so there can be a distinction drawn among the other articles you created is a little like the teenager who murders his parents and asks the judge for mercy because he is an orphan. (Which of course, is the proverbial definition of "chutzpah.") 6SJ7 05:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are many uses of the word apartheid, not all of them South Africa. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PZFUN. Ted 02:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious delete. Metaphorical uses of a term should not be on a disambiguation page.--Denis Diderot 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Denis above, per User:Heptor, per WP:DAB. This disambiguation page and some of the articles seem to have been created in violation of WP:Point. Armon 15:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until the issues with the disambiguated artices are resolved in the respective AfDs. --Ezeu 19:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's exactly what AfDs are intended for - conclusively resolving issues with those articles :) -- Heptor talk 20:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What if it is decided that the other "Apartheid" articles be kept, wouldn't that in effect render this AfD useless, as a disambiguation page would then be warranted? --Ezeu 21:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, as if they are truly relevant they will be linked from articles on their respective nations or other relevant issues, not grouped artificially. Fearwig 04:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The last time I heard the phrase "apartheid" it was in reference to Israel. This probably says more about the speaker than anything, but Wikipedia policies do not judge the validity of opinions. If there is a significant number of people who use "apartheid" to mean something beyond the historical South African apartheid, then that needs to be reflected on the wiki even if you think they are being tendentious. The current situation in which apartheid redirects to the South Africa page on the original term, which links to the dab, seems moderately intuitive and I don't find the argument of the nominator convincing. - BT 04:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: BTW, why are several of the links piped (or pointed to redirects aimed at subsections?!) and bolded? According to standard formatting, The apartheid wall is a similarly controversial epithet to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier. should be more like The "apartheid wall" is a similarly controversial epithet to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier. This is just confusing, but doesn't affect my vote. - BT 13:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Page is currently blocked for editing because of some edit warring (I think it actually was over the POV tag itself), but we should change it when the page is unblocked - if it is not deleted. This of course doesn't change my vote delete the page :) -- Heptor talk 13:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete esp. as per Denis Diderot and Heptor. The word is innately referential to South African apartheid, and is not in itself a generic term for apartheid-like occurrences, save when it is used metaphorically. This is not about judging opinions (BanyanTree), but about keeping opinionation out of the disambiguation pages, as well as remembering that they are there for the reader, not for the editor. People should see an article on South African apartheid when they enter apartheid into the search field. DABs can and should be objective and useful, and there is nothing immediately useful (and debatably something POV) about listing every segregatory social system that happens to have been classified as apartheid by its original author. There are systems that have not been classified as such (such as that upon which apartheid was supposedly based in part, the American system or systems), and this makes the article ineffectual at disambiguation, even if disambiguation were necessary in the first place. If someone wants to research "apartheid" in Israel, they can do a search for apartheid on wiki, and perhaps a section of Apartheid can note that the term is sometimes used to describe social systems outside of the South African issue. This should be a very clear matter and is, in my opinion, being politicized when it is not so to begin with. Fearwig 04:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have Holocaust (disambiguation), which lists things that are not The Holocaust, but things that some people have described as a Holocaust. No one typing in Holocaust would be looking for Holocaust (band), but it still makes it onto the dab page--Rayc 03:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, what are those who are searching for the band named "Holocaust" are supposed to type? -- Heptor talk 13:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Holocaust" does not in itself refer to the death of Jews in WWII, but "great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire" (first definition listed from most sources). That it has become almost synonymous in recent times with that event has nothing to do with the word itself, which predates the twentieth century. This is a major distinction. "Holocaust" has ancient Greek etymology, while "apartheid" is from Dutch, indicating its specific South African origins. Note that the first definition of "apartheid" listed uniformly refers to the South African event. Fearwig 04:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The meaning of words changes, I don't see how you can say that somehow Greek words can have general use, but Afrikaans words can't. A better comparison than holocaust would be ghetto (no I'm not picking another Jewish comparison on purpose), where a specific reference has become general. Just as the OED states in the definition of apartheid "Name given in South Africa to the segregation of the inhabitants of European descent from the non-European...applied also to any similar movement elsewhere; also, to other forms of racial separation (social, educational, etc.). Also fig. and attrib" so at least Israeli apartheid (phrase) would be a valid literal use of the word while the others (except maybe global apartheid) would be figurative. --Coroebus 08:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Coroebus, though words can change meaning, the word "Apartheid" as yet did not. You have to read a little between the lines - what OED states is "applied also to any similar [ie, to the original Apartheid] movement elsewhere". This merely states that the word has been used metaphorically. For comparison, definition of the word "Ghetto" [19] provides an alternative definition that is more commonly used than the original definition, and not only by some groups with clearly political objectives. -- Heptor talk 13:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I am intensely uncomfortable about reading between the lines to establish that something is metaphorical. At what point are we just engaging in our own speculation? Re: ghetto I don't understand what you're saying (the definition is "1. The quarter in a city, chiefly in Italy, to which the Jews were restricted" - the first ghetto was in Venice (hence the OED: "[Of uncertain etym., perh. f. It. getto foundry, as the first ghetto founded in Venice in 1516 was on the site of a foundry.]") but the word came to be generalised to any Jewish enclave, and then to a densely populated slum area (this latter use is designated figurative). So by your reasoning the ghetto article must be stripped of any reference to non-Jewish ghettos as these are simply metaphorical uses? --Coroebus 13:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Note also that Merriam-Webster has apartheid as "2 : SEPARATION, SEGREGATION <sexual apartheid>" so I think the shift in meaning really has already taken place, despite your protestations to the contrary. --Coroebus 13:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it not so much reading between the lines than it is to understand what the text actually says. It says "similar", which has to be similar to something;from the context it must be that it is "similar to the Apartheid regime in South Africa". Don't you agree?
Merriam Webstster seems to provide an alternative definition, synonymous to separation or segregation. Pardon me if I am wikilawyering, but in this case, ie if "apartheid" is merely a synonym for "segregation", Gender Apartheid is nothing more than a POV fork of Sex segregation. Clearly, this is a very inconventional definition. Britannica, is far less ambigous - apartheid is defined as: "(Afrikaans: “apartness”), policy that governed relations between South Africa's white minority and nonwhite majority and sanctioned racial segregation and political and economic discrimination against nonwhites."[20]
You must have missed the second definition of the word Ghetto on OED. It is clearly the most used one. -- Heptor talk 14:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gender apartheid is a synonym for gender segregation, yes. But that just proves that the M-W second definition of apartheid is a valid usage. You will notice that your preferred OED definition 2 for ghetto is labelled as being figurative. I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it here. You reject the use of apartheid for anything other than the SA Apartheid, because anything else is metaphorical in your eyes, and thus invalid, even when there is pretty good evidence that the word has come to mean something like 'separation' or 'discrimination' (interestingly the OED details it as going back as far as 1955). But for another word, ghetto, you reject the literal meaning and insist that the figurative (that means the same thing as metaphorical by the way) usage is the correct and 'most used' one. What I have tried to show, and I think you have rather nicely demonstrated, is that some objections to the use of 'apartheid' here are not driven by linguistic concerns, but rather something else, perhaps political --Coroebus 14:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should be more clear. I reject that the word Apartheid is used for anything else then SA regime, other then for political purposes (very much like for example fascism). "Ghetto" is generally used about racially segregated neighbourhoods. A ghetto is easier to define (bunch of "ethnical" people living together -> ghetto), and its use is not limited to those with some particular political agenda. -- Heptor talk 15:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that your Britannica definition of apartheid is from the encyclopaedia entry on apartheid, so is not the definition of the word. OED defines it as "Name given in South Africa to the segregation...applied also to any similar movement elsewhere; also, to other forms of racial separation (social, educational, etc.)", M-W says "2. SEPARATION, SEGREGATION", American Heritage says "2. A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups. 3. The condition of being separated from others; segregation.", as far as I can see you're working from an idiosyncratic personal definition of apartheid. --Coroebus 15:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I may have been misleading when I brought etymology into the discussion, though the fact that "holocaust" was simply an already common word used to describe "the Holocaust" that happened to "stick" in popular language is not entirely negligible. What's really important is that every single one of these articles can be distinguished from existing, generally better and more NPOV articles only by the presence of the word "apartheid", which in itself indicates flagrant POV. I don't agree or disagree with this POV, but it is pov. If I made an article called "Iraqi holocaust", I would be framing all information on that page in the POV of something that is not historically established as holocaust, and I would damn well hope someone would delete it. Sexual apartheid is sex discrimination, save that the name of the article itself throws NPOV to the wind by using a metaphorical reference to a historically-recognized despicable act to color the inferrences that will be drawn from the article. It's the Wiki equivalent of flashing pictures of Stalin in a smear ad. This has nothing to do with feelings about apartheid, sexual discrimination, the Israel/Palestine conflict or what kind of cheese the moon is made of. It's about impartiality, which these articles go out of their way to dismiss. I really can't believe this has sparked so much debate, as these things seem very plain to me. Coroebus, I am additionally saddened that you continue to frame opposition to this article as politically motivated when there have been many clear cases for its removal on an NPOV basis alone, whether or not you agree with the argument. I take this moment to assure you that this is not an pro-Semitic conspiracy, a misogynist conspiracy, or an (insert favorite conspiracy) conspiracy. We're editing Wikipedia, not waging ideological war. I voted strong delete because Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Fearwig 15:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You will note that I have already voted delete on this article, and redirect for many of the other articles! My objection is to what appear to be attempts to delete articles based on bogus linguistic assertions. You don't see me going around deleting the Islamofascism page because fascism can only apply to Italian nationalists either. If the usage is notable we talk about it, we don't reject it out of hand as POV because we don't like the implication --Coroebus 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now you are just insulting my intelligence :(
My main point is that when somebody calls something "X Apartheid", s/he is trying to suggest a similarity between the unfortunate X and the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Of course, even if you disagree, I am glad we reached the same conclusion. -- Heptor talk 15:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The same. Apologies for my haste, since we seem to be in (confusing) agreement. I think the etymology argument is valid, just not as valid as the POV problem, and much harder to argue with precision. Fearwig 15:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And of course that is exactly what is happening in the etymology of ghetto. Therefore, just because a word has a partially figurative nature does not make it somehow an invalid word. In a similarly Venetian theme, how about Arsenal? --Coroebus 15:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I worry this is going to turn into a semantic waste of talk space, as much as I'd love to continue! I'll say really quickly that I think it takes time for those words to translate into generic use rather than metaphorical use, and that time has not passed for "apartheid". Fearwig 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I think the evidence from actual dictionaries, rather than linguistic intuition is a better guide, but I'll leave it there too. --Coroebus 15:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The articles linked to do seem to follow the UN definition of the Crime of Apartheid. POV is an issue, but removing this page for that reason is a POV in itself. POV should be dealt with on the page itself not on pages that link to it. HighInBC 15:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's just not true. Read the article--none of these have to do with race. Thus they are metaphorical. At the very, very best they should be redirects. Denying a biased (or superfluous and biased article, in this case) title (e.g. Gender Holocaust to describe a mass-murder of women, a despicable event but not "gender holocaust") is not acceptable. Believing we should be rid of such articles has nothing to do with POV and everything to do with the integrity of WP. If someone provides ample proof that all of these terms have been used in prominent, peer-reviewed discussion, then I say a redirect is warranted. Only if someone can provide proof that all these terms have been used and are distinct from their counterparts (e.g. "sexual apartheid" v. "sexual discrimination"), then they deserve their own articles. Only then. Removing POV is not "POV in itself" unless you propose it because the ideas in the POV offend you, which we have established we are not (or I hope this has been established, anyway). The maintenance of neutrality is NPOV... by definition. POV (and NPOV) is more than "an issue", it's a policy. Fearwig 15:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I'm sure we could argue the racial question re: Israel and Palestine all day, but we do have individual deletion pages for each of these categories. I think the peer reviewed requirement is a little harsh, these aren't science articles --Coroebus 16:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment They're political science articles, so yes. I don't think the references should have to include professional advocacy/use of the terminology, but I think that scientific mention of their use should be a minimum requirement. Otherwise I fail to see how the terms could be considered valid and encyclopedic. If they are not used in a citable way, they do not exist (that's WP:NOR at work). There are a million articles on these topics in political science journals, not to mention those of other disciplines, and if one cannot find even one such example of their use, then I fail to see how the terms may be defended. And I was not trying to open the Israel/Palestine racial can of worms, I accidentally neglected that exception.Fearwig 16:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (some edits were made for clarity after next post--sorry for the confusion)[reply]
I'll probably betray my background in objecting to political science being referred to as a science, I don't think subjects like politics should rely on academic discourse to the same extent as (proper) scientific articles - in particular the academic and practical worlds of politics overlap and inter-relate, I think it would be very unwise to declare all non-academic political discourse out of bounds as a source, and also politics (as with other semi-sciences and humanities) as an academic discipline does not rely on the academic paper to the same extent as science - certainly almost the entirety of our political output on wikipedia would go up in flames. A very quick google scholar search (for what it's worth) reveals all these terms used somewhere --Coroebus 16:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Political science is intangible, in that it's not about making polymers and identifying starlings by their coloration or somesuch, but whatever your own definition of science there are guidelines on WP about what is and is not acceptable. These titles are analysis, that is, "original research" by the WP definition. Even pop poli-sci publications are peer reviewed, so this is not as major a limitation as you make it out to be. In fact, it's a very reasonable one. If google scholar brings these terms up in real journals, let's pop the results in as sources (after a glance to make sure it's relevant) and give these redirects, as I said. If there is some distinction in their use, let the author cite them. If proper citations were used, this entire debate would be null. Fearwig 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that these titles can realistically be defined as analysis, you may not consider them notable phrases or ideas, but I think you're going to have to stretch your definition of original research rather far. Otherwise Islamofascism or Arab anti-semitism become original research too. I strongly disagree with you on peer reviewed requirements for political articles, but perhaps you should consider trying it at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Advice_specific_to_subject_area? But by your insistence on academic study of a concept, movement or whatever, Wikipedia would very rapidly have to stop, lacking many contributors with access to academic journals, and limited entirely to that which political scientists have deigned to write about, things like the Lib Dem orange book, New_Labour or the Euston_manifesto covered many years after the event, and limited to a handful of sources if any. Wikipedia would be cutting itself off from mainstream political discourse. --Coroebus 16:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If one has access to neither academic or semi-academic (being that most such citable debate is carried on by those who are professionals in the matter) resources or even texts, I do not understand it to be wise to make substantive edits on any potentially POV subject. I and many others have made the mistake of doing so in one way or another without providing citations, and the material has been (rightly) reverted, when the article gets the attention of experienced editors. I think this is no exception. If the concept of Israeli apartheid "exists" (by WP standards), it will have been discussed professionally. This is my interpretation, and I think it is a common one. Sourcing potentially POV statements is not a hindrance to good editing--it is part of the definition of good editing. Islamofascism and Arab anti-semitism are concepts that have been noted by major sources (probably a million times over, by now), and as such they definitely "exist" by encyclopedic standards. It is more important that WP have these standards than that every indefinite, casual or novel concept is legitimized by its place here. Those would be more like Everything2 standards--acceptable in their own right, perhaps. Fearwig 18:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you'll no doubt be disappointed to see this "israeli apartheid" and this islamofascism ("arab anti-semitism" does better). --Coroebus 18:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That does not disappoint me at all, but makes me very happy. Now add it to the article, since you did all the work. :) Now find "gender apartheid" and "sexual apartheid", etc. if you're so eager. It's the sourcing (or rather, the ability to be sourced) that matters. Fearwig 18:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To make it clear to anyone that hasn't followed the links, google scholar has 15 hits for Islamofascism, and 40 odd for "Israeli apartheid". --Coroebus 18:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The word "apartheid" is often used in a metaphorical sense to denote any kind of segregation or separation (normally in a negative sense). In the same way words like terror, fascism, tyranny, nazism, and so on (including derivatives) are often used metaphorically. An encyclopaedia doesn't have separate articles for all different kinds of separation. Particular forms of separation should be discussed in the articles that deal with the corresponding subject (where that particular form of separation occurs). This ought to be obvious.--Denis Diderot 12:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Lanza (singer)[edit]

Cute, but rather lacking in notability, verifiability, or importance. All of the search results I'm seeing are either (a) from Wikipedia or mirror sites, or (b) referring to the (more notable) actress by the same name, an article for whom does not exist. — May. 31, '06 [06:17] <freak|talk>

  • Keep easily based on WP:MUSIC "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources.". Also, to a lessor extent, per WP:BIO "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." and --Rob 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a consensus that being rejected by American Idol makes one notable? Of your three sources, one is a 404 link, one is a newsletter at Michigan State University, which she attended, and one is a CBS network affiliate in Bay City where she lives. I'm sure she's a hometown heroine, but it appears she is an unknown figure outside of central Michigan. Do we have any verifiable information about her, a date of birth even? — May. 31, '06 [06:35] <freak|talk>
      • I'm not basing the keep on her trying out for American Idol. It's mainly for her international touring, and the fact its covered. WP:MUSIC was *intentionally* changed to allow for notable people without huge commercial success to be included. If we got adequate independent reliable sources, covering the tour, then that's adequate. Also, hopefully we don't go and delete articles because newstory links go dead. That's pretty typical, as free access is normally only given to recent stories. (I'll take a look at it, I didn't know till you told me). -Rob 06:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Added: I beleive AP is more than just a local news outlet, and they wrote about her. --Rob 07:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rob and WP:MUSIC JohnM4402 06:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Rob. In the past, people on these tours have been reasonably notable. Capitalistroadster 06:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rob. --Terence Ong 14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was thinking I'd lean toward keeping this one based on the USO tour, but after a little searching, I'm not sure about that now. Take a look at this article (Google cached) about her participation in the USO tour. After reading the circumstances of the tour, do you feel that she's notable enough? And further, can there be a good article here? I know that participating in the USO is technically touring internationally, but is this really the same as being individually booked (and in most cases, paid) to play in another country? I'd be interested in hearing the reasoning one way or the other. ScottW 00:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It'd work for me. Moreso, in fact, that it's the USO and not some random club tour. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, the USO part is why I was originally inclined to say keep. That's certainly a notable enough organization. The way she was sent though was almost club-like though. And I guess what troubles me the most about this one is that there's little coverage of her beyond 'local girl makes good' type articles. ScottW 01:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But, also consider, that in this case we have more verification that she was actually independently selected for the tour, than in other cases. Sometimes, we have articles on singers/bands that "tour" nationally, but the "tour" is really them renting various small venues at their own expense, and getting write-ups in music sites, that basically cover every gig around. In this case she was selected by an organization independent of herself. While she just got her expenses covered, those expenses are probably more than what many performers get paid for smaller venues. Often, booking a singer/band as the non-headline member of a tour is no big deal, because if it doesn't work out, you cant punt them pretty easy. Going to Iraq, probably takes more thought and committment, though. But, I'm going to make the obvious concession, that I'm not seeing this becoming Featured Article. --Rob 01:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • From the articles on her tour, it seems as if she was chosen for the tour based upon a minor beauty pagent. I agree, though, that this isn't some group who paid their way to Canda one weekend to perform at an open-mic night. She definitely participated in a substantial tour, but is it a tour she took because she was in demand, or one she took because she won it from being a runner up in a Hooters contest? If it's the former (or even if it's just somehow shown not to be the latter), then I'd feel much better keeping this one. For tonight, I think I'll refrain from commiting one way or the other. ScottW 02:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All news articles appear to be about the same event (and so count as one). I don't agree with her passing WP:MUSIC. Does being part of a large tour qualify as going on one? Does every Riverdance dancer qualify under WP:MUSIC? Fagstein 02:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, WP:BIO refers to a "single day's news event only", and this is much more than one days event. Also, Riverdance involves a large number of people on a stage at once, doing similiar things. Hence, they warrant an article, but only a combined article for the whole production. Lanza was a solo act. The only other musical act mentioned (or in the photos) is UC3. So, for a made-up analogy, if a solo act toured with Riverdance to Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Qatar and Iraq; then they would likely warrant an article. --Rob 05:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm referring to the news stories which all seem centred around May 19-20, 2004, about the USO tour. The rest seem to be either about trivial events or from local media. Nevertheless, I'm suspending my delete vote for now. Fagstein 06:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplanet[edit]

This article is nothing but an advertisement for a bunch of non-notable individuals and a lot of it is just nonsense to boot (I'm curious to know what sort of "regular event" "meat" is, for one thing). I'm tempted to nominate this page for speedy deletion but I've decided to go through with just a standard deletion nomination for now.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 06:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Articles former crap quality was due to defacement, not unworthy subject matter. Vote: Do not delete. - Lemonus
  • No need to jump the gun, all it needs is a little polish. The main problem is everyone who thinks they're someone wants to be mentioned in the article. - Okelix
  • "regular event" such as a "meat" also known as a "meet", you know, where humans meet other humans, and trade humourous anecdotes about horses and other victorian era gems.--Subwaynz 08:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conrad, if it would help put your mind at rest, regarding the advertising issue the gameplanet forums have absolutely nothing to do with the GP store. I presume GP store is mentioned in the article as it was the same persons that begun both of them (That's my understanding anyway). -massive —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Discosteve (talk • contribs) 21:56, 31 May 2006.


  • Eesh, certainly not an advertisement. Agreed that it was crap for a while though. - Zealot —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.55.230.121 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 31 May 2006.
  • Keep, cleanup and remove non-notable trivia; the site is notable within the New Zealand online community. This is an extremely high traffic website (the forum has over 40k members and is ranked 166 on Big Boards) and it has received minor national coverage in NZ media both in the wake of a celeb drugs scandal and as an award-winning site ([21]). --Muchness 10:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there any other verifiable claim to notability except that one web award? Low Alexa rank. The drug scandal claims are whoppingly unimpressive — some people speculated about celebrity names and guessed some right??? If the site is notable the article should concentrate on that instead of listing some guys' screen names and random mentions about a radio chat show host once reading a line from a web forum. Chatty unverifiable trivia makes the site appear less notable. Weregerbil 10:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the page. Gameplanet forums is undeniably the biggest online community in New zealand, and thus deserves a Wikipedia article. All it needs is a little work. Wedge 203.97.255.197 11:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article just needs some pruning, which it was in the process of when Mr Conrad here decided that a forty thousand some member community is not deserving of an article. Maybe a little more fencing will fix your boredom, EN GARDE -Lemonus
  • Comment Alexa isnt everything mate, its spyware which increasing numbers of people have removed. but if you must, this is a report from ac neilson netratings [22], and of course it isnt going to rank highly worldwide, its a New Zealand Based Forum and out of a population of over 4 million, a 40k member base makes it the largest forum in the country. The media in question did not specifically refer to Gameplanet forums, but in the video items gp was clearly visible. This was to prevent any legal repercusions. But If you think this is bad, wait till you see the something awful wiki. Btw, do you like trolling and annoying people cause you have no life?. --Subwaynz 11:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh and, by the way, the drugs scandal case was a very very important case in nz. it capitivated the media in nz for about a week, and the primary focus was on the information leak on the internet THROUGH GPFORUMS which identified the celebrities involved. And it is in the process of being written, you may or may not notice, but it is nigh on 24 hours old, and hasnt been completed yet. --Subwaynz 11:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To those who disagree with this nomination, I apologise if you feel my deletion proposal was hasty and that this subject is notable. I'm not very knowledgable about online gaming communities nor am I from New Zealand, but I assumed that if this article was about a notable subject it would have been in just a little better shape than it was. Here is the diff just before I nominated it for deletion: [23]. Take a look at it and hopefully you'll understand my motivation for deleting it. Oh and by the way, I was contemplating nominating it for a speedy deletion but thought that it might have some redeeming value so instead nominated it for a standard deletion so that attention might be brought to its problems and those who opposed deletion could voice their opinions.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 16:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:WEB sorry. Dominick (TALK) 18:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Gpforums won an award in the netguide web awards for best entertainment site, that meets your criteria for web based content on wiki mate. --Subwaynz 23:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have removed the rest of that nonsense about "notable members", so that is no longer an issue. If this nomination continues, notability of the site should be the only concern.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 19:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think not Conrad. The content concerning those notable members is there for a reason sgt molloy was actually convicted. we consider him a notable individual. I will continue to edit this back too, considering the content that is allowed in such pages as [something awful]--Subwaynz 23:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's valid to compare Gameplanet (Alexa=95,068) to SomethingAwful (Alexa=1,870). Be aware of the WP:3RR rule if you plan on getting into an edit war regarding those sections. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is nothing of that nature in the Something Awful article. SubSeven 00:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep WP:WEB passage is borderline; while it may be large in New Zealand, I'm not sure I understand why NZ would have a distinct gaming culture? Most other forums of this nature are international. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB. No media sources, non-notable. Only thing going for it is that it's a Google News source. Can someone find a mention of this site in some media? Fagstein 02:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Shaun Olsen's source below. Fagstein 07:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But what does New Zealand's largest newspaper know anyway?[24] -Shaun Olsen 06:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Note Something Awful's Personalities subsection. If you delete our notable members section, then i will delete theirs, simple. and im sure you dont want the sa members on your back now do you. --Subwaynz 07:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No. Those are not forum members; those are the contributors to the Something Awful web site. If you look at the Something Awful Forums article, you will see that there is no notable members section. SubSeven 18:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cease and desist Subway, You manage to find the absolutely wrong way to try and go about things at every opportunity. Lemonus
  • Comment Lemon, when hypocrisy from an admin even, i feel that its the last option. Wikipedia is full or so many one eyed editors, i not only feel that our notable members section is justified, all you need to look at is the admin response that the two sections differ. i think not. pull your head in jamie. --Subwaynz 07:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Damn it Subway, you aren't helping ANYONE now, not even yourself. -Shaun Olsen
  • Comment I cant believe you guys, here it is, an admin with blatant hypocrisy, trying to tell us that the members noted on something awful's wiki are any more notable than our notable members. like hell!!!. i have pointed this out, yet jamie continues to disagree with the reasoning and facets of the concensus. once the day rolls around again i will revert it back, because i know im right, and the wiki policies prove this. but im not risking a 3rr ban. --Subwaynz 10:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now, why does it matter to you if people know about such-and-such a member wanting to join the French Foreign Legion or not?--Conrad Devonshire Talk 02:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you not take a hint conrad? If you agree that the notable members section in the Something Awful Wiki is legitimate, then there is no reason the gpforums notable members wiki shouldnt be allowed too. Care to delete theirs at the same time? Or is it only cause your biased towards SA and wont delete theirs, when it is quite clearly the same. --Subwaynz 04:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- r2b2 03:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you talking about? I don't know anything about the "Something Awful Wiki".--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll fill you in then. The Something Awful is populated by a very similar section, called Personalities. It contains the psuedonym of the Member and Why the Member is there. I see a great similarity between the two, and cannot differentiate a difference between the two, other than the context, that the Personalities as mentioned also maintain editing the Main Page for Something Awful. --Subwaynz 05:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without notable members section r2b2 04:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Subway you enormous god damn tard. Those people arent that notable, honestly, and his point about something awful member section being only writes and important front page people, he is correct. GET A CLUE. - Lemonus
  • Comment Knowing nothing of the Something Awful entries, I took a look to see how they compare with regards to the "personalites" sections. Personally I see the Something Awful entry itself as more of an entry about a type of publication (as it appears to have articles rather than freeform chat which would be the Something Awful Forum). If you take Something Awful itself and compare it to, say, The Times or Washington Post (taking two other publications at random), you'll note that the two paper entries have a notable contributors section. The Something Awful Forum entry doesn't. (I'm from NZ btw) r2b2 06:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm from NZ, never heard of it, but it seems to have some notablity within NZ, and please keep it civil. Insulting people does NOT help your argument. --Midnighttonight 02:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Subway, cool it. You've got too much personal stake in this it seems. Hey Conrad, come back and respark the relative vs. absolute debate your thread turned into. ;)

--Cynos

  • keep notable, even I have heard of it :) Brian | (Talk) 12:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My god this is frustrating, everyone seems to think just because they dont know of something that they feel it is not relevant, while this is a broad comment, it is what the users of wikipedia feel. the whole idea of an encyclopadia is to provide a medium to collate information from the world around us. why do i go to wikipedia? to learn about something i have no idea about/havent heard of. If i was a prospective forum member and i wanted to learn about gpforums, and i went to wikipedia, i then learnt all about gpforums, and i saw the notable members aspect, and when i DID join gpforums i would know why people post replies of why they hate wushu, or brock. It is not about why a United States wikipedia user doesnt know about someone or a topic (from nz). I just think that people should stick their noses where its actually wanted. The notable members part complied with wiki policies, sgt molloy was featured in the mainstream media. So, however much you think your the expert on everything world wide, your not. The notable members are an integral part of gpforums and is what makes gpforums what it is today. If you dont like it, or havent heard of it, but it complies with wiki policies, then dont be a knob and delete it, wikipedia is diverse, so is the world. Thats what an encyclopedia is designed to do.--Subwaynz 06:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from "Sgt. Molloy" who was mentioned in the news, none of those members are notable anywhere outside of Gameplanet itself, so they shouldn't be here. I have left Sgt. Molloy here for now, but I should also mention that his real name needs to be mentioned in the article if he is to stay.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 19:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Well known throughout NZ, I personally am not a member but have heard it mensioned in the media in NZ several times. Stevee2 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 WP:CSD#A7. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Berretta[edit]

Non-notable persons. 0zymandias 07:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flagstaff Hill Football Club[edit]

Non-notable youth football club, deprodded by author JChap 07:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think there is any thing wrong with it and it isnt doing any harm. Paulbowen 05:06, 31 May 2006 (AST)

Also some of Australia's finest footballers have come from this club and the club is quite famous in the area. Paulbowen 05:10, 31 May 2006 (AST)

Comment: I suggest you add these points to the article. --JChap 07:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep. At the very least this needs copyediting, it is written in the 1st person. To my mind it doesn't really seem notable enough. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 11:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge. While the club is not a "youth" club as claimed in the nom, it is an amateur club in a league that doesn't even have it's own article yet. A small amount of info on the club could be included in an article on the league. JPD (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn football club. --Terence Ong 14:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely nothing notable about this team, which competes in a league that itself isn't remotely notable. It's also a hugely POV article, and almost certainly. Also, assuming this article gets deleted, the deleting admin should make sure all redirects to the article are also deleted. -- Kicking222 21:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It might be worth having an article on the league. I further note that this is a word for word copyvio of the club history here see [25]. Capitalistroadster 00:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 02:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will create an article on the league. --Paulbowen 06:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete a suburban local league. Not even at the SANFL level.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article asserts little to no notability, it's just an amateur football club. --Rory096 08:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish innovation system[edit]

This doesn't really exist, it's just lots of hype. There's no specific 'Finnish innovation system', this article just seems to be about some sort of 'innovation system' that's used in Finland and is exactly the same as in any other country. (The article doesn't even describe it in any way.) The previous AFD almost a year ago was pretty much in favour of merging, but nothing's happened to the article since then. It's also had a cleanup tag since July.

I don't think there's anything worth merging anywhere in the article. It's pretty much advertising that doesn't really say anything. ulayiti (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --Qwertyca 08:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable and doesn't really contain any information michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 10:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't have a centralized system so the main problem with the article is that it describes something that doesn't exist. Weregerbil 11:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. There's no such thing as a "Finnish innovation system", and I'm even Finnish, at that. JIP | Talk 11:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, thing doesn't exist. --Terence Ong 14:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedic and as others say above. Pavel Vozenilek 01:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted by Brookie. — TheKMantalk 13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hunter Cohen[edit]

not notable, deprodded by author, jhc23 JChap 07:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 12:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Antone[edit]

  • Weak Delete : I fail to see the notability of this individual. His only claim to fame is perhaps that he was "mentor to Stevie Ray Vaughan, Jimmie Vaughan and numerous other musicians." Since the article does not expand on his mentoring of these fine musicians, I don't see the point of having the article. --Asbl 14:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have changed my vote to a Weak Delete, as the LA Times does not run an obituary about just anybody. We'll have to wait to see how the article develops. --Asbl 15:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Disclosure -- I am the first author of the article. The Wiki article on biograpnic notability gives different standards for living and (long) deceased persons. As Clifford Antone has only been deceased one week, the living standard should apply. He clearly meets several tests for notability: the Google Test yields more than 250,000 references, the Verifiability test is passed because his obituaries can be easily found in the NY Times, Washington Post, and LA Times. Antone was largely responsible for Austin's international fame as a music venue. He started a record label, and a blues club that was a featured nearly every major blues performer. Through his mentoring of musicians, his legacy will be felt nationally for many years. Antone's effect on Austin is very similar to that of Bill Graham to San Francisco. If the article does not yet fully express this signicance, a great deal more information is becoming available as many major newspapers are publishing his obituary. SteveHopson 15:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : This is a keep article for me as Antone's has always been 'light on the hill' for blues players. Here in Australia we in the Blues Society talk about the roots of blues that came from Austin and Cliffords zeal. regards Terry carlan

  • Keep. I first heard of Antone's death in an Australian online music magazine Undercover News. Since then, he has had obituaries in a number of significant newspapers indicating widespread acceptance of his notability. He was a significant player in blues and in the Austin music scene which is one of the most significant in the US if not the world. For mine, he is both notable and verifiable. Capitalistroadster 19:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Antone was a big part of the development of modern blues through his work in the industry. Definitely notable. Sorry to hear about his passing, too. Tony Fox 17:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By looking down the obituary list on this site, one gathers this is not a who's who list. As a whole, Wikipedia contains hundreds, if not thousands, of articles of little or no concern. Clifford Antone was a cog in what put Austin's music scene on the radar. He's not Don Arden or David Geffen, but a bit more relevant to Americana than Six Fat Dutchmen or Slingshot (band) or countless others that are about as relevant.
Vote to keep chaz171 {Note: Chaz171's comment was moved from the Clifford Antone discussion page without editing by SteveHopson.}
  • Keep. A simple LexisNexis search yielded hundreds of newspaper articles about Antone, and his role in bringing future blues stars in front of audiences. I rate his importance with someone like Sam Phillips. Aguerriero (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the others. Choalbaton 12:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvain Removille[edit]

An executive at a wine company. No evidence of notability supplied. - Motor (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete bordering on speedy, no individual notability asserted or evident. Sandstein 19:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 21:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Although a close decision, I am concerned about potential sock/meatpuppets affecting the comments, and I find more credible arguments from the side claiming this is a vanity page. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manascrewed[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB, no other claim to notability suggested. Vanity, created by web-comic's author. User42 08:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 11:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment FYI, this isn't actually the second AfD for the comic. The first one was for the actual term used by Magic: The Gathering players. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 11:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with User42's reasons. -- Dragonfiend 13:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have placed a copy of this article on Comixpedia. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Absolutely no assertion of notability, Alexa rank is around 3 million. Maybe we should have articles on separate drops of the ocean? - Hahnchen 17:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have moved this page to "Manascrewed (webcomic)" to differentiate it from the prior unrelated nomination. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 20:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Small cult following" tells it all. Fagstein 02:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Vanity is a serious accusation. Can the Nom prove it? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was created by User:Anthson. Anthson is the author's screen-name, see a forum post here. He also notes it in the blog. User42 00:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Keep: Though only because I'm opposed to the wanton killing off of articles for "obscure" webcomics in general. This one is niche but seems to be updating on a reliable schedule, which is (IMHO) an indication of a positive future for a webcomic. On the other hand it seems to be attracting vandals, presumably these londes.com people that Jansky thinks are so against him. Vanity confirmed, author cops to it on his blog. Is that hugely important when there are other editors?--Khaighle 03:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm voting keep for several reasons. Yes, the author of the wiki is the guy who originally created the comic, and yes, that's a potential issue. However, the comic is notable enough, relevant to Magic- Wizards of the Coast has several people say they read his comic, including Aaron Forsythe, who linked to Manascrewed in an article on the official site. I think this is reason enough to keep despite the fact that it's a niche comic and that the author created the wiki. The vandalism alone shows that it is notable enough to be targeted. ChocoCid 17:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or you could cross-check with IP addresses and see that I've probably made a dozen edits, I just never bothered to log in to make most of my edits. Plus, my account's been around longer than this AFD has been up, which is what Wikipedia policy states is important. If you're going to accuse me of being a sock puppet, you really should do a bit of checking. ChocoCid 20:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never accused you of being a sockpuppet, I simply pointed out a fact. I apologise if I have offended you. I'm not aware of any policy that says what is important. According to the deletion policy it's down to the closing admin to decide where community consensus lies. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Actually one of my favorite online comics. However, it isn't notable enough to merit inclusion per WP:WEB. Being linked to by Wizards of the Coast may make it notable within the world of magic players or the magic internet community but not in general. The fact the the author created the article also counts in favour of deletion. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with ChocoCid. The entry was indeed created by the author of the webcomic, but the webcomic is also relevant in the Magic: The Gathering community. 1,000 readers a day seems like it seems pretty "notable" to me. Plenty of other articles on wikipedia are only relevant to a niche, and they are permitted to exist.--Tahngarth
  • Weak keep The link from Wizards caught my attention. Perhaps more ideal than keeping it now may be to give it a delete without prejudice. The Magic audience is sizable, so it's a pretty big niche. It's likely that the comic will grow in significance, but it seems a little early at this point. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Che’Nelle[edit]

fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, deprodded by anon JChap 08:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: After the AFD, if there's a delete, an admin should take care of Chenelle, a duplicate (made by same creator) which I converted to a redirect, and tagged. --Rob 10:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep per WP:MUSIC "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" such as VIBE and others. --Rob 10:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at the properly spelled location. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 14:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 12:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2008-09 in English football, 2009-10 in English football[edit]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There is no meaningful information in either of these articles at the moment, nor will there be until at least late 2007 when the World Cup 2010 European qualifying groups will be drawn. Erath 08:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nom. Unlike something like the Olympics, there just isn't enough to say about these two upcoming seasons to justify articles. 23skidoo 13:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 14:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Although there is not much information shown on these pages at present, more information is likely to be added in the near future (certainly before the end of 2007). Besides these pages do not contain any offensive or overly speculative statements and are therefore not causing any harm. Dan1980 20:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dan1980. Mark272 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- cds(talk) 23:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. --Ezeu 01:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Fagstein 02:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no need to wipe this useful work. Choalbaton 12:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The seasons will happen anyway and will need to be recreated. Also, as others have said, there is little speculation in either entry and keeping them will do no harm. The potential for expansion is there as more becomes clear about these seasons so there is no real need for deletion. Keresaspa 17:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful information if sparse; why delete it if we're just going to put it back up there later? Minfo 04:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The proposal is to delete 2008-09 in English football as well as 2009-10 in English football (although this AfD is entitled for the former only). The article contains some useful information which will inevitably grow as time passes and is not too far in the future to become stagnant in the meantime. I can appreciate the reason for this nomination but I think that we would be deleting something that would need to be created again all too soon. -- Alias Flood 22:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Lucas[edit]

Not mentioned on Manchester City's website. Google doesn't pick up "Nick Lucas" and "Manchester City" in same article. Seems either vanity page or non notable person. Pally01 11:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Considering the person in question just turned 18, and the article's creator has never edited another article, and taking into account the failure of the Google test, I'll say that this is a complete hoax. -- Kicking222 22:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable at best, hoax at worst. --Ezeu 01:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. The MCFC.co.uk team roster for next season does not open until the end of the june-august transfer window. Hence Joe Hart and Paul Dickov not yet appearing. I am a Man City fan and I must admit I have never seen 'Lucas' play but I spoke to a journalist mate who knows a lot about City and says that the guy is on a youth contract in the academy and is relatively unkown because he is a physical player rather than a technical one (making him a ecent defender). Tezphillips
  • Delete not citing sources, not wikified, notability unclear; if he becomes notable, I have no problem with someone creating a proper article Deleteme42 00:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Kjkolb 21:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automated lighting[edit]

The material from this page has been transfered to Intelligent lighting and merged with content from moving light. This page is now duplicated material and should become a redirect. Happy-melon 09:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besserwisser[edit]

Dictionary definition that's been transwikied. The prod was contested with the reasoning "This page should NOT be deleted. Besserwisser is a very good word for a know-it-all-person, and having it described in English would be beneficial. I added some refs and removed the deletion message". And since it's described in English in wiktionary, there's no reason to keep it here. - Bobet 09:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, and redirects are cheap. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opal(CERN)[edit]

With space is better: Opal (CERN). (Nothing links here) Harp 09:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the redirect does no harm. Mr Stephen 11:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Null. Should be in WP:RFD, where it would be voted down. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to RFD please. Fagstein 02:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a "redirects as a result of an implausible typo" — RJH (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Band UK[edit]

Non-notable music promotion company (started May 2006); Prod tag removed by author without explaination. Matt Eason 10:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleph(CERN)[edit]

With space is better: Aleph (CERN). (Nothing links here) Harp 09:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep, the redirect does no harm, and anyway redirects for deletion should go to WP:RFD. JIP | Talk 11:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as previous. Mr Stephen 11:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Null. Would need to be at WP:RFD, where it also would get a speedy keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a "redirects as a result of an implausible typo" — RJH (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 12:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis Cardinals/Players of note[edit]

These are nothing but lists of names, duplicating already existing categories. Ezeu 09:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Arizona Diamondbacks/Players of note
  • Atlanta Braves players of note
  • Baltimore Orioles/Players of note
  • Chicago Cubs/Players of note
  • Cincinnati Reds/Players of note
  • Cleveland Indians/Players of note
  • Colorado Rockies players of note
  • Detroit Tigers players of note
  • Florida Marlins players of note
  • Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim/Players of note
  • Los Angeles Dodgers/Players of note
  • Milwaukee Brewers/Players of note
  • Minnesota Twins players of note
  • New York Yankees players of note
  • Notable players for the Philadelphia Phillies
  • Oakland Athletics/Players of note
  • Pittsburgh Pirates/Players of note
  • San Diego Padres: Players of Note
  • San Francisco Giants/Players of note
  • St. Louis Cardinals/Players of note
  • Tampa Bay Devil Rays/Players of note
  • Texas Rangers/Players of note
  • Toronto Blue Jays/Players of note
  • Delete: per nom. Far too arbitrary. These should be highlighted in the team articles - and that's all. -- Wknight94 (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Arbitrary, original research. Category suffices. I don't like articles with / in them. MLA 10:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Neither do most other editors. That's why there's a policy stating that subpages are a bad thing. That's what that naming convention reads like. —C.Fred (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them for reasons stated above. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Same logic as earlier AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle Mariners/Players of note -- GWO
  • Delete - Serve no encyclopaedic purpose that categories don't already cover. The Disco King 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last year, a user went around and split up the team pages for every MLB team, creating multiple subpages. These are decidedly not the same as the categories, as the categories are much, much larger than the notable players lists. The lists should be merged back into their parent articles so that the MLB team articles match the format of teams in other major sports. - EurekaLott 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inherently POV with no definable standards. If these lists were designed to be more selective than the categories, they're not doing very well. (As a Cardinals fan, I doubt you'd find anyone in St. Louis who would describe Marlon Anderson or Kiko Calero deserving of being listed next to Scott Rolen, Jim Edmonds or the best player in baseball.) - Fan1967 14:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GWO. ScottW 15:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete THree strikes... Dominick (TALK) 18:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV, no criteria for inclusion, arbitrary. SM247 20:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete for reasons cited above. --Disavian 21:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: What grounds are there for speedy delete as opposed to delete? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right now, only for Houston Astros/Players of note is there, where you can argue it A3 (empty). None of the populated lists qualify. —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the respective main articles and then delete the resulting emptied pages. This was already done for the Houston Astros, although Houston Astros/Players of note exists as a redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With some basic standards (All-Stars and other players of 10 or more years, for instance), these could be useful. The categories include everone with at least one appearance, which isn't particularly helpful. MisfitToys 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there are already All-Star-related categories. And I'd support categories like "St. Louis Cardinals with ten years experience" - or something to that effect. Just to say "Players of note" is too general. I'm sure someone could think of something more definitive. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think there are already too many categories like that; most of the All-Star categories could be replaced by articles on the individual games. Some of the bio articles are going to end up with 50 to 60 categories, which IMO is overdoing it. MisfitToys 21:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I won't comment on category count. I've never seen consensus on how many are too many. If, instead of categories, you want lists of people with 5+ years experience on a team, I'm happy with that too. Just not something as generic as "Players of note". It seems like some people run into Joe Shmoe at the grocery store and get an autograph - and that means they qualify as a player of note. That I don't like. Just my opinion... —Wknight94 (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Norman[edit]

both csd and prod tags have been removed with no explanation. User:64.229.179.116 10:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business Trip
  • Delete, his book is published by Lulu Press, who appear to be a vanity press. Doesn't appear otherwise notable in the slightest. Seb Patrick 10:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect. Has already been deleted twice, and he is still not notable. His book Business Trip is also on AfD. --Ezeu 01:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Note that User:192.197.71.189 deleted the AfD text from this article, I've reverted it. Paddles TC 07:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. ccwaters 01:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why this author should be treated any different from any other published author. His book was published, has sold many copies, and is sold over various vendors including Amazon. Just because he is not yet well known doesn't mean he shouldn't have an article. I googled the guy and there's piles of articles and whatnot about him. I say the article should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.197.71.189 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 2 June 2006.
  • Leave it! I agree with the guy above. This is an author who has put work into his writing. I'm a fan of his writing and he deseverves an article here just as much as any other writer. You guys are jerks for saying he's not "notable" just because you haven't heard of him before. YOU are the vain ones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dsmith1987 (talk • contribs) 3 June 2006.
    • Suggesting that the subject of an article might not be notable enough for an article in WP is not bad ettiquette, but insulting other editors definitely is. Stay cool. Paddles TC 06:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN & vanity: Amazon.com Sales Rank: None, Yesterday: None ~ trialsanderrors 11:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appologize for insulting you. But seriously, there is no real reason to delete this article. You keep saying vanity, but it would only be vanity if the guy made the article himself, which he didn't. I bought a copy of his book and loved it, so I researched the guy and wrote this. You can google him if you like. There IS info out there. I say it's a valid article! Since when is Wikipedia running out of space?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmith1987 (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 was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 22:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pav Akhtar[edit]

Pav Akhtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was tagged in May as lacking a credible claim of notability - I think that is accurate, and it still lacks any such claim. This person was a student political activist, and is now a borough councillor, but that is the limit of it. These are not achievements that will garner significant independent coverage - there is unlikely to be an independent biography on the basis of such activities, and a local councillor will not normally qualify for an obituary in the broadsheets should they happen to die. Although we have articles on borough councillors it's almost always because they went on to become members of parliament, or did something else worthy of note. I suspect that this article exists to prove a point about gay Muslims, but perhaps that is just a coincidence. The article was started (and is the sole contribution of) an acknowledged student activist, who believes in 100% income tax for people earning over £50,000 (which does not indicate much of a grounding in realpolitik or indeed reality) Cruftbane 21:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, likely autobiography by single-purpose account. Does not demonstrate biographical notability. First Muslim to win an office would be arguably notable, but first to run is not, by itself. --Dhartung | Talk 03:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A local councillor does not meet WP:NOTE. He has quite bit of press in the Guardian as a student activist but nothing of significance or importance that would guarantee long-term historical notability in my view, so I lean towards delete. --Malcolmxl5 03:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Status as a local councillor might be insufficient for notability but the well-documented activity and controversy in student government qualifies. 76.212.213.198 16:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC) (Neglected to signin when leaving the preceding - Orphic 16:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak keep - Please assume good faith; whether this article fails or passes WP:N, it does so very close to the borderline, and as such there are plenty of people, first-time contributors or not, who find Akhtar notable enough for an article, without him having to write his own autobiography. Regarding notability, he has held a notable and conspicuous public office (President of Cambridge University Students Union), and been a councillor. While these are not alone enough to pass WP:N, the secondary coverage and furore created by the Black Students' affair, and Akhtar's activities and such since, mean that he is a well-known figure covered in several independent sources. That said, if there is consensus to delete, I'm in favour of that too (as I said, its a borderline case). Jdcooper 15:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable politician and activist. Members of state/provincial legislatures (e.g., London City Council) are per se notable. Bearian 21:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If only he rose to such heights - he is a councillor for some subdivision of a subdivision of London. Carlossuarez46 22:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moderate Keep- those are fairly notable councils, and the involvement, if AGF applies, seems sufficient to get over the line. Clean up.JJJ999 05:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIt provides useful information on this individual. Why delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.155.23 (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, as there is consensus this article shouldn't exist but no consensus to remove the content. Johnleemk | Talk 11:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to Concentrate[edit]

I put a prod tag on it but that was removed with no reasoning left on the talk page or in the edit summary. The song is not going to be released as a single as far as I can tell and the article doesn't include any claim of cultural significance. It's just a song and could be summed up on the album's page. Dismas|(talk) 10:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Stadium Arcadium. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a completely non-notable song, and there's nothing worth merging. -- Kicking222 22:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against It could be merged, but is anyone going to actually merge it, and would it really fit in with the article? The fact that it was written as a wedding song for Flea seems to be important to be fans, so perhaps we should just let it be.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SandwichHat (talk • contribs)
  • Against It is definitely an important song off of Stadium Arcadium because it symbolizes the love lives of some of the band members - Bagel7 08:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I say it should be deleted, but ONLY if information related to that it was the "wedding proposal" be included in the original article. OR I say instead of having an entry for each song, each disc gets an entry and all of these types of notes are combined into that article. Less RE-Re-Redirects. (as some of the songs already have a redirect several times.) ZyphBear 02:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beastly Adventure[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable charity or expedition or whatever this is. Nothing on Google except self-added mentions on free sites. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, delusions of grandeur. Vizjim 10:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self promotion, no evidence of notability. JPD (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-promotion. -- Docether 13:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

Admittedly there is an element of self promotion here but I hope you will all agree that we are trying to further the interests of our selected charities - any forum is a good one where that is concerned, particularly as Wikipedia is often highly listed in Google (although below our own site). We are also of course, interested in creating awareness about our expedition and for a global rally that we are in the process of trying to establish.

I am a little confused as to what 'Non-notable' means. Does it mean that the expedition is not yet famous enough? Or does it mean that it is pointless? These might both well be the case but one could argue in that sense, that any expedition is "Non-notable". Who chooses what is 'Notable'?

The comment about us being self-mentioning on free sites is only true in as much as our website is hosted on a free provider. If you look at the 'newspaper' tab on our site you will see there has been, and continues to be, considerable interest in our expedition.

I am sure the page will be removed as it looks like the general consensus is for deletion and for the most part I take no issue with the points made above. Vizjiz, however, your comments are a little strange. I am assuming you are some kind of moderator for the site and as such it would seem inappropriate of you to attempt to insult contributors. I can't work out why you have said we have 'delusions of grandeur'. Perhaps driving around the world in rusty old tractor seems 'Grand' to you but I can assure it is not. As for 'delusional', I can only imagine that you either, don't know what it means, or simply like the expression. In any case you are not being particularly constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copropraxia (talk • contribs)

Comment -- I'll address a couple of salient points here.
  • "Notability" is a general guideline that determines what topics are "encyclopedic" enough to be included in Wikipedia. A good place to start reading about notability is here. Lack of notability is one of the primary criteria for articles being listed for deletion (and thus ending up here).
  • Closely tied to notability is the issue of "self-promotion." A guideline about self-promoting articles (aka "vanity articles") can be found here, which should explain why they're not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
  • Actually, there aren't any "moderators" per se on this page. Anyone can suggest that an article should be deleted, and list it for deletion. Similarly, anyone can take a look at an article that's been listed for deletion and add their opinion to the discussion. Vizjim is a simple contributor to this site just like the rest of us, and his / her comments have no "cloud of authority."
  • You may want to check out WP:NOT and WP:DEL for some insight into why people are concerned about this article's inclusion in Wikipedia. You can always rewrite this article to provide verifiable evidence of notability, and to satisfy other objections.
Best, Docether 14:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like Docether said. Having this deleted definitely would not say your expedition is pointless. It sounds like a very good cause and is probably even quite fun - but those aren't the criteria for what is included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is designed to report on things that other people have reported on. Your best bet for saving this would be to elaborate on where your expedition has been written about. The http://www.lrm.co.uk/ link is for a magazine - it doesn't say where your expedition is mentioned. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Terence Ong 14:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for my previous comment, which broke the WP:BITE guidelines. In compensation, I have done a major re-write of the article, removing the POV, advertising and first-person content, and adding in the newspaper coverage this trek has received. I think this still breaks the notability guidelines, but it's more of a balanced case than it was before. And, by the way, I have no more authority than you do. Vizjim 15:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Vizjim. In any case it is probably true to say that it is still perhaps too personal for Wikipedia for the moment. When we eventually get on with something more concrete we can come back on and add it. Until then delete away. Cheers.
  • Delete. Too bad about Vizjim's cleanup work, but still non-notable. (Unless they get themselves kidnapped or otherwise wind up in dire circumstances on CNN, sadly. Best of luck, at any rate.) Sandstein 19:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but don't get discouraged. I think it would be easy to establish notability in the future. If you finish and you have raised a ton of money, or set a notable record, or someone else starts doing it, etc. Aguerriero (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply a non-notable event. -- Kicking222 22:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Zahn[edit]

Unreferenced biography with potentially libellous statements. Possibly intended as an attack page. Delete, or... add verifiable references for his notability, and for the heinous deeds attributed to this person. — May. 31, '06 [10:51] <freak|talk>

With all due respect, did you? PJM 11:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jelly Bean Dream Machine[edit]

Non-notable... thing from nn comic book (1 irrelevant Ghit for ["All Things Awesome" Luke Mitchell]). Prod removed by anon IP. Matt Eason 10:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 08:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Eudy[edit]

Non notable bio. Crystallina 11:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Nothing in the article is an assertion of notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her shows became famous in the North West is a vague claim. Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 11:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Beware possible slander/attack in "high class escort". -- GWO
  • Speedy delete Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 12:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds like the author has a vendetta against the personWildthing61476 14:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Terence Ong 14:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Yeah... What they said. --Dakart 21:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD A6, as attack page against real person and probably libelous. This should have been gone hours ago. --Metropolitan90 03:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - a completely empty article. - Mike Rosoft 14:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan pennzoil[edit]

Three lines of bizarre non-encyclopedic information without context that might better go in an article, although I have no idea what the created content refers to. ElizabethFong 11:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple of mistakes in doing the deletion nomination, apologies. I also now believe that the appropriation action is Speedy Delete because it is Nonsense. --ElizabethFong 13:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator is right, clear case of speedy delete. Lukas (T.|@) 13:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - I have added ((db-nocontext)) BigDT 13:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all. Johnleemk | Talk 11:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Can't Miss The Bear (Weeds episode)[edit]

AFD overlaps with List of Weeds episodes which does not qualify for expension into articles according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles were added as they were under separate requests for deletion, but had the exact same rationale. joturner 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. Where in the above cited WikiProject is any criteria given? I see none. 23skidoo 13:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Good point, my error. The information is part of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes to quote:
    • First, create an article on the television show.
    • Once there's enough independently verifiable information to do so, create articles on each season, or some other logical division, of the show.
    • Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes, spin the information from episodes out into their own articles.
All the episode articles contain the same information as List of Weeds episodes, which already is quite minimal. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand each. Nothing wrong with the list AND the individual articles of a notable TV show. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are volunteering to find sufficient citable material to write something about the relation of these episodes in a fictional universe to the real world we live in? (information that won't be just as easily listed in a proper List of episodes or season summary. Weeds hardly is in the same order of notability as StarTrek, Star Gate, The Simpsons or even Lost ) We have TV IV for episode guides. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not that my volunteering is required in order to justify my position, but if I had seen the show and was a fan, I would. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator; each episode needs to be notable and have at least some information related to it in order for it to have an individual article. joturner 02:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was going to say merge, but the individual pages have no information to merge. --TorriTorri 02:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Maybe I would have voted merge or keep had their been any content whatsoever in the articles. There is absolutely no content whatsoever which isn't covered by the List article. - Hahnchen 05:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if and until there is something worth writing about. --Calton | Talk 05:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. moink 01:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Moonies[edit]

Non-notable per WP:BAND. Was originally tagged as a ((db-band)), but I removed the tag as it did not seem to meet A7. Was prodded by me and then deprodded by an anon. AmiDaniel (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article. It is still in progress. Tom Breen

Delete. Probable vanity or fancruft. No indication of the band being notable despite substantial detail of the band's career. mgekelly 12:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article. It is still in progress. I have made considerable improvements to the original article. Tom Breen

  • Comment - Just as a friendly point, the article hasn't been nominated for deletion because of its quality, but because the nominator feels the band aren't notable enough for WP, so improving it probably won't hold much sway. I have, however, outlined below why I feel the band meet WP's notability requirements (it's for others to agree or disagree, now!) Seb Patrick 13:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They may not have charted, but the article references (though does not link to) reviews in both NME and The Independent, in addition to a link to a review on BBC Manchester online, which I believe meets :
Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...). (WP:MUSIC)
In addition, they have been on :
a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country
...as a Google search (22,800 hits for "the moonies" band, by the way) will attest. I personally saw them play once at Oxford's Zodiac (a notable venue a significant distance from their home city) supporting the well-known band Easyworld. In addition, the article has been edited by a number of users over a long period of time, so I don't think it's vanity, either. Seb Patrick 12:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No offence (this is a debate, after all), but seeing as I've pointed out two ways in which they meet the criteria listed in WP:MUSIC (and that document suggests that only one criterion should need to be filled in order to meet notability requirements), could you explain why you feel they don't? Seb Patrick 15:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep per Seb Patrick. mgekelly 16:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reluctantly, as per Seb. Those press clippings need to be integrated with the article rather than hanging on the end like an album cover, though. Ziggurat 21:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Seb Patrick. Sure, I haven't heard of them, and probably never will again, but they easily pass WP:MUSIC. -- Kicking222 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup - media coverage and national tours cover WP:MUSIC, but this reads more like a tribute page than a encyclopedia article. B.Wind 06:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this meets the music page Yuckfoo 06:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was that the article was speedy deleted by User:Cyde (CSD A7 - utterly non-notable MSN group) Garion96 (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Brothers League[edit]

Was on ((prod)) , but template was removed. It seems to be a non notable msn group, with only a few google search results. Among them two from wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems a shame to do it to an article with so much work in it - but it's written in the first person and appears to be completely NN. As I've said elsewhere on AfD today, it'd be nice to see some "gaming" notability guidelines to point clans and leagues towards. Anyway, Delete, if not Speedy, even. Seb Patrick 12:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a shame. A lot of work has obviouly been put into it. Garion96 (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed put a lot of work into it and deleting it just means I have wasted my time. I am a Canadian in the North and wasting time is not tolerated. By the way, the links aren't Google search and just to let you know, when the Super Smash Bros. Brawl game comes out for the Wii with the Nintendo Wi-Fi connection, this whole thing will be brought online with a new league and human controlled players online. It will be just like the site with the titles, tournaments and monthly events except the characters shall be controlled by YOU!! You can sign up NOW for the new league. Just follow the guidelines listed on the MSN Group News and Updates page. Thank you for your time! NEPats17(talk) 9:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FireFox usertalk 13:30, 31 May '06

Nikki Grahame[edit]

Non notable Big Brother UK series 7 contenstant. — FireFox usertalk 12:13, 31 May '06 12:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't necessarily agree that no BB contestant is worthy of a page, as a handful have gone on to notable fame since leaving the house (whether as TV presenters, such as Brian Dowling and Craig Phillips, or simply through being Jade Goody); but certainly agree that the fame of current contestants isn't sufficient to justify their own page, and subsequent fame of course can't be judged at this stage. Delete, then, until she becomes adequately famous post-series. Which she won't. Seb Patrick 12:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep C'mon!! She is the most annoying thing ever and i need an outlet to vent my severe anger. Please? --MobberleyKirsty 12:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aww! But please!! PLEASE!!!--MobberleyKirsty 12:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the rest of the Internet should suffice. --Merovingian {T C @} 12:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Er, yeah... Mikki rules!— Preceding unsigned comment added by MobberleyKirsty (talk • contribs)

Ha ha. See? Looks like you have more opposition than you think. Eh, Merovingian? --MobberleyKirsty 12:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above two lines were written by MobberleyKirsty -- cds(talk) 13:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll pay u five pounds to keep that information to yourself. ;-) --MobberleyKirsty 13:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not even going to go there. --Merovingian {T C @} 13:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as attack page. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 13:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, then... four pounds. i see the game ur playing.--MobberleyKirsty 13:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not the place. I'm giving this AfD 25 minutes and if it hasn't received any more legit keep votes, the article is being speedied. — FireFox usertalk 13:06, 31 May '06
I think a ((deletedpage)) may be in order as well. --Merovingian {T C @} 13:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ok then. i'll admit it. i only created this page to for my own ends. i think she's ugly and when she eats, reminds me of an eighty-year old man. Her jaw deserves a page of her own. But you goody-two-shoes "have a duty" to honour. I only wanted to show the world this... thing and expose her for the sham she is. and i would have gotten away with it if wasn't for you pesky kids. --MobberleyKirsty 13:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete cos shes a complete nobody Jamie 13:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madeline Duggan[edit]

  • Delete - she really does not appear to be very notable Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 12:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:BIO. [26]. PJM 13:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Terence Ong 15:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BIO says "A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following", which I'm sure EastEnders has... Trampikey 16:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. That EastEnders has such a fan base is apparent. That this particular unknown actress, whose entire film career is a part in a nine minute short film, does not is equally apparent. She has fewer than 30 unique hits on Google UK, the lead ones of which are her IMDB entry and this article, and the third one of which is from a UK fan site vainly asking if there's any biographical information available. The EastEnders official website doesn't even list her in the cast yet, for pity's sake. RGTraynor 17:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's playing a character on EastEnders, that's pretty notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per badlydrawnjeff. Sweetie Petie 20:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep because she is going to be in eastenders soon. Jamie 18:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is verifiable information that she will regulalry appear on one of Britan's most watched TV shows. Early in her career for many accolades or google hits, but so long as this has some references, it's doing no harm. I've seen articles claiming notability for performing in a community centre: prime time BBC One is not bad. The JPStalk to me 18:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gbo productions[edit]

Was proposed for deletion, disputed by a Anon with out comment. Original prod concern was "WP:NOT Seems to be an attempt to gain notability/votes for a contest. Secondly the aricle fails to show or assert verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:CORP", that still seems valid even though the "VOTE!!! VOTE!!! VOTE!!!!" has been removed from the article. blue520 12:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brutonstock[edit]

Non-notable party. One google hit on myspace.com. Deprodded. Weregerbil 13:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 13:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and there is absolutly no context unless you use "What links here" in the toolbox.--blue520 13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Deli nk 14:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of the people who want this deleted there has been 2 reasons. Yes; Brutonstock currently has no context, because a link was made to it in the List of music festivals which was deleted without consultation. Brutonstock only gets one hit on Google because the information about it has been mainly spread by word of mouth, as a festival it is only just growing in popularity and a page on wikipedia would help establish fact from fiction, the organisers have plans to establish a website in the near feature for this music festival, I am in favoured of this article remaining at the current time. I purpose that this article to not be deleted and for the writers given a chance to improve upon it (giving more detail) until its website is opened and it gets more talking about, then it may be reconsidered. Daniel_eco_pren 01 june 2006.


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

The result of the debate was userfy. Johnleemk | Talk 11:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"arabic cinema"[edit]

  • Don't Delete! There is no article on Arab Cinema, I don't see how this can be redundant data. Details of Arabic Cinema may be fleshed out in other articles but a broad overview of the history and influences of Arabic Cinema hasn't been found on Wikipedia and thus my contribution. --Thisisthepope 13:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I didn't have to get very far before finding blatant POV - "On the cusp of the Age of Reason, the hold of religion over people’s lives began slipping." Not only is that POV, it's bigoted. But if somehow, this article is kept, at least rename it to Arabic cinema (dropping the quotation marks). BigDT 13:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The content is unrescuable, and the title should be Arab cinema or Arabic films or some such. Vizjim 16:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Thisisthepope's Userspace per above; reads far more like an essay than an article. joturner 22:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the topic Arabic Cinema seems notable along the lines of Bollywood, Nollywood, etc. This article needs some major work (too much opinion, not enough facts) but let the wikipedia users work on it before giving it the axe. --MarsRover 04:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for now. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 10:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 09:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24/24 World Concert[edit]

This is a plan for an event that may happen sometime in the future. Nothing is final yet and notability cannot be established at this early stage. gidonb 13:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrozinski. gidonb 18:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. gidonb 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, crystalballism. Venue is unbooked, list of performers is speculative, etc. -- Docether 15:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Also, except for Earth, Wind & Fire, none of the prospective performers are particularly notable. GentlemanGhost 03:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Go ahead and delete this page. The Concert is booked for December but I'd prefer not to be linked to such petty judgmental people as have been editing the site. 2424 17:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment by gidonb 17:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC) This user voted once more or reworded his vote after emptying the page for the second time [27] [28] writing: *Delete Go ahead and delete this page. Your opinions are purely personal and misinformed. The Concert is booked for December but I'd prefer not to be linked to such petty judgmental people as have been editing the site. See ya!2424 17:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per all. A reputable charity event such as 24/24 does not need a "user"-controlled forum such as this for reputability. The children thank you! 2424 22:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all. I don't quite understand why "GentlemanGhost" and "gidonb" have such an obsessive interest in this article and that for Mrozinski but only God knows their motives. Let them have their way. 2424 04:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just doing Wikipedia chores. Nothing personal! gidonb 09:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. (Please note that it is not a conflict of interest to support keeping an article you helped write, as long as this fact is made transparent.) Johnleemk | Talk 11:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom-up democracy[edit]

POV fork and is well covered in other main articles -- max rspct leave a message 13:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete. Material is not covered in Soviet democracy, Worker's council, grassroots democracy etc Soviet democracy is at best a controversial example of bottom-up democracy, worker's council is, at best, application of bottom-up democracy to factories. Grassroots democracy is too vague. Tribal and village government is left out especially in relation to federations of tribes and villages. If it warrants reworking, that is one matter, but deletion -- no. Skovoroda 13:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a conflict of interest to vote on an article you created. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 03:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, I don't see anything POV (or anything else wrong) about this, it just needs to be tidied up a bit. - ulayiti (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found 714 entries by Google search for the phrase "bottom-up democracy" -- it must mean something, the article should attempt to tell us what it means. Clarification, not deletion is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.192.126 (talk • contribs)
Based on contributions, I posit that this user is Skovoroda. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 01:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, User:68.20.192.126 is almost certainly User:Skovoroda, but I suspect this is just an innocent lack of awareness that occasionally he is not signed into the account. User:69.211.108.165 is probably the same thing. - David Oberst 22:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or at least a complete rewrite with a clear idea of what is (and isn't) trying to be defined. See my notes in the Talk section for this nomination. Also, the related article Top-down democracy is an even more likely candidate for deletion. - David Oberst 05:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin - I've put in an complete (skeletal) rewrite for the interim (see notes on Talk; a diff for the prior (problematic) version is here. I'd still vote delete mainly to make the whole mess go away, but if "bottom-up" is deemed in sufficient currency to need an article perhaps this can serve as a starter. David Oberst 05:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and also goes for Top-down democracy, which isn't nominated yet). These are terms that may be used to describe a democracy, but as far as I can tell, they aren't encyclopedic terms themselves. If these are kept, then we may as well create articles for all possible terms preceded by qualifiers. Let's create an article for Bushist fake democracy next! :) — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 03:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Most (if not all) of the discussion below should be moved to the talk page. However, as a former politics student I can assure you that the term 'bottom-up democracy' is used among academics. It gets 65 hits on Google Scholar, which is not a lot, but it definitely shows that it's not a made-up term. - ulayiti (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Again i say it is covered in other articles and is surely non-notable as a separate term. -- max rspct leave a message 21:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional rulers[edit]

This is a classic example of an indiscriminate collection of information. The subject is unlimited, or at any rate any attempt to produce something approaching a comprehensive list would involve terabytes of information. It has little content beyond links to other articles, and would therefore better serve as a category, if indeed it is needed in the first place. Vizjim 13:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, for the reasons given above. Vizjim 13:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Lukas (T.|@) 13:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, contains (for instance) info previously at Emperor, this is a valid list. Some more references would be an improvement, but not having these is not a reason to delete. Well, let's say, the attempt to delete is "indiscriminate". I don't see why Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) would exclude thematic lists like this one. Soon we'd have to delete list of legendary kings of Britain then too, while most of them are fictional. --Francis Schonken 14:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - it's not to do with fictionality. The list of legendary kings of Britain is a finite category - there are only a certain number of them, and it makes sense to collect the information together in one easily used list. The List of fictional rulers, by contrast, could include any king, queen, sultan, emperor, dictator, chieftain, sheik, khan, etc, to have appeared in any work of fiction, in any language, ever. This makes it an infinite list, in other words an indiscriminate collection of information (since the job is simply too big to be completed or worked on in any kind of systematic way). Better by far to create a category to cover this, which all of these entries could be included within. Vizjim 14:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, we already have categories for "Fictional monarchs", "Fictional kings", Fictional queens", etc. Far better to expand and standardise these than to try to mainatin an unmaintainable list. Vizjim 14:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can only conclude you start to invent indiscriminate rules supporting your AfD nomination. Quite disgusting. Where is that so-called rule that finiteness vs. infiniteness has anything to do with whether a list can be made in wikipedia? You just invented it on the spot. Wikipedia deals with a lot of "infinite" lists (if we take infinite according to your definition); But the list at hand isn't even infinite (you just constructed an akward definition of "infinite" in order to make this list seem "infinite". Disgusting).
  • Also, if there's a good running set of categories, there's no argument that for that reason a list on the same topic should be excluded. Where did you get that? Obviously not in wikipedia's current policies and guidelines, see for instance Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes: "Increasingly, multiple entries to fields of knowledge are provided [...]" (which is followed by an example of a set of articles that are connected as well by lists as by categories as by series boxes).
  • Note that, for instance, King Ubu isn't listed in any of the "fictional rulers" categories (nor should he necessarily be, the article is on the play with the same name, not the fictional ruler): much better to keep this fictional monarch in the list of fictional rulers.
  • Note also that Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) *discourages* to make separate articles on secondary fictional characters. In many fictional universes, for instance, the emperors are the secondary characters (e.g. in Futurama). So, if one wanted to have these in categories, articles would need to be created (or at least categorised redirects). Well, no, the list, where the rulers are listed grouped by the work they come from has a separate function of it's own... would need an "infinite" number of subcategories to do the same grouping by categories.
  • Please don't make up your own rules. Please have a look at the existing ones instead. --Francis Schonken 15:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS - note that verifiability via reliable sources of course limits such list notability-wise, so no indiscriminate accumulation of fiction could be possible. That's why I said above that the list should better have more references, so that it is easier for those who do maintenance on such lists (and e.g. throw out the non-notable content). --Francis Schonken 15:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Deli nk 14:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. ScottW 15:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mr Stephen 15:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, better to have them all on one list than having dozens of small lists. No use as a category because most of these people shouldn't have articles. Kusma (討論) 15:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see what the use of this list is. With every list in Wikipedia I always ask myself what unique information does this list show, and other then the fact that SciFi fans are very active contributors to Wikipedia, I just don't see any real contribution from this list to wikipedia as a whole. (note this by far isn't the only List I have this issue with). -TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "Ruler" is so vague that the qualifying entries are not only unlimited, but the resulting grouping is rather useless. More carefully narrowed and defined lists are preferred. Postdlf 15:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Postdlf. --Merovingian {T C @} 15:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. After asking Francis Schonken to keep to the WP:CIVIL guidelines (rather than labelling my contributions "disgusting"), he requested a clarification on which part of WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information I feel this article breaks. I think it breaks guideline #1 - "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons". Apologies if that was unclear. I also "apparantly had a fit" (sic) in explaining "unlimited" during the nomination: though his explanation of why is unclear, I will be happy to clarify if anyone can explain what is unclear about it. Vizjim 15:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't "indiscriminate", and isn't a list of "persons" (fictional characters are afaik not persons).
  • Compare, for example List of real people appearing in fictional context - now that's a list of real persons. "List of fictional rulers" is not. As far as WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information #1 (or any other description on that page) is concerned, "List of real people appearing in fictional context" is not indiscriminate (yet currently a longer list than "List of fictional rulers"). Neither is "List of fictional rulers" a page listing indiscriminate content as defined by WP:NOT. Further specifications for fictional content are in wikipedia:notability (fiction), which doesn't exclude listing of significant fictional content. Neither does it exclude lists of "real persons in fictional context", nor of "fictional rulers". --Francis Schonken 16:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, best used as a category. I also dislike Francis's rule lawyering about fictional characters not being persons. You know damn well what we mean. --Golbez 18:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And your rule lawyering with WP:NOT where it doesn't remotely apply, is that OK? The problem is not the persons (I don't know why Vizjim even started about that). The principle at stake is the indiscriminate epithet with which you lot want to rule-lawyer, where it doesn't remotely apply. --Francis Schonken 18:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useful as a category, but as a list, it's listcruft. --John Nagle 18:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate listeritis per nom, although it would be funny to have the gazillion dark overlords from cheap fantasy novels crowd this list. Sandstein 19:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the list is only superficially discriminate as to who is included.  RasputinAXP  c 20:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It may come in handy for some, and doesn't hurt anybody (Wikipedia is not paper, remember?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete potentially infinite, keep as category only. SM247 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful list for those researching fictional rulers. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, how exactly? Postdlf 21:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Providing a list of them, obviously. If you're researching a topic, a list of things falling under that topic is pretty useful. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess my question was more how is this actually a coherent "topic" one can "research"? Beyond compiling such a list...it seems that's about as far as this vague of a grouping can go, unless you subdivide. Postdlf 22:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I know it's an unorthodox vote, but...) Split the list up into more specific and useful lists if possible. Failing that, delete as better served by a category (per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes) as the organisation of this list isn't especially useful. Ziggurat 21:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:Vizjim's excellent arguments Bwithh 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nom. J Milburn 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but only if replaced by a category. Deco 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Changed my mind. A list of fictional rulers can provide useful context, such as the work of fiction they're from and the fictional territory that they ruled. This brief context makes the list much more useful than a category. Deco 23:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft in the second degree. Danny Lilithborne 01:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Delete Yeah it violates the rules, yes its listcruft but it is kind of fun. I can't think of another website that would be a good home for it but I hope someone can. jbolden1517Talk 01:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why you couldn't put this on a user subpage despite its deletion from article space. Postdlf 15:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although this invitation was addressed at someone else I took it up. Page now available at User:Francis Schonken/List of fictional rulers. I choose to explicitly mention I don't think this an ideal situation, but the best I could make of it for the time being. Anyway, people with ideas can always leave me a message on my talk page. tx! --Francis Schonken 15:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as yet another sprawling, useless, unmaintanable list. Reyk YO! 07:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; indiscriminate is what this is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indesciminate and non-usefull Eluchil404 20:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Keep Keep Keep Keep Keep! We all love sci-fi. It would be awful to feel deprived of such a funny list. Think also to all sci-fi writers who can check that their idea is not already existing. --DLL 23:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (me, again) - RE:luctant keep. Alas, we should give departure to every fun in WP : encyclopedias, if serious, must not refer to unknown music, Alabama gulches, loosy football clubs and so on. Did you try a random search ? Did you try Wikipedia:Most_Referenced_Articles, where you find : Race_(U.S._census) (43397 links), and Album_(music) (15395 links) ... ? --DLL 23:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's because those terms are linked every US city and town article and every musical album article on Wikipedia, respectively. A lot of towns, a lot of albums. How this has the slightest connection with the article under nomination I haven't the slightest clue. --Calton | Talk 05:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article under nomination is no more encyclopedic than plenty of things found in WP - I gave some examples, that's all - how many US townlets census results should really appear in a real encyclopedia ? I love this article, but I'd like WP to keep an appearance. Not an appearance of serious, nor definite usefulness, something mixed with our world (fantasy, fun, science, knowledge). --DLL 20:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty much a textbook case of WP is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information: any sufficiently complete list would be utterly impossible to navigate for users. The how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin rulelawyering doesn' help. --Calton | Talk 05:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Not an arbitrary collection (being a "ruler" is a key attribute of a fictional character; contrast: "list of fictional characters with blue eyes"). It's better as a list than a category since not all these characters deserve articles, but conversely the fact that not all the entries have their own articles is not a clear reason to delete the list. It may need subdivision, probably not by fictional universe (this would produce too many small lists, and wouldn't serve the more useful connecting purpose): perhaps separate lists for the more common titles would be in order? Maybe it would be better to split by genre (List of fictional rulers in science fiction etc). Is it useless? No: if you want to consider the characteristics of rulers in fiction, this would be a good place to start looking. Moreover "It has little content beyond links to other articles, and would therefore better serve as a category" doesn't comply with WP:CLS. There's no reason it shouldn't, if worked upon, include more information than mere links (it appears to me that well over 50% of entries actually do already!). Further, there's no reason to limit the list to only rulers with their own articles. And just because it is likely to be permanently incomplete doesn't make it invalid. Please refer to WP:CLS before nominating lists for deletion - this seems to fit the criteria there almost perfectly! (Annotated, lists entries without articles, well-sorted, extensive and useful "see also" section, entries all linked by an important common characteristic... how is this cruft?) TheGrappler 17:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — It's a list I'd enjoy reading. Seems somewhat encyclopedic in an esoteric sort of way. — RJH (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Complements our coverage of the fictional universe. --JJay 00:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful encyclopaedic list.  Grue  10:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless we decide not to have articles about fictional universes in Wikipedia. -- User:Docu
  • Delete and possibly categorify. This is a potentially unlimited list, and the existence of other, also possibly unlimited lists doesn't do much to mitigate this problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A side-thought[edit]

Accidentally I stumbled into some asteroid-related wikipedia pages today:

For me, this puts this vote (regarding a single list) a bit in perspective... especially the outrageous claim by the initiator of this vote that "any attempt to produce something approaching a comprehensive list would involve terabytes of information":

  1. I think there are less "fictional rulers" than there are registered asteroids;
  2. For the *notable* fictional rulers (anyway, per wikipedia notability criteria only the notable ones would be included in the fictional rulers list, and the notability criterion has apparently a slightly higher threshold for fiction than for asteroids if "visibility in the media" would be used for comparison) the meaningfullness for people's lives is often higher than that of most of the over 100000 rocks of a few cubic kilometers floating around the sun.
  3. Most importantly: list "size" is a lame argument from whatever side it is approached.

Note also that I must formally reject the argument that the list of fictional rulers would be difficult to maintain. I have it on my watchlist for some time now, and I suppose there are some others. I've seen no particular vandalism to the list. There were some odd reverts (just a couple as far as I can remember), but maintenance-effort-wise not comparable to anything happening on the "high profile" lists contained in wikipedia that are on my watchlist. In fact this vote cost me up to present dozens of times the amount of energy than the maintenance on that list has cost me over the last year.

So, obviously, those that argued "[...] unmaintanable list" above, weren't involved in its maintenance. "Votecruft"? Is that a word? If not, I invent it here formally: votecruft. --Francis Schonken 13:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please stop bandying insults around, stop rule lawyering, and calm down. Vizjim 13:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Computerjoe's talk 19:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team NoA[edit]

This article has been deleted twice in its current form as a speedy, and never saw AFD. It does, however, appear to assert notability; compare with SK Gaming or Team 3D. Someone poked me last night, having found a cached version of the article, and I undeleted it provisionally. Since I'm not entirely sold on whether or not such groups should have articles, however, it seemed best to bring it to AFD. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 13:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I did the poking. Even though I do not follow competitive gaming, I had heard of this clan. It is a professional team, and has received some success in its past. They aren't as prominent now, they have won at various points the Cyberathlete Professional League, World e-Sports Games and Electronic Sports World Cup Counter-Strike competitions, so have been right at the highest tier of play. There has been a similar vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninjas in Pyjamas. - Hahnchen 15:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if any clans are going to be considered notable by WP standards, then this one probably at least has a fairer claim than many. It's certainly not as cut-and-dried as your usual bunch of 15-year-old amateurs thinking they're incredibly important. If they are genuinely a noted, professional team, and if good verifiability of the fact can be found, then I'd go for a tentative weak keep. Seb Patrick 15:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete notable, but some secondary sources would be grand. Kotepho 16:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the most famous teams in the number one online game in the world. —Aiden 17:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NoA is well known and the only clan that won CPL and WEG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wedderkop (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, while it may be among the more notable ones, it is still a gaming clan, which are not notable enough for articles. -- Kjkolb 20:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete current form. This has at least an assertion of notability, so I endorse bringing it through process. If it had citations to reliable sources in order to establish the notability, I'd even vote keep. If I haven't been back but the citations are there, the closing admin should feel free to count my vote the other way around. GRBerry 01:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete, nn game clan. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Professional team [29]. Major industry sponsors [30], [31]. Excellent article. An obvious keeper at every level. --JJay 21:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Keith Whisenant[edit]

Subject of the article requests deletion via OTRS; not a clear speedy, as he may be notable. Listing here for a consensus on the appropriateness of inclusion. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. His claim to notability is for founding Proximare, which itself is boarderline notable. --Ezeu 01:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn subject wants article eliminated. Why not? B.Wind 06:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Kalish[edit]

NN person. Google doesn't turn up anything, so probably doesn't conform to WP:BIO. N. Harmon 13:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unremarkable drunk. --Durin 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few hits on Yahoo though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fateswarning (talk • contribs) 14:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Deli nk 14:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Jusjih 14:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thousands of drunk drivers kill people every year. Nothing notable or remarkable about this one in any way. Fan1967 14:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Docether 14:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some view it as not notable or remarkable is the reason people keep doing it. Deleting this page simply reinforces that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.167.124.52 (talk • contribs)

  • Are you seriously suggesting that drunks will be less likely to drive on the road if they're threatened with having their name put in Wikipedia? Hardly seems likely. Fan1967 19:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Wikipedia does not set world standards, merely documents them. The world does not consider drunk drivers, even killers, individually notable just for that reason. Same for intentional murderers, even. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by J Milburn (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Power Corporation.[edit]

Non-notable startup company, article states "It is a start up wind energy business". Non-notable person, article contents unverifiable via Google. Deprodded. Accurizer 13:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep and rename. Johnleemk | Talk 11:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex crimes against Asian women[edit]

Not encyclopaedic; even the originator of this article regards it as questionable (see talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownlee (talk • contribs)

  • Keep - How is it not encyclopedic? Hong Qi Gong 14:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A collection of five newspaper clippings cannot remotely be described as encyclopedic. Fan1967 15:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. The introduction doesn't reference "Some Asian Americans point to the racial stereotyping of Asian women as a driving force behind sex crimes targeting them." I can't say whether this is a prevalent theory or a collection of newstories that struck some Wikipedia editors as being similar. Also if kept that title should be changed to say "Asian American." Otherwise it will be a very large article, including the Japanese assaults against Chinese populations during World War II. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 15:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks of sources. --Terence Ong 15:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've added a few things:
    1. A quote in the article from YaleDailyNews
    2. An external links section with two sources linked
    3. A stub to indicate that the article needs expansion
    4. Also, I think it would be a good idea to rename the article "Sex crimes against Asian women in the United States".
    --Hong Qi Gong
  • Keep per HongQiGong. The references he added do consider it a trend. The article has room for improvement, concentrating more on the trend and less on the individual crimes. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There may be room for an article, based on the report, though a better source than a college paper would be nice. The individual reports have no value in an encyclopedic article. Total sexual assaults has been estimated at 200K per year in the US. Five selected incidents don't mean anything. Fan1967 18:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, five individual incidents don't mean much. That's why we need to expand and add more incidents. Hong Qi Gong 19:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you need to forget the individual incidents and provide statistics. Fan1967 19:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article that says Asian women are disproportionally targeted does not provide a single supporting reference for that assertion and the authors have no apparent expertise in the area of sex crimes or statistics. Instead, they are reporting on something discussed in a Asian-American women's organization meeting. -- Kjkolb 20:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if any users have any expertise on the subject matter, they'd have to rely on sources like the Asian American woman's organisation that was linked. Providing your own insight into the subject matter would violate Wikipedia:No_original_research. In other words, we must use other sources. Hong Qi Gong 20:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you need unbiased professional sources. An Asian women's organization says sexual assault is a special problem for Asian women? Not surprising. Try asking a Latina women's organization or an African-American women's organization. What would their response be? Fan1967 21:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's really no such thing as an unbiased source of information, especially when you're talking about something that is controversial. What makes an article conform to NPOV is the presentation of opposing points of view. Hence, the stub I added in request of expansion of the article. The lack of an opposing view does not entail deletion of an article, it entails the inclusion of said opposing view into the article. Hong Qi Gong 06:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be suggesting that a POV article is OK, as long as you ask for opposing views. Sorry, that's not good enough. The absolute bare minimum required is that you must provide Verification from a Reliable Source to support the contentions in your article, and you have not done so. You have a handful of anecdotal incidents with nothing to indicate that they are related or are part of any particular pattern or trend. Fan1967 14:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, no. That is not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that the article is far from being in a finished state. That is why it needs expansion. That is why it needs more sources, especially ones with opposing views. And I have provided two sources already that claim that there is some trends in sex crimes against Asian women. Hong Qi Gong 14:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as proposal. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 22:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedic. Bwithh 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An important topic which most people are unaware of. As long as it is accurate and don't misrepresent, it's worth keeping. --Vsion 04:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not that these crimes are not horrible but here one of the sources for one of the racially motivation crimes:
“There is no evidence to suggest that the offender, Richard Anderson, acted on any bias against Lili Wang because of her race,” Daily said. “And this has come after an investigation by our department, the State Bureau of Investigation and the Deputy Attorney’s Office of Wake County.”
Does it all boil down to figuring out what is in someone's mind? Seems difficult to maintain. --MarsRover 04:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not our job to decide what it boils down to, it's the job of the sources that we cite. Hong Qi Gong 06:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into hate crimes. Wikipedia should only have a separate article on theories that are already notable. It is not a place to develop theories (which is what this article appears to do). --JChap 13:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's not a delete vote then. Deletion does not allow the content to be reproduced anywhere in any form. At any rate, there are in fact academic theories in Asian American studies on this, e.g., [32] --Wzhao553 06:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For those of you who want to delete the article because you think it's POV - you need to check Wikipedia:Deletion. POV is not criteria for deletion. Otherwise, all those controversial topics that people think are POV are in danger of deletion. Iraq War, anyone? The proposed solution for a POV article is to clean it up and make it NPOV. And having said that, I've added the ((pov)) tag to the page. Hong Qi Gong 16:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've added the U.S. Justice Department as a source of opposing view. Like I've said, this article needs expansion and additional sources, not deletion. Hong Qi Gong 16:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So the only reliable source you have is an opposing view? I really don't see that helping your argument. Fan1967 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because you keep ignoring the fact that the article needs expansion. That's why I put a stub at the bottom of the article. Once again, POV is not a criteria for deletion. The article needs expansion, not deletion. Hong Qi Gong 17:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't produced anything to show that it's a valid basis for an article to begin with. Asking for expansion doesn't help in that area. Fan1967 17:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Wikipedia is a tertiary source. This article could be includible if it discussed (i) a theory or school of thought in the academic community on which papers had been published or (ii) a trend that is widely acknowledged as a trend (and not just a collection of crimes) in major news media. The article does not discuss either of these. It's not that what the article says is invalid, it's just not encyclopedic. --JChap 18:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment:The article in its current state is a brief introduction followed by a list of sex crimes against Asian women. It has a
      This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items.
      tag inviting people to add to the list. This is not an encyclopedia article, it is an invitation to the police blotter from hell. --JChap 05:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was a nice idea but as there is no statistical evidence that Asian women are at greater risk (indeed Asians are at LEAST risk for violent crimes compared to other ethnic groups in the US), so it seems like a hodgepodge, not right for an encyclopedia, and too much of a political agenda. Soda80 01:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. And it also supposes that sex crimes against Asians happens exclusively in the US. Pavel Vozenilek 01:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm more than willing to rename the article to "Sex crimes against Asian women in the United States". I think that's a good idea. Hong Qi Gong 04:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge into Asian fetish#Sexual crimes, which already includes some academic references on this topic. Not notable enough for its own article, but, given that this is obviously a major cultural thing, deletion might amount to WP:BIAS. --Wzhao553 06:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keeping it (even as a merge) without reliable sources might also be seen as WP:BIAS. Standards should be consistently applied. Fan1967 00:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Finding reliable academic sources will not be problem. Three such examples are:
  • S. J. Jang, S. F. Messner, S. J. South. (Spring 1991). "Predictors of Interracial Homicide Victimization for Asian Americans: A Macrostructural Opportunity Perspective." Sociological Perspectives, 34 (2): 1-19. (Claims that Asian Americans are more likely to be victims of interracial crimes than white and African Americans, discusses sexual crimes along with homicide).
  • L Mori, J. A. Bernat, P. A. Glenn, L. L. Selle and M. G. Zarate. (April 1995). "Attitudes toward rape: Gender and ethnic differences across Asian and Caucasian college students". Sex Roles 32 (8): 457 - 467. (Cross-cultural examination of views toward sexual crimes in Asian American and Caucasian communities).
  • L. F. Lowenstein. (Summer 2002). "Fetishes and Their Associated Behavior". Sexuality and Disability 20 (2): 135 - 147. (Develops a theoretical framework for sexual fetishism, provides comments toward a theory of sexual fetishism and sexual crimes).
Note that this is research about the Asian American community, as is clearly the focus of the article, and not Asians in general, as its name erroneously suggests. --Wzhao553 02:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stagidis[edit]

Self-promotion, fails to establish notability. Delete. (Originally nominated for speedy deletion; another admin decided to give it a chance.) - Mike Rosoft 14:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 81 Ghits--Jusjih 14:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable Deli nk 14:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity article or self-promotion. Article does not attempt to establish notability. -- Docether 14:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, vanity, self promotion. --Terence Ong 15:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable. Seems to have had lots of exhibits. TruthbringerToronto 18:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yanksox 04:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO, according to which we only feature "Painters ... whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field". He doesn't seem to fit this bill. Also, he removed the AfD tag from his vanity autobiography. Sandstein 08:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Invalid AfD this is not an article. --W.marsh 15:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view[edit]

I think it's time we put this to a vote, find out once and for all if the resident wikipedians really support this "NPOV" policy, or if it's time for change--Jo Mic 15:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's time to reevaluate this policy, start from scratch--Jo Mic 15:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are you kidding me? --Bachrach44 15:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzuki Motorcycle Naming Conventions[edit]

Although this article was prodded, and the prod was not removed until after 5 days had elapsed (see timestamp), I am sending this article to AfD because it violates WP:NOR. The article clearly states that it was sourced from "a lot of pondering and discussion, with a full list of all Suzuki models built" (see the very bottom), which makes it original research and speculation by the author, not reporting of a third-party source - Suzuki has never published a document listing its naming conventions, if they even exist. MSJapan 15:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crombulent[edit]

Uncommon misspelling of "cromulent". Google gives over 200,000 hits for "cromulent", while "crombulent" gets just 17 hits and the question "Did you mean: cromulent?" Robert Happelberg 16:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete obviously. -- Scientizzle 16:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Very little here to discuss. --Fuhghettaboutit 16:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article fails to embiggen Wikipedia. ScottW 17:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Embiggen. Very nice. -- Scientizzle 17:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though it might be worth noting in Wiktionary in relation to correct spelling. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not only is it inaccurate in its Simpsons reference, but also, I think, in its Blackadder reference - I'm fairly sure it's never appeared in the latter word. I would assume the editor is thinking of the made-up words used by Edmund in Ink and Incapability - but I really don't think it's one of them. No reason whatsoever, therefore, for the article to exist on WP. Seb Patrick 08:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cromulent as possible mis-spelling. MLA 12:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhona Nampijja[edit]

Blatant advertising, the article is identical to the profile page on [33]. Also unsure if this is a notable designer, had a look at google, but only returned various blogs, myspace-type websites when searching for "Rhona Nampijja". Am no expert on clothing design, or designers in general, but would think that even a google search would return something more notable. Delete as being a designer isn't enough to be included! Bjelleklang - talk 16:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Yes, this is someone with a talent for self promotion. Her profile turns up in many directories, but I too cannot find anything adequate to warrant this article. --Ezeu 02:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fagstein 02:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the ad, possibly in a Speedy manner if it is a copyvio (I can't check right now) MLA 12:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism and Buddhism[edit]

Much like Christianity and Buddhism, which was deleted a while ago, this article has no potential to be anything but original research. Unlike other comparative religion articles (such as Ayyavazhi and Hinduism), there are no historical or theological connections between the two. —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 at 16:27 UTC

  • Delete per nom. Yanksox 16:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article makes a case for its own deletion - "Little modern scholarship has been done comparing Judaism and Buddhism". BigDT 17:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not much going for this article especially the pointers towards hoax in BuJu and JuBu. MLA 12:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chevo[edit]

Original research on a neologism that has no verifiability. The word is not one used in national media. Indeed, Urban dictionary has an entry on it for something compeltely different. Robdurbar 16:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Its not a neologism, its a hoax. --Ezeu 02:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Fagstein 02:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tapdance[edit]

After extensive (Google) searching, the only reference I can find to "tapdance" in a NSA context is from a preview of a Tom Clancy novel, The Teeth of the Tiger. Here's the reference...Apart from that, it appears to be an unverifiable article. Marysunshine 16:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see any proof of this... --Dakart 21:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to tap dance Unverifiable term. -- Kicking222 22:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, clearly. Fagstein 02:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Kicking222 MLA 12:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, twice. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 19:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Owlstalk[edit]

non-notable; references established article, but has no notability CobaltBlueTony 16:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. —Aiden 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you define notability? Gahaselgrove 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, therefore keep moink 01:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pensioners Party (England)[edit]

Non-notable political party. cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are 12 entries in Category:Pensioners' parties; why is this particular one non-notable? Vilĉjo 18:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The other ones have some claim of notability, as they show past election results and some of them have representatives in their country's parliament. Can this party make the same claim? --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the party is registered with the Electoral Commission (United Kingdom), it is notable. TruthbringerToronto 19:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - Where does it say that? I'm not being argumentative, I'm just curious. How difficult is it to register a party with the Electoral Commission? --cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it is registered [34]. Granted, it does look a bit of a one-horse venture; no NewsBank UK newspaper archive hits for it - though a few for its founder... Tearlach 00:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify - I wasn't doubting the fact that it is a registered party, but am wondering why that alone makes them notable. If all it takes is a dozen signatures and a small fee, I can have a party and a Wikipedia article I guess. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the requirements to register as a party in England: pay a £150 fee, fill in an application form, and provide a copy of the party's constitution and a draft financial scheme. Tearlach 01:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very, very, weak keep, since it's registered. But it really needs more information. -- cds(talk) 23:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too many non-notable political parties out there like this one Bwithh 04:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: on balance, I agree, after looking at the list of scarcely notable parties who've stumped up their £150. The Pensioners Party is registered, but appears to have done nothing yet. Also, I only just noticed that the article appears to have been posted by the party's originator. Tearlach 09:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hardly stands anywhere in the UK, no notable influence on UK politics. Many parties are registered - and most of them have just one candidate. MLA 12:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have several articles on very minor parties, but the number of parties which are registered is still not so high that it becomes ridiculous to have articles on them. People interested in politics will want a complete coverage of all parties. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sjakkalle Choalbaton 12:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability beyond the simple registration. Eluchil404 20:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please we need to cover minor registered parties like this Yuckfoo 06:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Sjakkalle. I'm currently doing a politics degree and find WP a useful resource precisely because of its pretty full coverage of even quite minor things. Besides, sometimes these minor parties can suddenly acquire influence quite beyond their apparent significance – e.g. the Israeli pensioners' party Gil (though not admittedly in a first-past-the-post system). Vilĉjo 14:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. moink 01:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alkan Chaglar[edit]

Journalist for a newspaper that doesn't have its own article, and probably isn't notable enough for one either. No other evidence of notability. the wub "?!" 16:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As others have pointed out, countries like Cyprus are underrepresented in Wikipedia because there aren't as many people with the skills and interest to create articles about those countries. Besides, his academic interest in crypto-Christians sounds interesting. TruthbringerToronto 19:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Being a journalist does not equate being notable. --Ezeu 02:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Keep. Being a journalist does equate to being notable, if the journalist in question writes for a publication with a circulation greater than 5,000 copies (which it appears that this one might[35]). Could someone who speaks the language please attempt to verify on the paper's website (linked from his article)?-Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to be a London paper for the Cypriot community. It's large enough to get advertising for real estate which usually means it's got significant circulation to make it notable.

TMLutas 18:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Doran[edit]

Lack of notability. Previous prod was removed by article author. cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Yanksox 16:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fagstein 02:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. May need article in future when famous but not now. RicDod 20:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems to be more of an advertisement for his band than information about noteworthy accomplishments. There are two other Peter Dorans with accomplishments far more notworthy and impacting to the betterment of our world. And both PhDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.94.149.2 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darkonin[edit]

Fantasy kingdom in a MUD, article content is mostly a history of goings-on in the game. Delete, prehaps merge into Dark and Shattered Lands Bjsiders 16:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Most MUDs are in themselves not notable, and their characters and locations even more so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Holy sweet crap, the subject of that article couldn't be less notable. What's next, a list of levels from Bubsy? -- Kicking222 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Andrew Lenahan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the notablility of Muds and the activities and characters who use them is limited, there are many other articles on Wikipedia that are as notable, if not less so. The World of Warcraft articles alone set a bar that would allow the Muds articles to stay. Muds are a foundation for the internet gaming of today, their history is in a way the history of internet gaming. It is informational and educational to see the in-game history of these Muds, as it shows where large games (such as World of Warcraft and Everquest, both of which have large articles, and articles about in-gmae areas and historys) came from and possibly what where they are going. Gaming on the internet is only going to grow over the next several decades, and articles on Muds offer a vantage point into the beginnings of it all.

Oh, hey "Starblind" ... how is this article any less notable than the well-known and venerated Bionic Bunny or Super Star Wars? Seems to me, maybe you need to check your own pages first....Troft 01:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Warcraft has 5 million players. The typical MUD is lucky to have 100. The history of mudding in general is not sufficient, in my mind, to justify allowing articles like this. If it could be merged into the main article for DSL, that's one thing, but if we start allowing articles like this - summaries of the goings-on of characters in a MUD - how do we justify NOT allowing similar articles for the goings-on of characters in other MUDs? Or worse, in Warcraft? Imagine 5 million subscribers all wanting an encyclopic entry for their guild. It's a path down which I think we ought not tread. Bjsiders 14:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: You pronounced doom on your own article with that last sentence of yours. Those are "well-known and venerated" games, yours does not appear to be. 155.69.5.235 03:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Either merge or totally re-write it to me more encyclopedic. Havok (T/C/c) 19:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claims to notability what so ever. --Eivindt@c 09:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. JoshuaZ 00:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 19:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"carlie croft"[edit]

NN model, appears to be a vanity page, and a poorly done one at that. If this page is to be kept, is in great need of wikifying Wildthing61476 17:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as db-bio ... userfy it if the user wants it, otherwise delete BigDT 17:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dramapod[edit]

Non-notable website. Alexa ranking 1,6 million. Ezeu 17:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 02:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. — mark ✎ 06:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: Daveb74 below: sorry, I still do not find it notable enough. — mark ✎ 16:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example of notability now included, please take another look. Daveb74 10:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a newbie, but the guidelines on Wikipedia:Notability (web) say web content is notable if it meets any one of the criteria, and point 3 reads, 'The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster' of which I have provided an example. If a site meets the criteria, the guidelines suggest it should be included. If this site fails to meet the criteria, then could someone explain why, is it because we are still only a small community? Daveb74 20:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Still hasn't met notability requirements. Part of the problem is that it's a small community, but the even more pressing problem is the lack of reliable and independent sources for the subject. --Hetar 20:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A similar page is Podcast Pickle, it is a site for a much broader community, but other than that I can see no difference? Daveb74 20:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both sites seem to lack independent and reliable sources. Podcast Pickle however, has the distinction of supposedly being the world's first podcast/vidcast community. Of course, were not debating Podcast Pickle here, we are debating Dramapod. --Hetar 02:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dramapod has the distinction of being 'Earth's first and finest audio drama podcast directory' as described by The Decoder Ring Theatre and I have updated the article to reflect this. I am continuing to read guidelines and attempting to improve the article. Have I managed to persuade anyone yet, and what else should I be looking to do? Daveb74 10:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Decoder Ring Theatre is not exactly a notable and reliable source. Merely being mentioned on a website or two does not count. --Ezeu 22:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles/stories about this site in the mainstream (or even established alternative) media would help a lot. Fagstein 18:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this article has come on alot since I started it. I have been reading through the guidelines and I probably should have read them before starting the article. Dramapod has been mentioned in local press but not national press yet. As the community continues to develop every week I hope it features in the national press in the near future. I was hoping that being featured by the online broadcaster BX Radio counted as an established alternative, combined with the distinction of being the first and currently only podacst directory for audio theatre. If that doesn't count and the article is deleted then perhaps I can add a revised version in the future after Dramapod has featured in the mainstream. Daveb74 10:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligenceispower[edit]

Apparently nn website: not in Alexa top 100,000, appears not to meet WP:WEB -- Karada 17:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I had prodded this previously, and it was removed with no explanation. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteasnonnotable. Fagstein 02:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Inner Earth 18:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a ((db-author)); creator blanked page after AFD notice was posted. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huw Nathan[edit]

NN bio. 72 Ghits [36] Varco 17:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Averi[edit]

Vanity style article of nn, unsigned band per WP:MUSIC. I prodded, but an anon addded further claims of a national tour (except it wasn't national) and articles in the Boston Globe (all i can find are local concert listings). So here it is. Also listed for your perusal, equally nn self released albums below. Neutral. Rockpocket 17:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - judging from the touring schedule listed on the group's site, they appear to be touring nationally and regularly. Although their albums are self-released, their music seems to have proper distribution (available from Amazon, cdbaby and the inevitable iTunes) and sales of over 20,000 are reported in a reputable source (The Boston Globe). Plus, I would add, from WP:MUSIC has become the most prominent representative of...the local scene of a city. If you're selling out a 2,000 seater in your hometown, I would say you satisfy that requirement. Plenty GHits for "Averi", even if you add "band" [37]. Looks like plenty to me. Ac@osr 19:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Fair points. Clearly they are regionally popular, though i have no idea whether they qualify as "the most prominent representative" of the local scene. Boston is a big place. Moreover, their 'national tour' hasn't made the West coast, so its more of a large regional tour. Nevertheless, i'm less convinced now, so will change my comment to neutral. However, I also just noticed that a fair amount of the article is a direct lift from their website, making it a copyvio. I'm not sure whether it is appropriate to blank the page during an AfD. If it stays it needs a NPOV rewrite anyway. Any ideas? Rockpocket 19:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - your US geography is clearly superior to mine, so I'll take the point on that one. I think changes to an article are appropriate during a AfD as they are frequently made to try and satisfy the concerns raised during the discussion but if it's a copyvio and no-one comes forward to rewrite then it'll have to go, I believe.Ac@osr 19:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if no one changes it, how long before it is deleted? i will write a new one but i need a few days to do so.
  • The sooner, the better. It might be best to do it in stages, so show the other editors that there is a bona fide attempt to rectify the problems. That's how I managed to salvage a couple of music-related articles from AfD (such as Robin Ward). B.Wind 06:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theoretically, as a copyvio the page should be blanked immediately and started from scratch. However, i very much doubt the band would worry too much that their copyright is being violated in this manner. You should have a week or so until this AfD is resolved, i would recommend you replace the copied text by then. You could also read WP:NPOV and WP:V for advice on how to write a verifiable article in neutral tone. Thanks. Rockpocket 07:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I know these guys personally and professionally and based on the wording of this article I would say either a band member or a member of the bands staff wrote this. Notice the complete lack of mention of former lead singer/guitar player/front man Chad Perrone who wrote almost ALL of the songs from thier first 2 albums. It has only been 2 months since Chad's departure. (what happened to cause his departure is unclear as both the band and Chad refuse to get into a he said/they said type thing.) As for thier importance in the Boston music scene, these guys are the real deal. They may not have had a "real" national tour, but what they have done to the local pop/rock scene is no less then what Dropkick Murphys have done for the irish-punk scene.
  • Comment - I also know them on the same level. Perrone's departure actually happened last December, almost six months ago. A member of the band or staff probably did write the former history section but didn't mention him most likely because the band has moved on and would like people who read about them to see them as the band they are in the here and now.
  • New Article(mostly) - I've made some changes that should take this article out of the deletion pool. I added a history section and took most of what was already there and moved it into the "press - growth" section. I have included mention of the previous lead singer and given what I believe to be an unbiased view of his leaving the band by providing quotations of both sides of the story.
  • I am a member of the band's staff and while I understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is also a place where unnecessary finger pointing can begin, maybe not with the musicians themselves but with supporters who unfortunately chose to take sides after the split. As long as the article stays up, it poses as a risk to start trouble, and I am sure that neither Averi nor Chad wants anything more negative to happen. Both sides have moved on. I will be putting in a request to delete this article as soon as possible. Thank you for understanding.
  • Keep. The band is notable per WP:BAND. See the bullet point "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."
I misread the item, my apologies. Aguerriero (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was withrawn by nominator. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EasyPizza[edit]

Nomination Withdrawn per Kevin_b_er's discovery of a notable company operating under the same name as the SEO-pushing site, and because of the complete article rewrite. lowercase 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On its face, this is a clar delete as there is no direct claim of meeting WP:CORP. What bothers me more, however, is this article seems to exist not to advertise a pizza chain but to support a SEO campaign. Follow either of the two links in this article. Except for the front page, the bottom of every page on these websites are loaded with hidden text links to many different sites. Notably, in large print are links to eminicabs.co.uk and etaxis.co.uk, similar sites which are being linkspammed on Wikipedia presently, at Minicab and other places. lowercase 17:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, because Kevin_b_er points to a legitimate news article about this company, and yet the page linked to is still blatant SEO. lowercase 06:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood Kevin_b_er's comments. http://www.easypizza.com is legitimate, while http://www.easypizza.co.uk is part of the SEO campaign. I think this might be a keep after serious cleanup. lowercase 07:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Listen i dont understand what your problem is, is Wikipedia some kind of mafia? EasyPizza is a company registered in the Uk which has 3 branches, an address, a phone, a website, customers, workers, pays tax, vat and has every right to be listed in Wikipedia. If you delete easypizza i will ask for all the other similar pizza companies Wiki pages to also be deleted and possibly other restaurants and if Wikipedia is fair they either delete all company pages or they leave them all in. What you say about SEO is again unfair. Your page easygroup has nothing but SEO links and company propaganda as simply one example, i will demand that if our company page is deleted on the basis of only backlinks just to our homepage then all your pages that have dozens of back links must also be removed. You really have to play fair. Wikipedia is the online information open source not simply a SEO site of a few businesses promoting themselves. So please play fair give us a level playing field. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.100.250.215 (talk • contribs) 03:36, June 3, 2006 (UTC)[38]and modified by User:Politakis[39]

KEEP Again lowercase seems to have written a load of anti minicab propaganda. minicabs employ over 100,000 people in london alone and you deleted everything i posted while i was posting it. What is your problem again am i not allowed to post an un biased page telling people what a minicab is? And saying that a minicab is a form of transport etc. i really cannot see why your article can stay and mine gets deleted? i invite anyone to read my uniased minicab page and your anti minicab page and decide which shold stay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Politakis (talk • contribs) 03:44, June 3, 2006 (UTC)[40]

  • Delete, possibly speedy as G3 (spam is vandalism per Wikipedia:Vandalism). I confirm the hidden text - it isn't even well hidden. It has an assertion of notability, so that can't be the basis. GRBerry 01:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte. No sources. Unverifiable. Fagstein 02:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 14:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete Well dang, this is wierd. While on one hand there's a CNN money article on this group, [41], the .co.uk listed at the website is pure search engine spam, if I ever saw it. Try to find the hidden terms link at the bottom of the page, and see all the spam. Sites related to http://easycruise.com are most certainly real, and information on them should be kept, including the article on EasyPizza. Needs clean up though, and deleting of that easypizza.co.uk link. The whole article is spam for a company going by the same name as EasyPizza.com, which is what I find on seaches and research for this company. ex. [42]. Whole thing needs to be wiped clean and info about the notable version of this company needs to be put in. Kevin_b_er 05:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was fixed up even better now, I hope... If this article is deleted, then it should not be protected. I'm all for seeing an article go up in its place about the company represented at easypizza.com, not the company that seems to be dedicated to boosting its searching engine ranking which the article is currently written about. Kevin_b_er 07:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks to Kevin_b_er's investigation and discovery, I have tried my hand at a reasonable replacement for the current EasyPizza article. It can be viewed at Talk:EasyPizza/Temp. If the concensus is that this is a reasonable replacement for the contents, I will withdraw my AfD nomination. Concerns about this potential replacement probably belong at Talk:EasyPizza, not here. lowercase 08:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and replace by lowercase's temp version. Apparently notable business, see other media mention here. Sandstein 11:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mak (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG IT'S A FAW![edit]

Neologism, and fawn is misspelled to boot. hateless 18:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Mildred Pierce[edit]

The current article contains a bunch of non-existent or broken links that provide no illumination on who this (let alone a reliable source). (The internal wiki links to associated topics all point erroneously to other subjects, like Twin Peaks Windom Earle, the letter "V", and dab page Kobayashi.) There is no sign of either SMP or "76" (apparently a collaborator) in All-Music Guide (very odd even for obscure U.S.-based musicians). The most prominent Google traces of this name come from flickr (a personal picture website), copies of WP, and other music-related, anyone-can-post sites. The talk page has a long discussion about using WP for self-promotion, but despite the evidence for such presented there, no one seems to have stepped up to the plate to nominate this for deletion, so I'll do it here. Delete unless reliable evidence of notability provided. Jeff Q (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Jeffq. -- Kjkolb 20:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I smell a hoax. B.Wind 06:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mildred Pierce was a once-very-famous noir novel by James M. Cain, which was adapted into a well-known motion picture. It is not an impossibly uncommon real name—an Anywho lookup shows three people named "Mildred Pierce" in the state of California—but the fact that the article does not mention the surprising coincidence, or explain the intentional reference, does indeed "smell like a hoax." It is as almost as if we were to have a straight-faced article about a male singer "Sir Joan Crawford" or "Sir Marilyn Monroe" that said nothing about the name. The fact that the alleged external link, http://www.sirmildredpierce.com redirects to a dodgy-looking website that offers access to government auctions is very odd, too. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berone[edit]

Contested prod. It's an online game that hasn't yet been fully released. Prodders were concerned with notability (WP:WEB) and verifiability. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP is not a crystal ball... It needs to be released before we care. --Dakart 21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Peta 00:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Percy Snoodle 11:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus that the individual hall articles shouldn't exist, but no consensus to delete any of them, so keep the MRS article and merge everything else into it. Johnleemk | Talk 12:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monash Residential Services[edit]

Non-notable department of a university; nothing here that wouldn't be better included in Monash University Demiurge 18:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating related pages

for the same reason. See An/I for some discussion.

  • Delete, as per nom. Demiurge 19:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC) - This vote comes from the nominator in an attempt to deceive. THE KING 19:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Not only are these all notable and deserving of a seperate article to the Monash article, as MRS is a seperate division of Monash to the uni, but this afd is in bad faith, and arises out of the childish wikifuckingaround of Demiurge. They have been on wikipedia for over a year now and i see no grounds for deletion. THE KING 19:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merging any useful content. Take a look at Farrer Hall in particular. "Jack Stephenson was the treasurer of the debateably successful Farrer Hall Society in 2005. He loves to spend time in his bedroom writing reciepts and completing audits and masturbation, a skill which will be handy in his future career as a mechatronic engineer. Jack is probably best known for his poor coordination and inability to properly articulate sentences, particularly in the English language." Yeah. That's encyclopedic. BigDT 19:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any useful content into Monash University, Clayton campus and then delete. Don't leave a redirect. Metros232 19:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't merge and then delete, because of copyright reasons. The history of the deleted article contains the list of authors required by the GFDL. --kingboyk 19:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not as long as you're just merging the information and not using the same wording. Here the significant facts are so scant that shouldn't be difficult. Postdlf 20:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Read the AfD policy, you can't actually say merge and delete under GFDL. What is the practical harm in a redirect? Go and build up an article instead of worrying about whether a redirect is reasonable. Ansell Review my progress! 09:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You've hit the nail on the head there Ansell. Well done. THE KING 13:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Halls of residence are not ordinarily notable. Farrer Hall might be considered for WP:BJAODN because that's what it is, bad jokes and nonsense. --kingboyk 19:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, merging any useful (i.e., significant) facts. Postdlf 19:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, along with almost every dorm article, except those that are legitimately historic. Friday (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 20:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is continued discussion about Halls of Residence. A compromise that has been reached in some other places is for a single article that gives information about all Halls in a particular university. This is usefull when the main university article is getting large. The suggestion here is a merge to Monash University, Clayton campus. This article for the main campus is very recent and will get much larger. Most information on the main campus was and still is in Monash University. Articles for some of the other smaller campuses at Monash are larger than the one for the main campus. My proposal is to keep Monash Residential Services but delete the articles for the individual Halls at Monash but adding South East Flats to the five listed above. --Bduke 23:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Monash Residential Services and merge individual colleges into it. Capitalistroadster 00:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. So very non-notable. —phh (t/c) 01:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete organisation page.--Peta 02:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge as per capitalistroadster Ansell Review my progress! 09:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely delete the individual halls. Maybe merge the information to the residential services article, or a campus article. JPD (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Merge and delete is not valid under the GFDL. See the AfD policy statement which says you cannot do this. Ansell 11:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you merge facts only, instead of just copying and pasting text from one article to another, nothing copyrighted is involved. Postdlf 14:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately that is not a correct assertion. The facts were contributed by someone. As such the history of the edits must be kept. This is possible with merge and redirect, but not with merge and delete. What is the huge problem with a redirect anyway? People act like its the end of the earth, go clear a backlog or two. Ansell 01:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is a correct assertion, and it's what makes Wikipedia, a secondary source, possible—copyright doesn't protect facts, or the effort of researching them. It only protects creative expression. There's accordingly no obligation to keep a record of who contributed what facts as long as you're not using their copyrighted expression. See Feist v. Rural, rejecting that copyright protects the "sweat of the brow." If you have any further questions, you're welcome to post them on my talk page. Postdlf 03:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Apparently you dont see the distinction between copyright and GFDL, GFDL actually cares about contributions and as such you should find a better case law precedent for your argument. BTW, it is relevant here, not on your talk page. Ansell 10:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I was just trying to keep a tangent from swamping this AFD. Anyway, I'm really not clear on what your rationale is. You seem to be suggesting that the license itself creates rights in the grantor, which is not how it works. The GFDL is a license for the use of copyrighted material. A license is a grant of permission extended by someone who has the rights to control the subject matter of the license. If something is not copyrightable, licenses are irrelevant, because your permission is not needed for someone to make use of something you do not have the right to control. You can't give more than what you have. Postdlf 16:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Individual Halls can be merged under MRS, but my images should stay. Vincentshia (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Monash University, Clayton campus (minus the references to homosexuality and masturbation, of course). --Roisterer 13:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up if needed. --JJay 00:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Fails WP:CORP as a stand alone company. If any of this really needs to be kept, it can be Merged into the school's article. Vegaswikian 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Individual halls have been kept as notable before, and I see no reason why this isn't the case here. They undoubtedly need cleanup however. I also oppose merging with Monash Residential Services; these halls are far more well known than the body that owns them. Rebecca 09:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they could be merged into a new article, Notable Residential Halls in Monash University or something. I'm not too fussed about the fate of those particular articles. However, if there is a merge, the articles almost must be kept. Here are the reasons we always merge and redirect instead of merging and deleting:
  • As Peter pointed out above, the bloody GFDL. We can't deliberately take someone's work and then delete any records tying them to their contribution; it's not only a copyright violation, it's immoral, too. And something like "rewording the facts to get around copyright" fixes one problem, but not the other.
  • People will expect to be able to find the articles at their current locations; if we move the information to another article, it's Common Sense to provide a redirect so everyone knows where it's gone.
  • Similarly, searching. If I've just stumbled across Wikipedia and I want to find out about Howitt Hall, a redirect is very useful for that purpose (since our search engine sucks).
  • There is no good reason for deleting the redirect. Some people on AfD (usually newbies, which is why it's disappointing to see people like Postdlf arguing otherwise) tend to want redirects deleted after merging so they can have the satisfaction of deleting something, and that's just sad. Why delete when you don't have to?
  • Surprisingly enough, it's actually more work for the closing admin to merge and delete. And as a closing admin, I put enough work into these damn things already without all y'all inventing more out of sheer devilment.
And here's why we might want to delete the redirect instead:
  • It has an offensive name.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that's the only reason. So ... why are we merging and deleting, again? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N.Nagaraja(M.T.B.)[edit]

No sources, and no evidence of notability. From reading the talk page of the editor who created it, it looks like the material has been deleted once already.- Motor (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional keep (revised below). Having userfied this article (in an even worse state than this), I am prepared to be lenient but netgir netgir must:
    • Wikify and do basic formatting of the article - add spaces after full stops! and remove spurious capitals
    • Explain why this page lists B.N. Bachegowda and not N. Nagaraja as the member for Hoskote in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.
-- RHaworth 18:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete Complete agreement with RHaworth as to bullet point two, but I default to delete. --Chaser (T) 21:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless someone can show it meets WP:BIO. Vegaswikian 02:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect as the article is already userfied. No notability asserted in the article, which needs a complete overhaul if it is kept. B.Wind 22:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep No one has notified netgir netgir yet. I msged him on his talk, but he doesn't seem to be contributing. --Chaser (T) 04:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I got a response. Here are the google results for "MTB Nagaraj". His full msg at my talk page is: I would like to comment on what RHaworth has told regarding MTB Nagaraj. Please go to google search and type in MTB Nagaraj you will get latest information about him. B.N.BacheGowda has been defeated in the 2004 Assembly election in Hoskote Constituency which comes under Bangalore District North. But Mr.RHaworth Sir has told that a web page has mentioned that B.N.BacheGowda has won, yes it is true but it was in 1999 Assembly election and not in 2004 assembly election as said by the author. And Regarding leaving space after fullstop it will be corrected and I am sorry for the same. I hope now the things will be cleared. From, Netgir_Netgir In light of this, I recommend everyone reconsider their votes. --Chaser (T) 16:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
- Liberatore(T) 19:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing new has been added to the article; so I am reaffirming my advocation for deletion and protection. B.Wind 05:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I know we should judge the article on its subject rather than its quality but Netgir netgir made his response above over 48 hours ago and he has done nothing to the article. And why do I have to find a link to the 2004 election results? (Note NewIndPress think that the constituency is called Hosakote and the article title should be M.T.B. Nagaraju.) -- RHaworth 06:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while I appreciate the effort taken to get information from the editor who created the article, I don't see that much has changed. Especially when I consider the length of time it's sat here and the history of the editor and this article (through its different incarnations). - Motor (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Motor. Ral315 (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dataworks Plus[edit]

This was unsuccessfully piggy-backed onto an AfD for Veripic that ended in delete. It's essentially advertising. Chaser (T) 19:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertising. Zunaid 07:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a blatant hoax. -- Kjkolb 19:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kfar Maas[edit]

Joke article. SCHZMO ✍ 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge. JYolkowski // talk 00:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Television interference (strong signal)[edit]

The article seems to talk about an electronic phenomenon, which I am not convinced exists, and in any event give no real information regarding it. It seems like a how to for people in London to fix their TVs. If this does relate to some electronic phenomenon, it should be merged in to the correct article in Category:Interference Jon513 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is real... There needs to be some citations, though. --Dakart 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The title is pretty horrible, if this does exists I am sure that there is a correct scientific term for it (which probably already has an article). Jon513 21:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. This is probably real, and it is somewhat related to the articles desensitation,Television interference (radio transmitter interference), and Electromagnetic interference. The article proposed for deletion is really one aspect of the material that Television interference family of articles attempts to cover. One factor that makes it especially tough to do a good job on this area is the pending switchover to HDTV. I have no idea where to find a good reference that would explain television interference in terms of the symptoms that would appear on a digital television. Gerry Ashton 02:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a page for Television interference (weak signal). --Dakart 01:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Made by the same user (User:Cadmium). Jon513 21:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure it is worth keeping. If anything is of unique value, merge it into Television interference (radio transmitter interference) which needs help. Vegaswikian 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Movement as a Collection of Problem Solvers[edit]

Original research. The creator admits this in the inital edit summary. Sorry, but WP should not be used as a soapbox. hateless 19:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes there is some original research in the article, but from the viewpoint of the very established field of process management, the basic tenants are sound. Perhaps you could suggest a way to improve the article so that it is acceptable? Jack Harich 19:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Removing *every* bit of original research and citing established sources is the way. Equendil 19:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination unless content drastically changed. Equendil 19:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Equendil. I will read up on Wikipedia's policies and rework the entry. Jack Harich 19:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spent an enjoyable and educational hour reading Wikipedia's policies on encyclopedia articles. I was especially interested in what the spirit of these policies was. Based on this, I agree that this article, my first, should be deleted. Thanks for steering me straight and helping me to go through one of the many processes that allow Wikipedia to be the truly valuable resource it is. Jack Harich 21:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milky way slide.[edit]

Not notable - no reason to have a page about one specific candy ad. -SCEhardT 20:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lol... I really love the "why this is pleasurable" section, though. --Dakart 20:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Completely NN. I agree with Dakart about "pleasurable" section (and may be fit for BJAODN). - Zepheus 20:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Lockwood PLC[edit]

Non-notable law firm, 3 attorneys per its website, deprodded. Accurizer 19:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Accurizer. -- RHaworth 19:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot conceive of any need to research the existence of 3 lawyers firms in Southern Arizona. Legis 21:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and take it off List of law firms... Legis 21:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. About half of those supporting keeping the article gave no rationale for doing so. The "as per Darwinek" votes (standard disclaimer: not that AfD is a vote) only say "Keep and de-red link these girls" -- there is no reason given for actually keeping. Because AfD isn't a vote, these "votes" are invalid. Johnleemk | Talk 12:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese female porn stars[edit]

Absolutely no encyclopedic value at all, and most links on article have no articles. Hong Qi Gong 20:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • While it may not be true that this list is unencyclopedic, I gotta say wow. That's a lot of redlinks. Punkmorten 22:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a delete, by the way. Or move (to user space?). Just remove it from the main namespace. Punkmorten 17:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. --Vsion 04:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a lot of redlinks, and it's probably not particularly complete either. Delete as a potentially infinite list. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and de-red link these girls :). -- Darwinek 07:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per what I've said above. Hong Qi Gong 14:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and list on WP:DAFT Eluchil404 20:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Darwinek. —Nightstallion (?) 12:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This list really does not serve any purpose. That's what Categories are for. In fact there is a Category:Japanese_porn_stars. Hong Qi Gong 14:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom after making sure any existing article on the list is added to the category. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only about 15 of the articles existed and were relevant (i.e. there were a few listings for "porn stars" like Subaru!). One of them was missing the category, but that's been corrected. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - However I do not believe this is entirely unencyclopedic. Lists are useful. Nevertheless I believe it would be better to start more articles on the girls and put 'em in the category. After all, as stated previously, there are categories. They function perfectly well as lists for articles. Horncomposer 10:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. A lot of effort has obviously gone into this list. Look how long the history is. Is there not a Pornography wikiproject that we could simply move this to being a subpage of? As a working-on list. (yes yes, i'm a regular posting anon to keep it out of my history ;P (not a contributor to this list though)) -24.68.65.246 02:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Porn stars/List of... -24.68.65.246 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Darwinek and the anon above. Silensor 07:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete before we start getting similar lists for every possible gender/country combination. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, could be useful for keeping track of what articles need to be created, as with List of female porn stars. Entries can always be removed if they're not notable. PseudoAnon 20:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Jeebus, I didn't even know that other list existed. How are they encyclopedic at all if they are purely just lists? That's what Categories are for. I swear, Wikipedia is one of the best porn directories on the web right now. Hong Qi Gong 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories do not make lists obsolete -- lists can give more information than categories, and can allow you to see places where articles are still needed. When a list does more than a category can, we usually keep both. That's true whether it is porn stars or historians. --Fastfission 21:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since a list of female porn stars can exist, I don't see why a Japanese one can't exist as well. However, it definitely needs to be polished up. -- Evanx(tag?) 20:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I'm considering nominating the other list for deletion as well. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to nominate it if this useless list itself actually gets deleted. Hong Qi Gong 05:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Aside from making clear which of the members of the list do not have articles, it also has the Japanese characters for all of the names; both of these are things which cannot be implemented with categories and could presumably be useful to someone. It's not doing any harm, so keep. --Fastfission 21:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm still wondering how a list of porn stars, whether Japanese or not, is encyclopedic, especially when most of that list comprise of empty articles. The Wikipedia community can be pretty pathetic sometimes. Where are the requests to prove that those names are actual people? Where are the requests to source the article? Did anybody even check the articles linked to see if they pass Wikipedia:Notability (erotic actors)? Because many of them do not. Did anybody check to see if those articles actually link to real people? For example - AOI (AOI), Shion, Shizuka, Sonobe, Subaru, Yuka - those on the list don't even link to articles on any porn stars. Hong Qi Gong 05:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this please but remove any names we can not identify Yuckfoo 06:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would basically be all the red names. Hong Qi Gong 15:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which would, in turn, be everything that isn't already in the category - making the list redundant. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let me see if I get this straight... The list is unnecessary because we have categories of articles... and the majority of these names have no article, therefore they won't be in the category... but they're not worth listing until they have their own article, at which time they will be put in a category, not a list... Do I follow? -- Dekkappai 04:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say dont delete it is very useful.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.86.82.48 (talk • contribs) .
  • keep It couldn't be any clearer. Not one valid reason is given in the discussion for deletion. Lists aren't encyclopedic? Maybe not in the traditional sense of an encyclopedia, but Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia, and lists are certainly tolerated on Wikipedia. Too many redlinks? This is not a reason to delete an article. This is a reason to work on an article. Either put in articles for the links, or leave the names and unlink them. Or if you're not interested, leave it alone! Some of the links go to the wrong article? Then fix them! "The article is a mess?" Then clean it up! Instead, in clear violation of Wikipedia policy, the nominator makes clear that his purpose in nominating this article for deletion is to censor Wikipedia. -- Dekkappai 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've gotten rid of the red links because they are basically unverifiable. We don't even know if they're real people or completely made up. I've also gotten rid of the links that don't even go to porn stars. Hong Qi Gong 04:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is exactly what categories are for. --Golbez 05:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every item in a list needs to be worthy of an article? Categories are for articles. HongQiGong states he's out to censor Wikipedia, and blanks the article while discussion is going on. -- Dekkappai 05:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't blank the article. All I've essentially done was deleted information that was not verified. Those names could all be completely made up for all we know. Hong Qi Gong 05:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Among the "unverifiable" names you blanked (twice so far) were Miki Sawaguchi and Anna Ohura, who not only are well-known, they already have articles. The majority of the others can be verified simply by clicking on the 日本語 link. You obviously made no effort to verify anything, and you requested verification from no one at the article.
        • This argument that a list is the same as a category is as dishonest as the claim that the majority of these names are "unverifiable." I'd be willing to bet the vast majority are verifiable with a simple search. I'd do that myself, and re-sort the list into family name order, if not for the obvious dishonesty behind the request for verification. You simply intend to delete the list.
        • I have posted a restored, revised article, with red-links taken out and put it in a better format. I'd do more, but I get the feeling any further work on this list will be a wasted effort. -- Dekkappai 07:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Note: This deletion was reviewed, and it was relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies 2. Septentrionalis 02:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete G4, the article as it is is a recreation of the previously deleted articles, despite rewording sentences.  RasputinAXP  c 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible wars between liberal democracies[edit]

Ultramarine keeps inserting this piece of advocacy of the position that no two democracies have ever gone to war. It's been deleted twice; now he's made it into a table. Septentrionalis 20:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete G4: Substantial recreation of deleted article; still irreparably POV. I voted against deletion as a possible resource, but since the original exists in user space here, I see no reason to retain. Septentrionalis 20:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very different articles with very different material and sources. The Democratic peace theory is one of the main subjects in political science. The question of whether there has been any wars between liberal democracies is one of the main topics. The article now extensively cites several scholarly books on the subject.Ultramarine 21:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article, like its previous versions, represents the view of two or three authors within DPT. Ultramarine is the author of this article; he declines to recognize that WP is not a blog. Septentrionalis
      • It cites extensively from several academic books on the subject. I think it fairly represents the views of the researchers. If something is missing, it can be easily added.Ultramarine 21:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy A7 delete. Punkmorten 22:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next Year's Resolution[edit]

As much work as been put into this page, it's non-notable. Sorry. 0zymandias 20:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, good luck and everything but it's too early for this. Delete. Ac@osr 21:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. Most of the "work" that's been put into it seems to be vandalism anyway. --Ginkgo100 22:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected to Greenock, if any more information is desired from this article, follow the redirect back. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Greenockians[edit]

This page was nominated by HisSpaceResearch on March 23, 2006. I am merely cleaning up his nomination, please see my own vote below. Cool3 20:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Greenock. The information is valuable, but does not really need its own article. Cool3 20:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Punkmorten 22:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 12:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Snowdon[edit]

deletion was already suggested in June 2005, cleanup tag since June 2005, still an extremely short and unwikified text, not linked by any normal Wikipedia article; keep and improve votes obviously don't make any sense unless you are improving the article yourself Deleteme42 21:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve votes (like this one) make plenty of sense. I know that this is Wikipedia where everybody is equal, but you could fit everything I know about epidemiology into my navel and still have room for a lot of lint. I wouldn't know how to even start improving this article, but sooner or later someone who does know what they're doing will find it. Until then, I'll pass the buck. Trying to delete stubs on notable subjects displays a fundamental lack of faith in the process here. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an article is neither linked by other Wikipedia articles nor would be of any help for someone creating a proper article there's no value in keeping the article no matter how notable the subject of the article is. Otherwise, I could easily find an area where hundreds of notable people without Wikipedia articles exist and create articles consisting of no more than five words for each of them (Mister Foo was a bar.) - would you vote for keeping such articles? And it seems in this case the AfD made much sense - after nearly a full year with the cleanup tag the article still was bullshit, but only 15 minutes after my AfD someone improved the article to a reasonable stub proving the value of this AfD (and making it obsolete). Deleteme42 16:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they were genuinely notable people, then yes, I would want to keep them. There's nothing wrong with stubs, and if a page in an under-covered area doesn't have any inbound links, chances are that the page will acquire some once people start more pages in that area. Honestly, I don't understand your logic here. If you have a problem with our cleanup procedures, take it to WP:CU instead of abusing process here (nominating articles to spur growth is a violation of WP:POINT).-Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me make an example: Players of the second German soccer league are considered notable in the English Wikipedia according to WP:BIO. I will take a random season from the 1980s and create for every player an article only consisting of the unwikified text Foo Bar was a German soccer player. Are you promising to vote keep if any of these get an AfD? Deleteme42 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's continue this discussion on my talk page. Deleteme42 17:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and improve) -- Snowdon's PubMed listing is relatively brief (50 or so papers) but he has several publications in high-quality clinical journals eg Ann Intern Med, Neurology, Ann Neurol, JAMA. Espresso Addict 00:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to add: I've added some of these pubs to the entry, plus some info on the Nun Study (which, incidentally, is described under the entry for Alzheimer's disease). If Snowdon isn't considered sufficiently notable, then perhaps this material could form a stub entry on the Nun Study which does seem notable in Alzheimer's research (eg featured on cover of Time). Espresso Addict 01:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — the Nun Study is notable; he was the director. — RJH (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter's Got Woods second nomination, episodes from Season 4b et. al.[edit]

Uncited, original research, breaks policy. See my comment to the first speedkeep. Also up for deletion under the same reasons:

-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • no brainer: keep this is precisely what is depicted in cartoon wars and cartoon wars II: of south park, just cause you dont like it doesnt mean you have to ruin it for everybody else
  • Comment I purposely put my comments above the others, because when I put them below the others (probably due to including the entire previous discussion), they didn't show up. With that said...
  • Comment The two of you have made this AfD debate INSANELY messy. If nothing else, the original debate should only be linked to, not recreated in the midst of this discussion. Now, with that out of the way...
  • Strong speedy keep Are you kidding me? Seriously, is this a damn joke? They're episode summaries of an incredibly popular, cult-favorite, multiple-Emmy-Award-winning television show! Why not delete every article on every episode of every television program ever? I absolutely think that some of these articles need to be cleaned up, but to deleted them would be completely, utterly, absolutely, 100% ludicrous. -- Kicking222 22:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment so its fame allows us to ignore WP:CITE? -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 22:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether or not its fame allows us to, WP:IGNORE certainly does. I'm trying to maintain the quality of WP by defending viable articles from someone who wants to eliminate them for no particular reason. I'm in no way intending to make this a personal attack, but what do you so severely hate about "Family Guy"? Why not nominate every single "Simpsons" episode, every single "Futurama" episode, List of I Love Lucy episodes, the section of The Office (UK TV series) dealing with episode summaries... need I go on? If we deleted these articles, we would literally have to delete thousands of articles. And there's no reason for that just because you have some vendetta. You make the point that you would never find episode guides in an Encyclopedia Britannica, but you know what? That's why the first thing listed in WP:NOT is that WP is not paper. -- Kicking222 23:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't hate Family Guy. I just thought these articles were uncited and original research. I actually like Family guy. I hadn't checked other TV show summaries, so I couldn't know if they were bad or not yet. 'WITHDRAWN'. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 00:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Someone seems to have a grudge against Family Guy ;-) Seriously, they are episode pages like those of any other series. There is no original research in them. As for "cite", the episode which is summerised is a valid source. The person who made these accusations should back them up, as they seem pretty random and unfounded to me. And while he's at it, he should justify why he's going after Family Guy episodes only. Is it more researched or sourced to describe an episode of another series? Or is he planning to mass-delete all episode pages of all series? Until we get some kind of explaination on why these episodes in particular should be deleted, I'm strongly for keeping them. -- Ritchy 21:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, judging from the archived discussion below, it seems this debate has already taken place, and the overwhelming opinion is for "keep". Is there a reason why the debate is being reopened? -- Ritchy 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "debate" was when the page was porrly written, not when it was uncited. It is original research; the authors are getting their info from their knowledge of the episode. If they got the info from a summary then wheres the citation? And I do intend on proding all uncited summaries. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 21:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So by your judgement, any movie/book/tv show page that has a summary of the work is "uncited original research"? That's nonesense. It is cited, and the source is the movie/book/tv show being summarised. And if that's "original research", then every page where something's expressed in the writer's words instead of being copy-pasted from a book or encyclopedia - which is to say, every single page in wikipedia - is guilty of original research. And since we cannot copy-paste articles from encyclopedias (you know, with those pesky copyright laws and all), then we might as well shut down wikipedia right now and save you the trouble of listing every last page. -- Ritchy 22:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia is a ternary source, so it shoud get information from secondary sources. The user's interpretation of the show via watching it once is original research since they are only using the subject as a source. It's the reason interviews can't be added directly to Wikipedia. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 22:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an interpretation, it is a summary. It is a factual description of what happens in the episode. "Peter gets trapped on a desert island. He comes back after several months, and finds Brian has married Lois. He wins Lois over again." There is no original research in there. If the text were to read, say, "In a very unoriginal plot twist, Peter gets trapped on a desert island. But the Robinson story was better. Lois married Brian -- ewww gross, bestiality is wrong! But Peter wins Lois over again, yay Peter! He's so great, I love him so much!" then that would be a fan interpretation of the show, and you'd have a case. But there is nothing in wikipedia policy against putting factual information in - in fact, that's what wikipedia in for.
And another thing, did you actually read the No Original Research page? I'd like you to find me a part of it that can says, or even that can be loosely interpreted as saying, that a factual NPOV movie/book/tv show summary constitutes original research. That's kinda important for your case, since you're aiming to delete most of wikipedia based on that argument. -- Ritchy 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ccool2ax says:

Well, Wikipedia is a ternary source, so it shoud get information from secondary sources. The user's [summary] of the show via watching it once is original research since they are only using the subject as a source.

Wikipedia policy says:

However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

I think that pretty much settles the debate. -- Ritchy 22:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"their personal analysis or interpretation of published material" under purpose makes sense... how about "or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data" under "defininton"? I've already stated my opinion, now let's gather others.-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 22:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, except for the fact that no one is analysing or interpreting the episode, so your argument doesn't hold up. A factual, NPOV summary of an episode is neither an interpretation nor an analysis. I thought I already explained the distinction between the two in an earlier post above. -- Ritchy 22:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just wondering, if primary sources are intended for use in articles then why is there the template ((:tl:Primarysources))? -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shoudn't they at least include a References section? -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The episode is the reference! -- Ritchy 22:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some issues of Bob's Poetry Magazine can be used as reference. See March 2005, May 2005, August 2005 and January 2006. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Family Guy is a vital part of American mythology and its episodes are as worthy of Wikipedia articles as all the minor Homeric odes. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment dont mean to start a bigger fight, but have you ever found an episode summary in Britannica? And I don't think it's just because of size limitations (so dont use wiki is not paper).
    • WP is not paper isn't just about size limits. It's about what is included in an encyclopedia as opposed to what is included here. -- Kicking222 23:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Britannica is not a book on everything. Wikipedia could be. I vote we keep the articles, accept that having watched a TV programme is secondary sourcing and get on with adding to the site rather than detracting from it. Mallanox 00:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these things are not notable, and family guy sucks, so i don't feel they need to have so many articles when great world leaders get very few. Blinksteal 01:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Unsurprisingly, this person's vote (of course, an AfD discussion is not a vote) is based on his hatred of the show. Also unsurprsingly, he started his account today, and has only eight total edits. And of his seven other edits, all seven have been vadalism. -- Kicking222 03:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree. Don't count him in the consensus. (I don't hate family guy by thy way)-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 05:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep/Comment Here's an interesting fact: This guy is THE ONLY ONE who wants these deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.69.126.249 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Here's an interesting note: You didn't state a reason and ignored my vote to delete. This user is probably the opposite of the Blinksteal guy. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, extremely useful guide. Why delete it? Much of the guide is original. --FlyingPenguins 03:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats the point. Wikipedia policy is No Original research. So you shouldn't save it cause it's original.-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 05:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, Since the previous debate (see below) led to a keep, I think all arguments of plot summaries should end and all articles should be kept. Deletion is unnecessary and keeping is not against WP policy. --cody.pope 12:09, 1 June 2006 (EST)
    • so because they didnt delete the article before when the debate had nothing to do with verifiability, that means all episode summaries should be kept without debate? Nonsense. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite sources - TV episodes should be verifiable just like everything else including films. Film articles normally contain links to IMDB. Just because Family Guy is lowest common denominator entertainment doesn't make it less in need of verifiation. MLA 12:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep However, it is not at all a bad idea to include some other sources. IMDB has summaries for most episodes, and about.com has about half of season four. PrometheusX303 12:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. Dysprosia 13:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, You might as well say watching the credits to see what actor protrayed someone (LTIC a large portion of WP acting credits is based on the credits) is original research,It's not the credits in this case would be the sorce just as in this case the EP is.Deuxhero 18:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and as far as I can tell, these should all be speedy keeps based on being bad faith noms. Aguerriero (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not bad faith. I didn't nominate the articles cause I hate Family Guy. I love the show. The reason its only season 4b of Family Guy is because i don't have time too look up prod AND Afd every single summary. I just wanted to see why uncied original summaries were worth keeping.-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Storng Keep I do not see how this break policy. Beside, this covers a noteable topic. The Gerg 18:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, not only can articles be deleted because of some stupid essay, bad articles can be kept because of an essay too? (Note: Hypothetical sarcasm)-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per above Zig 21:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I stand by everything I said the first time this came up. ShutterBugTrekker 23:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Keep - I can't believe this is even being debated. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 04:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise proposal: Since it's very obvious that Wikipedia consensus is for Strong Keep, Why jot tag the articles without cited sources with this Template:Primarysources Tag:((tl:Primarysources))


Ok? -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm all for compromise, but I'm not sure I follow your logic here in asserting that the articles are uncited. It seems to me that if an article is about a TV show, the show is the citation... the citation is implied and should be obvious. Same goes if I am writing an article for a film; the plot summary, cast, etc are technically "uncited" in that I have not made a citation, but the film is the citation. Now if I write something about the critical reception, that requires a citation. So, what exactly are you suggesting? Are you saying that one can't write an article about a television show unless a secondary source has summarized its plot, therefore providing one with a citation? Aguerriero (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the compromise would be to find secondary sources for TV summaries... every tv summary preferably. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this compromise. I disagree with the statement that the film, plot summary, cast etc are uncited as that may be how some film articles are but not how they should be as they can be sourced from IMDb and elsewhere. I was going to be putting uncited tags of some kind on these articles once they passed this AfD. MLA 08:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Prometheusx303 jcomp489
  • Keep. Why delete them? It's a very popular show. There's a page for every Beatles song, every "Friends" episode, etc. EamonnPKeane 18:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Surely there's an argument for deleting these articles, and those summarising particular episodes without particular cultural importance of any television programme, simply on the grounds of insignificance, or perhaps simply moving them to a different Wiki dedicated to such summaries, for the same reason that articles about undistinguished private persons are not included in Wikipedia? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; the information it is supposed to meet the requirements of relevance and significance as well as accuracy. -- DDCohen

STRONG STRONG STRONG KEEP If we can't keep this article, then we should go through and delete articles on individual episodes of TV shows....but since that would be extremely time consuming, and would result in a lot of good entries being deleted....there's just no sense.--Stdjsb25 16:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Episodes of the Family Guy. I know this battle is lost, but I still don't think we need episode summaries for every episode of popular TV shows. -- GWO
    • Doesn't Family Guy have a Wikia or something? Shouldn't they put their encyclpoedia-quality detailed articles on anything related to it there? -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it does, but the problem with it is that Family Guy is so symbiotically connected into American pop culture that Wikipedia is better able to put it all into context. In this way it is very different from another TV show that has its own Wiki, Star Trek. In some ways, the Star Trek universe is highly self-contained, it could exist in the absence of 20th Century American pop culture. Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not paper CoolKatt number 99999 22:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this goes, then every other article on episodes of television series goes, too. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As with all other Family Guy episode summaries. Family Guy is closely linked to American popular culture, and the summaries at the Wikipedia offer and excellent reference for viewers who aren't too familliar with the said pop culture. Giving people more insight in different cultures is certainly something we want to achieve with the Wikipedia. --GSchjetne 20:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is the point of deleting the article if there is original and uncited research? There's templates to use in place to help cleanup those unverified statements. Deleting does nothing in this situation since we're dealing with TV episodes. Douglasr007 07:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have found these guides to be incredibly useful, especially when attempting to decipher the many vague (I was born in '90) cultural references made on Family Guy. The guides are really just factually summaries; the WP policy isn't holy writ, and I believe that quite reasonably, we can bend the rules a bit. And yes, if you did delete this extensive amount of work, you would have to do so for just about every uncited TV show entry out there and minor article stub. If you must, put that uncited banner above the article. Don't destroy this much work. Aristotle1990 01:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly wish we could bend the rules here (seriously), but with editors treating even short essays as concrete, unbreakable rules (notability), I don't expect to see rule-bending here. It's either accept the rules or, when a deletionist is losing a battle, flat-out ignore them. At this point, I am not trying to delete all this work. I realize that they are great articles as far as quality of writing is. I just wish that the rules would stop being bent for TV shows and someone could introduce citations. If an article is uncited, it's original research, which is no-exceptions banned on Wikipedia. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 03:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It would be absurd to delete virtually every TV show and movie page on Wikipedia, but almost all were written by a viewer based on what they saw rather than by citing a third party summary. At worst, use the Primarysources tag. IMHO, that's overkill for a popular culture item. As someone noted above, critical reaction or other news connected to the episode should be cited. Alanhwiki 02:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "but almost all were written by a viewer based on what they saw rather than by citing a third party summary"


Isn't that my point exactly? Wikipedia is not the place for original research. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 03:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is getting nonsensical in my opinion. Research on any topic is at some point original. Can a shared experience i.e watching a tv programme be considered research? Research suggests pursuing something to an end no-one has reached before. There is nothing on any of the Family Guy pages that anyone couldn't find out through seeing the relevent shows. It's a matter of knowledge rather than research. As a British person watching Family Guy I don't get all of the cultural references. It's nice to see them here laid out so I can understand them. Mallanox 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.



This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Andy Janata 07:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter's Got Woods[edit]

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. His reason was: "nonsense" JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - episode summary; although probably merge into whatever main article we have on the TV show it's from, I've forgotten the name right now... JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - NN episode of the series Family Guy. I'd add that the summary is very badly written, but since that's not sufficient reason for deletion, the NN of it certainly is. Nezu Chiza 08:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Poorly written, and there is no compelling reason for an article on this particular episode. At best it shoulf be summarized at Family Guy. --Iustinus 08:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs editing of course, but the family guy page has links to about four seasons worth of articles, and it looks like someone has just tried to expand the next link in the series. Astrokey44 09:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The show itself is not particularly notable unless you'll well-versed in American TV, and the episode is definetly non-notable. / Peter Isotalo 11:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia." meta:Wiki_is_not_paper. Kappa 16:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. Definitely needs cleanup, though! Sam Vimes 17:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Kappa. Needs major cleanup to match the quality of other articles on List of Family Guy episodes. --Andy Janata 17:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. But lots of cleanup is needed; for starters it needs a bit of context. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Family Guy is important part of American folklore. I just wish people would look at the other Family Guy episode articles before starting new ones. ShutterBugTrekker 21:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep These pages I find are pretty valuable. While I do get 95% of the jokes on the show, there is the occasional one that slips by the mind. And sure enough, someone on wikipedia will have it in the cultural references page, and you can understand the joke better.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bathroom break[edit]

Nothing more than a dictionary definition of a phrase. Not encyclopedic. IrishGuy 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete dictionary definition. --Ginkgo100 22:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef. SM247 22:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Molerat 11:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Amalas =^_^= 14:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Rodriguez Varela[edit]

stub, not wikified, not citing sources, cleanup tag since June 2005, not linked by any Wikipedia article Deleteme42 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Expand This person seems to be of historical interest (see our Dear and Glorious Leader, Google), but the article needs more info. --0zymandias 21:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • cleanup tag since June 2005: I doubt the article will expand itself - are you doing it? Deleteme42 21:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable historical figure, and the fact that it hasn't been expanded yet doesn't mean that it never will be. We're a work in progress, yo, and eventually someone who knows their history of the Philippines will take care of it. Until then, it's not hurting anything. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.40% of all Wikipedia articles are listed for cleanup Category:Cleanup_by_month plus even more with other tags like e.g. wikify. There are 16,037 articles listed at Category:Cleanup_by_month (with at about 100 new articles each day) - I doubt adding them to WP:CU would help. This article has a cleanup tag since one year, is not linked by any Wikipedia article and does not cite it's sources. If someone will now or at any time in the future create a proper article about him that's perfectly fine with me. But as we've discussed on my talk page, it seems we won't agree on such issues... Deleteme42 19:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Notable, even in brief form. RJH (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no context and the notability claim seems fairly weak to me. The first four Google hits are for Wikipedia or mirror sites. Kerowyn 22:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and expanded it a bit, though this really isn't my forte. There look to be a lot of good Spanish-language sources on the guy, including some books he published in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, if anybody who knows Spanish feels like having a go. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: I fail to see where this fits in to our article on Monty Python and the Holy Grail, so merged and redirected to Black Beast of Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Alf[edit]

A non notable character who was supposedly cut from the film. I can find no corroboration that any of this is true. IrishGuy 21:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. if proof is found, than it should be at most a small point in the main film article Bwithh 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Verification amply supplied by Googling "Sir Alf"+"Monty Python", but semi-character cannot stand on its own. B.Wind 07:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per B.Wind. Amalas =^_^= 20:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per B.Wind. GentlemanGhost 22:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Deleteme42's offer has been met, and B.Wind's reasoning has likewise become invalid, so consensus is to keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leiner[edit]

notability unclear, not linked by any Wikipedia article Deleteme42 21:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - two sentences do not a Wikipedia article make. Makes no real attempt at notability. B.Wind 07:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Man, did you research these at ALL? According to the Canadian government, they're "the world's largest manufacturer of vitamin, nutritional and herbal supplements".[43]. They have products placed in more than 50,000 US locations, including most WalMarts and CostCos.[44] -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your statement regarding your first link is wrong, All of the information in the database has been provided by the companies themselves and listing here does not constitute an endorsement by the Government of Canada. [45]. Deleteme42 16:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, then, please feel free to not add it to the article, or go find another source. They're still an enormous company, they still meet WP:CORP, and they still belong here. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which part of WP:CORP do they meet? At least none of the links you provided seems to support this claim. Deleteme42 17:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You add one or two sentences regarding the notability to the article and I'll withdraw the AfD. Is this a deal? ;-) Deleteme42 19:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works for me. I probably won't be able to do a good job of it until Saturday, though, so I ask that we not have an early close before then. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many times these AfDs can be taken care of by simply adding details into the articles themselves. My objection was not of WP:CORP, but of whether the so-called stub said anything at all. Many times authors make matters worse by fighting the suggestions of the other editors rather than working with them. I look forward to this "deal" working out. B.Wind 03:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Hit Bull. As rewritten it's a decent article. --Chaser T 13:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Street Downtown[edit]

I forgot to put this on my watchlist after prodding it way back on May 17; the prod was removed, it was replaced a few days later, someone just pointed it out, so AfD it goes. This is crystal ballism at its finest, I'd say. The author hopes this series will be published this year apparently. As I said in the prod: come back when published, we'll talk then. Tony Fox 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. Total crystal-ball about a proposed tetraology, only none of it has been published yet and the projected publication date is the "near future". Come back when the first volume has gone to press and let us know. Rlquall 21:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. CB. Edit history shows the first book as planned for 2008 (changed to "near future" after the Prod). Unsure whether book's author is Francisco Ramirez or Francis Rami. (Looks like the name was changed after article author found first the name linked to a Honduran soccer player.) If this is ever published (unlikely), and people actually buy it (even more so), then recreate the article. Fan1967 22:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP -- 9cds(talk) 05:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manning Island[edit]

importance unclear, not linked by any Wikipedia article Deleteme42 21:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, perfectly valid geo stub. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any geological thingy is automatically notable and important. Aguerriero (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as verifiable geographic location. ScottW 17:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's the sort of thing people would come to an encyclopedia to look up. A map would be nice. Fan1967 03:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Hosty[edit]

Non-notable, vanity, and unencyclopedic. Delete Ardenn 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well I would have to agree to a certain extent. I do not really know why socialites deserve mention in an encyclopedia. But I was looking up someone else, and came across whole categories of socialites (by nationality, etc) whose authors would probably be sad if they were deleted. Honestly, you are not deleting this because you think it is a silly article (otherwise you should delete ALL of them)--you are deleting it because you didn't like what I wrote about the universities/colleges. Let's talk about that please. : ) Veritasophia 22:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's on afd because of what I mentioned above. There's nothing in the article that establishes why it deserves an article. Ardenn 22:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not play games like this. You would not have even thought about looking up random socialites and deleting them if you hadn't seen it on my contibutions list, so it is clear that you did it because you are mad at me or something for reporting some (admittedly negative) information about some schools in BC. We are fixing that, and I will try to be unbiased about universities in the future. So about this, you would have to agree to saying that all or the majority of the articles on socialites should be deleted for the same reasons, which I don't think you are prepared to do because you really don't care about the socialite thing but about the universities. Please try to be reasonable. : ) Veritasophia 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am being reasonable, it's on afd. End of story. I'll remind you about civility on your talk page. Leave this dispute there, and not here. Ardenn 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. And I would vote the same for any article about a non-notable socialite. --Ginkgo100 22:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn debcruft. Scary. Fan1967 22:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also delete the category "Canadian Socialites" which has one member, Lauren Hosty. Fan1967 22:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I made the new category for Canadians because there wasn't one before. I realize it looks a bit silly with only one, but I guess I was sort of hoping others would add more. There are categories for Americans, Australians, French, British, etc. I thought Canada should have a category too. Is that ok?

And about non-notable-ness, most socialites probably *are* non-notable compared to celebrities or less-famous authors or certain types of cheese or a bunch of other wacky stuff that is on wikipedia because some people think it is interesting. There are enough people interesting in recording the goings-on of socialites, so that is why there are articles about them, Hosty included. Make sense? Veritasophia 22:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nobody's interested in this one. Fan1967 22:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just looked it up and I think what is happening is "sockpuppeting". This is really sad and it makes me never want to go on wikipedia if people are just going to gang up on me and delete everything I write just because I wrote it. That is so mean. There is just no other explanation for it, unless Ardenn just called up Fan and Ginkgo and TOLD them to go online and start debating this. Which is also really mean. Just be considerate! : ( Veritasophia 22:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't know that I've ever even encountered Ardenn before. All articles nominated for deletion show up in the daily log (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today) for other people to review and comment on. Ardenn didn't have to call anyone. Fan1967 23:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I am saying is that within 4 minutes of he and I having this little dispute, 4 other people are suddenly interested? I know there is no way to prove you aren't him or don't know him, but it is really quite random that you and the others would be interested in Lauren, espeically if his whole premise is that no one cares about her. You see? Veritasophia 23:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All AFD's are listed on that page, and there are many users who check it regularly. All they need to do is read the article to judge its merit. Ardenn 23:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're greatly underestimating the level of traffic Wikipedia and the afd page receives, Veritasophia.Bwithh 23:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to Today's AfDs or Yesterday's AfDs, you'll see how quickly a lot of people jump into a discussion on a nominated article. You haven't been singled out, and you're not the victim of a bunch of sockpuppets. This is quite normal. Fan1967 02:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as total vanity page. Or Userfy if Veritasophis wants (that means the page contents will be moved to your user page) Bwithh 23:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this is the cutest afd tangle I've ever come across. Bwithh
Ok, don't yell at me or delete things, I'm just asking: to "userfy", does that mean that it is just an article that the user likes or something, but not enough people like it enough to have its own article? Veritasophia 00:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it means that we put it in your user space, in this case, on your user page. Your user page is at User:Veritasophia. Ardenn 01:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep - The article mentions this person might be notable, but it doesn't desribe exactly what productions for. If they are listed in the article, I'm for keeping it. CP/M 02:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ginkgo100; no real notability or merit; userfy if you must. Fluit 02:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I find zero Google hits for the subject (except for one which refers to a different person with a similar name). [49] "There are enough people interesting in recording the goings-on of socialites, so that is why there are articles about them," but there aren't any articles about Lauren Hosty that I can find. The socialites who get listed in Wikipedia are those who come to the attention of newspapers and most of them yield a fair number of Google hits. --Metropolitan90 03:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Both parents also fail google search. If they were actually anybody in SF society they would have appeared in print somewhere. Being rich is one thing. Being somebody in high society is something else. This family's just rich. Fan1967 03:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google search gives thousands on my real name, as well as for anyone who actively participates in Internet under his name, but some notable persons get times less. However, unless specific productions for subject to be acknowledged for are listed, this article is useless. CP/M 04:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. I've lived in San Francisco since 2000 and have never heard or read mention of her or her family. --William Pietri 06:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as 100% NN vanity, what more do you need? I'd also question the sheer factual nature of the article - I'm wondering when, for example, she would have fit in "studying at Oxford" during this "youth" of hers, since she only finished high school in 2003 and has been at college in British Columbia since (and while we're at it, how can one start college in 2003 and now be in their fourth year?). Anyway, the article asserts no notability whatsoever. Seb Patrick 09:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fact: Canadian universities end in April and thus students graduating from high school in 2003 are entering their fourth year, and when you are in the summer between years you wouldn't say you are in the year you just completed. Also, many bright students ie those that would be accepted for a study abroad program at Oxford will have taken AP classes and would be well into the fourth year credit wise. So Seb Patrick's question of the article's "sheer factual natural" is illogical in those areas. In terms of notability there are other articles on Wikipedia regarding socialites are equally not "notable". The main definition for socialites being that they are not primarily something else ie actress, model. For if they were they would be called by that instead. This article sounds like most of the rest of them so I'd say keep because I don't see a problem about this one. Roses85 00:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Roses85 has only made one contribution to Wikipedia, and it's on this afd. Ardenn 00:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rose85 also totally ignores the fact that, even if socialites were notable, we're totally unable to verify that she is one, or exists at all. All that can be verified from google is that a Lauren Hosty finished a half-marathon in Niagara, ON a few years back. Fan1967 01:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Just because Category:American socialites exists doesn't make all socialites notable enough for a Wikipedia article, when even a cursory look at the category would reveal that it contains people like Lee Radziwill, Gloria Vanderbilt, Caroline Kennedy and Patty Hearst, who are notable for other reasons besides simply having been socialites. Veritasophia is hereby invited to stow the attitude. Bearcat 06:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Garth Ennis. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garth Ennis work for 2000 A.D./Judge Dredd[edit]

This information should be part of the main Garth Ennis entry. --Artw 22:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect As I proposed the merge that should be fairly obvious but I think there is plenty of good information on the page but it can easily be wrangled into shape and inserted into the main Garth Ennis entry (I'll happily do that if the decision goes that way) (Emperor 02:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect seems to be unnecessary as nothing else points here. --Artw 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. This doesn't really need to be at AfD - there is information that could be added to the main article, and "Garth Ennis" should obviously be that article. Vizjim 08:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the only worry I have is that putting it into the main Ennis article would make that article a little long and list-orientated. On Ennis' own page, I think the comics bibliography should be selected and concise, rather than comprehensive. On the other hand, there's a lot of good information in this entry, and it can't be argued that it isn't encyclopaedic - and it would therefore be a shame to lose it. I wouldn't strongly oppose the merge, but I think if some actual writing was done to bulk out the entry, describing Ennis' 2000AD work and its significance and context (he is, after all, one of the most important writers ever to have worked on the comic, although it then beggars the question if similar articles should be created for Wagner, Grant et al), then the article can stand on its own. Either way, I've no firm vote - just that comment. Seb Patrick 09:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a good point. I wouldn't be against the idea of having "Selected bibliography" in the entry that would link through to separate "Complete Garth Ennis bibliography" - its a similar concern I have with the Alan Moore entry. My problem with this is that it seems pretty arbitary and if you had a selected bibliography some of his 2000AD material would have to be in it. If there is an agreed upon format for a concise/complete bibliography we can sort that out when/if the merge is made (I'll start a section on it on the Talk page so we can decide what would go in to a concise list). (Emperor 13:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Is an exhaustive list of every 5 page story that Ennis wrote for the weekly 2000AD during his stint on dread really that necessary? Followed by an exhaustive list of reprints? Especialy since the information is easily found in other places. TBH I have the same problem with a lot of the other 2000AD Bios thsat have cropped up lately. --Artw 16:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the people adding those details to those bios I'd say yes. The information is available elsewhere but it is the bringing together of various strands of data in one place that allows us to get a grasp of their overall body of work. Otherwise you'd have to list their major work (which is subjective) and tag on "and some other stuff" leaving people to wander off to try find out what that is. Equally this also relies on the other places staying up as long Wikipedia or you'd end up scrambling to dig out the extra information (Dez Skinn is always predicting 2000 AD's demise - one day he may even be proven right). As I've said I'd be interested in having a "concise bibliography" within someone's entry and separate "comprehensive bibliography" for the details. All their publications are clearly notable and so trying to reach a consensus on what would or wouldn't be included would be a nightmare and almost impossible to police. Alan Moore in particular has a lot of abortive runs of comics and single issues here and there which are notable and worthy of inclusion but possibly not within a more concise bibliography. (Emperor 19:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Although I personally haven't been adding them, I don't understand why they could be a problem with comprehensive bibliographies. All Wikipedia creator biographies - literary or otherwise - follow the same pattern, with biographical details at the top, career details second, other issues third, and finally a list of achievements, accomplishments, and/or published works. Wikipedia is not paper, and these pages so far are not breaking even the recommended page sizes. It's more useful for this information to be gathered in one place than scattered here and there over the interweb. Vizjim 08:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note - merging the two pages together results in a page substantially below the recommended 30kb limit. However, the guidelines on size state that even this limit should not be taken too seriously for lists. Vizjim 13:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All good points. Rather than lead this VfD astray I started a discussion on this over on the Garth Ennis talk page (Emperor 14:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge with main Garth Ennis article. Part of the beauty of Wikipedia is that you can offer complete information. If the bibiliography ever does grow beyond the suggested limit, I suggest making a fork for the whole thing. GentlemanGhost 22:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceballs: Revenge of the Dark Schwartz Lords[edit]

Vanity page about a comic with zero Google hits Ginkgo100 21:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Overstock.com. Mailer Diablo 21:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overstock.com Auctions[edit]

This "article" is a thinly veiled advertisement for the site. Even its creator's username is an overstock.com e-mail address. --Ginkgo100 22:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not quite sure that I agree with the above sentiments. I do think that the copy can be reworked a little bit, specifically some of the comments about fees, but I don't think that this is a "blatant" advertisement that warrants a deletion. The entry doesn't have any external links. Furthermore, I don't think that it should matter who wrote the entry. It is an attempt to add valid copy to Wikipedia and improve the site. This entry should not merged into the Overstock.com entry because Overstock.com Auctions is one of the few online auctions sites that receives any traction (according to Hitwise and ComScore Data) besides eBay. I have been following the company for a long time, specifically its colorful CEO Patrick Byrne and his jihad against [[naked short selling]. I have watched it build out its web property over the past few years. Overstock.com now has a Travel Business, Bulk Supplies Business, and now, an Auctions Business. In a way, it is a smaller version of InterActive Corp, who owns many well known properties such as Ask.com, Match.com, etc. Lastly, if you look and Ebay's page, it seems to promote the site a little bit by advertising the famous items that have sold. I haven't seen any complaints there. Bottom line is that there is some work to be done here, but a deletion would be harsh. --Tallac20 - May 31, 2006
  • Merge what little content is actually useful and redirect to Overstock.com. -- Kicking222 23:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect article does not assert notability, does not appear to meet WP:CORP, and does not cite sources. What information in it is adequately referenced to merge? GRBerry 02:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever's useful to Overstock.com. B.Wind 07:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -- 9cds(talk) 05:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1962 Dutch Grand Prix[edit]

Non-notable race. Raichu 22:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's no less notable than any other Formula One race, especially considering that every Dutch Grand Prix has its own article. -- Kicking222 23:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Kicking222. — GT 06:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only delete this if you're going to delete every single individual Grand Prix article - I don't see why this particular one has been picked out. Keep as per the above, unless someone's willing to merge each individual race article (and that's probably, erm, quite a lot) into a (probably far too long) one for each event as a whole. Seb Patrick 09:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No specific justification given (or possible) for this random nomination. Choalbaton 12:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lars arne dahl[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Had a certain extent of local "fame", sold 500 cds in his hometown. Low Google search count: 22. Punkmorten 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Almost wholly non-notable, and the claims of notability are unsourced (and most certainly untrue- I'm not sure what national radio station picks up a song from an artist that sold 500 copies of an album, unless that nation only has 501 people. -- Kicking222 23:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is true that songs have had a rotation in major Norwegian radiostations - NRK P1(national), NRK Trøndelag(regional) and Radioadressa(regional) plus on local radiostations. However, claims cannot be backed up yet - as neither NRK nor TONO keeps records of songs played on the internet, and I understand why it should be deleted after being made aware of WP:MUSIC. Another tidbit I could not find sources for is the participation of Tor Espen Aspaas on the album - a former "Spellemannspris"-winner (The Norwegian equivalent of the Grammy's). That might warrant a mention, although his page should have been made first, I'm sure. --Roamer82 15:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famine in Northern China[edit]

stub, not wikified, not written in the style of a Wikipedia article, not linked by any normal Wikipedia article, Three Years of Natural Disasters covers this topic better, Famine in Northern China seems to be a too generic name for becoming a redirect to Three Years of Natural Disasters Deleteme42 22:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as dup of proper article. Also agree that redirect won't work. hateless 03:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, Delete. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Given that the date ranges don't overlap, I don't see how these are duplicate articles unless the dates are in error. As the famine supposedly resulted in 20 million deaths it clearly seems notable. Stub/Wikify/Style issues are reason for cleanup and expansion, not deletion. — RJH (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete — The date range seems to be an unsourced error, repeated several times about the net without checking. If there was a famine 1969-1971, it's not well sourced. Maybe in the future there will be open records and the article can be created again. — RJH (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 21:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconstruction[edit]

not wikified, importance unclear, not linked by any normal Wikipedia article Deleteme42 22:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as is simply definition. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 22:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stub. See the French version for possible expansion.Spacepotato 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The French article is simply a portal-like list of various other articles, and doesn't really define anything either. At best this is a dictionary definition, and at worst, it's a made up word, as "autoconstruction" would really be spontaneous construction, not DIY construction, which is really what it apparently means. MSJapan 05:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. -- Heptor talk 14:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -- 9cds(talk) 05:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobo Fijman[edit]

not wikified, not linked by any Wikipedia article, not citing sources, keep and improve votes don't make sense since this article already has a cleanup tag since November 2005 (unless you improve the article yourself) Deleteme42 22:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't judge whether he's notable (I don't speak Spanish and all I can see is that even the Spanish Wikipedia doesn't have an article about him). My point is that the article seems to be too bad for keeping it (and it wouldn't be a big loss since it's not linked by any Wikipedia article). Deleteme42 00:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plainly notable, 9 volumes of his poetry in the Library of Congress, and his stuff's still in print more than 30 years after his death. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, since there doesn't seem any sense in merging this sentence anywhere in the main article. Flowerparty☀ 13:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Insano[edit]

Minor character from The Waterboy, not even mentioned on main page for the film - merge with the page or delete reference altogether. SM247 22:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was dispose of the article. Mailer Diablo 12:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disposable email[edit]

Delete. Blatantly obvious ad. Another user unfortunately removed the prod tag when adding an invalid speedy tag. lowercase 22:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nothing but advertisement. --Ezeu 23:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oy gavault. -- Kicking222 23:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In a case like this, where it was clear the other user wanted the article deleted, I'd have suggest either putting the prod tag back or even reverting. Could have saved us all effort, and because of the clear intent even I'd be comfortable following WP:IAR. Oh yeah - I reviewed this when it was under prod, and chose not to salvage it then, there has been no improvement to the article so I continue to believe in deleting. GRBerry
    • Comment You're right, of course. It's a failing of my personality that I have a rules mentality. Even so, there are times when WP:IAR clearly applies and this should have been one. I'll try to remember this. lowercase 19:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At best a how-to manual, which Wikipedia is not.--Anchoress 19:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an advertising. Perhaps a redirect to something, but the article is non-salvagable--Frenchman113 on wheels! 13:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote delete - its just an advertisment for some company - 2nd june 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.166.146 (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axletree Dynamo[edit]

The article not only gives zero sources, but also doesn't give the slightest hint, what an Axletree Dynamo is. --Pjacobi 22:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. There isn't even enough to keep as a stub. When and if someone with information decides to write about it, they can recreate it. --Christopher Thomas 23:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom William M. Connolley 07:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Sorry, but WP:NOT is on the money. Tom, if you want a copy of this on your userspace, drop me a line via my talk page. Note that recreating this in article space will lead to speedy deletion, however. Proto||type 12:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structures of the Chinese[edit]

Following on the heels of the deletion of one of its sister pages, I recommend this be Deleted on the grounds that wikipedia is not a game guide. --InShaneee 23:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per deletion of related article and its discussion — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge: Alright already, I get the message, enough with the AFD tags. I am working on a merge of all three strucutures pages and if you would give me a little to make some magic here I can in fact retool these pages to be more aproprietly oriented to Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. TomStar81 23:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merging all three of them will only save me time on AfDing pages. The content is innapropriate no matter how it is formatted. --InShaneee 23:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • All I am asking for is a chance to retool the pages in such a way as to allow them to stay here. I am being more than accomodating here in an effort to find a resolution to this problem, and all I seem to be getting in return is cold shoulders. TomStar81 23:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't mean to offend you, I do appreciate your hard work here. It's simply my belief that the content is unsalvagable. --InShaneee 23:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If only you believe like I believe baby in miracles, we could fly... TomStar81 23:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • What I am looking into at the moment is to retool all unit pages and strucuture pages into something similar in most respects to the StarCraft units and structures page. StarCraft features three factions, the same as generals, and I feel that the format present on the StarCraft U&S page, while a step down from the setup I have done here, still presents useful information to those interested in it. The catch is I have to reconcile discrepancies between the two games before I can adopt such a layout. TomStar81 23:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • And for the record, some of the starcraft pags are more fancrufty that this one. TomStar81 00:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Forum[edit]

When I added the PROD tag, to this article, I wrote, "Non-notable forum of some sort. The group it was spun off of doesn't even have an article." I continue to stand by that comment. The article's creator removed the tag, commenting, "Changes made in a paragraph that is opinionated." I do not believe that my concerns have been addressed. Maxamegalon2000 23:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Yanksox 01:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 custodial workers' strike[edit]

Insignificance. College custodians going on strike is not like NYC transit workers going on strike in the dead of winter. This doesn't deserve its own article. DSJ2 23:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Insufficient reason for deletion. --Ezeu 00:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good reason for deletion, in my opinion. I just dont see this as being notable Fledgeling 02:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable real world event. Much more encyclopedic than much of the pop culture trivia that is kept. Choalbaton 12:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons listed above. Lawyer2b 13:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for many reasons. First, this is the first major action of a new union, SEIU, thus noteworthy. Second, original reason suggested has nothing to do (as far as I can tell) with wikipedia's deletion policy. I strongly feel that the suggestion to delete is an NPOV tactic. Third, this particular strike has gotten *national* attention (just read the article) and has become a testing ground for labor issues in the American south. I think there is no reason to discuss this further: the article needs to stay. 129.171.49.201 16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons listed above. This is not about my neighbor's dog, and wikipedia is not made of paper. Also, there is likely to be another editing flurry around 1 August 06 when the ballot counting starts. This issue is not yet history. Universitytruth 16:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mistaken and misleading reason for deletion. John Edwards, among others, was involved in this, and may still be in the coming months. Nice try, DSJ2. 129.171.49.206 16:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The criterion of noteworthiness is not what happens in NYC. The move to delete is frivolous. 129.171.226.193 17:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Touché! :-) Lawyer2b 20:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An important (in many ways) event and a well-done article. MiamiDolphins3 22:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. An article that is NN does not attract editors; this one clearly has, and several of us have all signaled that the article should be kept. This should be a no-brainer. 65.34.154.254 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 65.34.154.254 Trampikey 13:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coast Tire[edit]

NN automotive repair and tyre firm, borders on advert. SM247 23:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep ... but I'm overriding you all (hah!) and redirecting this one paragraph of unformatted text to the main Dexter's Laboratory page, until (and if) it can be decently rewritten. Note that any misplaced vote of 'speedy keep' was deliberately ignored. Proto||type 12:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter (Dexter Laboratory)[edit]

The character is already described in the Dexter's Laboratory article. Previous edits have included redirects to that page, so I see no reason why this should stay (as with the Dee Dee article). - LBM 23:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there's only so much we can say about a cartoon character, what's on that page is already on the show page anyway. -- cds(talk) 00:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major characters from famous television shows. There's certainly some expandibility here by someone who knows the show. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Main character of a long-running and successful animated television series, can probably be substantially expanded. - CNichols 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It ain't Dexter's Laboratory without Dexter. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dexter is a notable fictional character. --Ezeu 23:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, no contest. Silensor 06:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Proto||type 12:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Dee[edit]

The character is already described in the Dexter's Laboratory article. Previous edits have included redirects to that page, so I see no reason why this should stay. - LBM 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. My bad, I thought at first that Ch. 4,682 might be a name of an actual station (why not?) and hadn't quite mentally processed what else was in the articles. I've just speedied the pair as joke articles, making them vandalism. -Splashtalk 23:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 4,682 and Joni and Moonchild[edit]

This pair of articles veer between sounding bearably and sounding ridiculous. They were tagged for speedy, but don't quite make it for me, particularly since they appear to be very possible hoaxes. Some of AfD's loving ministrations would be useful. -Splashtalk 23:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as hoaxes. "Channel 4,682" gets 2 ghits, neither page in English. hateless 23:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete "...appear to be very possible hoaxes"? These are hoaxes. This could not POSSIBLY be any more obvious. Reading the first sentence of either article makes it quite apparent that these pages are nonsense. -- Kicking222 23:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete "Information is being retrieved by higher forces." Enough said. SM247 23:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was transwiki Proto||type 12:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vignanam[edit]

WP:WINAD Thetruthbelow (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki as per my nom. Thetruthbelow (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Ezeu 00:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete — Celestianpower háblame 22:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 7 Chronology[edit]

This is way too much information about a tv show that can be found elsewhere, and repeats a lot of what is already said on wikipedia (such as eviction days). -- cds(talk) 23:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's meant to be detailed!!! we're gonna cut it down - just at the end of the show, that's all!!! then, and only then, can we really decide what's worth keeping!! just leave it for now!! Ellisjm 00:02 UTC 1 June 06
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. It reads like someones blog. "On Day 13 George walked - it is assumed for the reasons he stated the day before." Assumed by whom?--Ezeu 00:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as I learned a lot from reading it (and I'm something of a fanatic!) We must be careful to be completely fair, and - like User:Ezeu says - perhaps in some places it could more easily understood, but major kudos to Ellisjm for putting in the time--luke 02:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. This article has got to go somewhere. It can't go on the main BB page because it would take up to much room etc. This article is a detailed diary of what happened. As for the "On Day 13 George walked.....day before." I am about to change that day completely! I only wrote it quickly cos it was 1am!! Ellisjm 09:47 UTC 1 June 06
  • Keep this is too long to go on the main article. Regardless of detail, even a less extensive chronology would take up too much room on the page.Barbara Osgood 12:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page is necessary to keep the main article small. --JDtalkemail 12:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A notice from User:Ellisjm was found on this user's talk page, an on the article talk page, asking people to vote "keep". -- cds(talk) 12:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And..? I would have voted "keep" even if that "notice" wasn't on my talk page. Why are you working so hard to not have this page stay? --JDtalkemail 12:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'KEEP' The infromation would be lost without it Joss 12:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this could go on for ages. It is getting long already and it is only finishing Week 2. There are 13 weeks in total and anything could still happen. This article could go on for ages. However, I think it is a good idea but I am against how long it could get. I have no other idea to how to shorten it... - Erebus555 16:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. Agree with Ezeu. There needs to be restraint when contributing to the main article's page. Far too much fancruft. Only absolutely essential info, like evictions/walk outs/entrances/major arguments (such as Fight Night in BB5), should be included. Hit this on the head now. It belongs on fan sites, not on Wikipedia. The JPStalk to me 16:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd just like to point out that I have every intention of shortening the article at the end of the show. At this present moment, it's difficult to think about which items are really needed. It will be easier to chop when the show has finished. Ellisjm 17:07 UTC 1 June 06
Then if it's shortened, why split it? -- cds(talk) 17:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even shortened, it's probably too burdensome on the main article (though it strikes me now that it should be borne in mind that these initial two weeks have been more...eventful, than average). And as Ellisjm says, it's not possible to determine "essential" events until after the thing is over. It's a necessary part of the evolution of the main article. Barbara Osgood 18:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The vast majority of the keep votes so far are from users who have created the article. It's not for an encyclopedia, it's not for Wikipedia, so let's just keep the chronology short(ish) and sweet in the main article. — FireFox usertalk 17:07, 01 June '06
Only two people that have posted here have made any revisions to either of the chronology pages, one is Ellisjm and the other is 9cds. Nobody else has made an edit to any of them. --JDtalkemail 17:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase. The vast majority of the keep votes so far are from users who originally supported splitting the chronology into a separate article. — FireFox usertalk 17:13, 01 June '06
Is that so bad? --JDtalkemail 17:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying (specifically to the closing administrator), that we definitely need to get some votes from "outsiders" to gain a clear consensus here. — FireFox usertalk 17:19, 01 June '06
If the same people that want this article to stay are the same people that wanted to originally split the article, then they are standing up for what they want, no? And if they are the only people that are bothering to vote, at least they voted. They should be counted like any other person's. --JDtalkemail 17:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a vote - see Wikipedia:Deletion_policy for more details. -- cds(talk) 17:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, unfortunate choice of words, that's all. — FireFox usertalk 17:36, 01 June '06
Of course your opinions are going to be counted. I'm not saying they're not going to be. — FireFox usertalk 17:31, 01 June '06
  • Delete - I thought the whole point of Reality TV was that the people and events were not notable, "regular folks"... — AKADriver ☎ 18:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --JoanneB 18:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this page going to be used to document everything that happens in the house, or a place to have the weekly summaries? --JDtalkemail 18:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JoanneB and FireFox --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whilst reality TV is non notable people the fact that they appear on Reality TV in effect surely makes them notable. -- JAB[T][C] 20:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - May be worth looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television#Plot -- cds(talk) 09:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a complete stranger to this debate, and as somebody who hates 'reality TV' and personally considers it intrinsically unencyclopedic, the chronology of something ongoing like this is nonetheless highly significant to many people which makes it notable. Once the series is over it can be condensed. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and can afford the tiny bit of space this article uses on the servers. Having said all that, the article as it stands is pretty poor and could do with some major work which I am personally not offering to do! Still, as I understand it, that is grounds for adding a tag or two, not for deletion. --Guinnog 15:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, certainly needs to be condensed in the future. Essexmutant 18:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep should be used for daily summaries so as to keep the main page small. The important details should go on the main page. Michaelritchie200 21:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the title is epic, but the contents are crap.  Grue  10:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's better to keep all the trivial details off the main BB7 page. At the end of the series, this article should be heavily condensed. Keep at least while the series is running - after that important information could be moved from this page to the main article. Celardore 14:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'KEEP'KEEP'KEEP - AtLEAST until it's over!


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2Clix[edit]

Can someone tell me what id need to do in regards to tidying up this page and making it less of an advertisment?? I just wanted to put up a bit about 2clix as a company? If i remove the contact details and backlinks will it then be allowd???

Clear case of advertising SM247 00:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I would just vote for clean-up of this (incredibly blatant) advertising if the company was notable, but considering 2clix.com.au has an Alexa rank of 1.25 million, I'm going to assume that it's not. -- Kicking222 01:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fagstein 03:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this violates WP:CORP - your company is not notable enough and as such the page's only function is to advertise. Think Microsoft, Sun, Apple etc.SM247 21:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean A. Twist[edit]

Possible hoax, article lists subject as Victoria cross winner, however the name doesn't pop up[50], delete Yanksox 00:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - only Sean Twist I can find is a Canadian columnist, but no mention of a VC--Nobunaga24 00:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only one person who got the VC on d-day and its not Twist. Also, Twist is in not listed in the official VC website. --MarsRover 03:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 14:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as hoax. SushiGeek 06:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, A7. Jude (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Upson[edit]

This looks suspiciously like vanity. It was speedied, but that was contested, so I'm bringing it here. Chaser (T) 00:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete non-notable bio accompanied by extremly large picture, definite a speedy. Yanksox 00:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Db-bio. DVD+ R/W 00:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. No assertion of notability in this article that I can see. Capitalistroadster 01:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete pure vanity. SM247 01:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete All self-vanity. Kevin Breitenstein 01:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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