Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 16

< April 15	April 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

April 16

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (keep). While sympathetic to the OR concerns, it does not invalidate the entire article. The external links seem valid, so the topic is at least discussed at some level outside of Wikipedia. Since the votes are about 70% delete, but no argument other than OR was put forth for deletion, I'm calling this a no-consensus keep. Voters on both sides are encouraged to remove OR from the article, tag it as needing such, or to start a dialog on the article's talk page. Turnstep 01:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queer people of color

This is original research and reads more like the outline of a paper than an encyclopedia article; even as a list, this would probably end up being largely conjectural and would probably still qualify as original research. Delete. JDoorj a m Talk 00:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gay Nigger Association of America and delete. Erik the Rude 00:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. dbtfz ^talk 01:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Cleanup My first guess was ixnay as well, but Who'd have thunk - 17K ghits, a lot of them on serious edu websites. We have much less notable orgs on WP.Bridesmill 01:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Per Deizio, below, there are actually only 605 unique hits. JDoorj a m Talk 13:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand the objections. Like everything else, the article should be confined to verifiable information; why would it "probably" end up as original research? In no case redirect to the GNAA troll farm; that is a terrible suggestion. Lambiam ^Talk 01:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as
WP:OR. I also think that the suggestion to "merge" to GNAA is incorrect and most likely a bad joke.--Jersey Devil 03:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete,
e Ong 03:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, no redirect. This is unrelated to the trolling group. TeKE 03:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought User:Erik the Rude's vote was a joke, but for the record, do not redirect. -- unsigned comment by JDoorjam - DarthVader 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nortelrye 05:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Hetar 06:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 12:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but don't redirect, it has no connection to a trolling group. -- Mithent 12:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is clear evidence that this has no relation to Gay Nigger Association of America and can be expanded on to be more of an "article" if many agree that it resembles an outline.Anarkafrica 15:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC) (17 edits, 8 of which were to this AfD) JDoorj a m Talk 13:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete, ~~no assertion that this is an "organisation" (as others seem to be suggesting), just a term and some OR.~~ per nom, 612 unique g-hits. [1] Deizio 15:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article itself in no way suggests that its topic is an organisation, anymore than, for example,
  Christians in the Persian Gulf does. You can't vote delete just because an article does not decribe an organisation. "Christians in the Persian Gulf" gets 13 unique Google hits[2], some of which are Wikipedia or Wikiclone entries. So should it be deleted? Come on people, can't we stick to serious arguments? Lambiam ^Talk 20:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - That's not this article. This is this article. If you feel the "Christians in the Persian Gulf" article is not notable or falls under some other criteria for deletion, nominate it for deletion. As it stands, this article — an article that, uncited, states that being a "QPOC... intensifies the complications of existing in an oppressed community within an already marginalized community" and that "queer life has become a catalyst for religious and political crossfire worldwide and prohibited as taboo and perverse in social laws in most non Western countries" — sets off my
    WP:NOR-dar. JDoorj a m Talk 20:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I didn't mean to suggest it should be deleted because it's not about an organisation, I was pointing out that some voters seem to think it is an organisation and might not have considered the matter as fully as possible. However, on reflection this is not as big a problem as I thought and I've struck the ambiguity. Btw, threatening to or encouraging others to nominate articles for deletion for no good reason other than "If A is OK, why not B?" tends to rub
    WP:POINT up the wrong way. Deizio 01:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    My apologies if I misunderstood you, but why did you count the Google hits then? I was not trying to suggest that the
    Gedankenexperiment. Lambiam ^Talk 03:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Delete, looks very much like original research. But, do not redirect to the
(talk) 15:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, but greatly expand and beef up the citations. This is a noteworthy topic. As for OR, there's enough in the article that is not OR that the article should not be deleted on that ground. Doctor Whom 16:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was joking, by the way. I thought it was such a spectacularly bad joke that no one would take it seriously. This article should be deleted because it may not be entirely obvious who is "queer" and who is a "person of color," and therefore some interpretation (i.e., original research) may come into play. Erik the Rude 16:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By that token you presumably are of the opinion that
  List of Black Jews should all be deleted. Lambiam ^Talk 18:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - I've got no problem with deleting those entries. Bring them up for a vote, and I'll vote to delete. Erik the Rude 18:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think they should be kept, so for me nominating them for deletion would violate
      WP:POINT. If you think they should be deleted, why don't you "bring them up" and see what happens? Lambiam ^Talk 20:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]

" This article should be deleted because it may not be entirely obvious who is "queer" and who is a "person of color," and therefore some interpretation (i.e., original research) may come into play." - Well then the notables section should be stricken, but you have yet to provide a valid reason as to why the article cannot remain where it is. Anarkafrica 19:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See Lambiam's objection. --YesIAmAnIdiot 19:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete who the hell cares if Denzil Washington (arbitrary example!) is queer or not!? Jcuk 23:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's a very poor example. Think of Bayard Rustin (seasoned activist, advisor and co-organizer to Martin Luther King) and James Baldwin- at a time when the basis for attaining equal rights and justice was not and still isnt so discernable to non whites unlawfulness disfavored and homosexuality a retardation and infiltration to affirming racial identity and manhood to effective warring against the power structure in place.Anarkafrica 17:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete eh? no. -
^ask? 23:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, revise and expand. QPOC exists and to
bigotry. Morganfitzp 05:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, revise and expand. Obviously there is much more to be said about this, but it's a good start towards describing the experience of a group of people who both experience racism and homophobia/heterosexism. I don't really understand the objection that this is not an objective article, since this is obviously a topic with many viewpoints and isn't likely to be objective no matter who writes it. Jamespkennedy 21:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC) (Two edits, both to this AfD.) JDoorj a m Talk 13:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
I think it should be kept. It is important to be educated about the gay rights of coloured people. It should be revised and updated. Santos Martinez 03:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC) (17 edits, to two articles, his own user page, and this AfD.) JDoorj a m Talk 17:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has at least six other edits, made while – apparently accidentally – not logged in, namely as 64.229.197.163 and as 64.229.198.252, also involving fixing vandalism to a third article. Lambiam ^Talk 18:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.

Mailer Diablo 15:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Office of International Treasury Control

Keep it, please - I am surprised that someone would like to delete the article. I posted it precisely because there is no much information going around about the OITC and the little there is seem to indicate it is a scam of which people should be warned. It seemed to me that Wikipedia could be a good place for people to pool data about it so that a more clear picture appears. I have conducted research and have included all information available, with links to newspapers that anyone can check. Please, don't ask to delete it before checking the links and considering the importance of people being able to access some information about this matter. Brintolin (Talk)

nn fake UN division, only 125 Ghits, admits it isn't verifiable. Rory0 96_(block) 00:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - potentially a wikinews, needs much more research to make it an article - if the 'is' for real & breakking news, the location prob explains the low ghits for now.Bridesmill 01:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:V. Unverifiable, for all we know this could all be a hoax.--Jersey Devil 01:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete,
e Ong 03:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, unverifiable Nortelrye 05:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sheehan (Talk) 12:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see what the problem is. Obviously the OITC is a scam, but it is verified that it is a scam with organisations like the UN having to make serious denials and references like Fiji govt.Tyrenius 13:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, rename, redirect, there is an article here about an international scam which probably gets past
Advance fee fraud aka 419 fraud). Deizio 15:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep It appears to be a viable stub, yet has some questionable notability. Kukini 18:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sheesh, no kidding this organization is a hoax. This is an article about a notable hoax.
RGTraynor 18:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
- Comment. It shouldn't be deleted because it's a hoax; it should be deleted because it's a non notable hoax. Why would a notable hoax get only 125 Google hits? --Rory0 96_(block) 20:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful info Jordanmills 22:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename This is notable hoax if the UN has commented about it. Low Google hits may be because it is in Fiji. But, it needs to be renamed as per Deizio banta 01:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Unmature

This webcomic, seen here can be found on the small free webcomics host

n 00:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

This has been listed on
Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC) [reply
]

Delete per nn, alexa rank of just under 90K. [3]--Jersey Devil 01:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete as non-notable, and watch out for the sockpuppets; they were out in full-force for the last DrunkDuck webcomic afd. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 01:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the Webcomic Cleanup Drive. T e K E 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn webcomic. --
e Ong 03:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete nn... Sheehan (Talk) 12:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- Mithent 12:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn webstuff Deizio 15:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TKE --(talk) 16:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, as per Alexa rank and non-notable.--Doug (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 01:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

High School Musical 3

Speculation and rumor. See google results.[4] -- Nominator is Mad Jack O'Lantern - DarthVader 04:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nod Mad Jack O'Lantern 00:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although it has been verified that the movie will be made, there is no verifiable information beyond that. Delete as crystallball. --light darkness^(talk) 00:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where has it been verified? Mad Jack O'Lantern 00:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Various interviews done right after the success of High School Musical, several higher-ups' (Such as the VP of Disney Channel Worldwide) have stated that High School Musical is a 3 part film, and all three have been greenlit. --light darkness^(talk) 00:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crystalballs.Bridesmill 01:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Jersey Devil 01:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would weak keep High School Musical 2, but this has a couple years before consideration. T e K E 02:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,
e Ong 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nortelrye 05:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 07:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 12:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete flimsy speculation Tyrenius 13:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nope Deizio 15:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
(talk) 16:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

NOTE - High School Musical 4 has been nominated for deletion aswell, for the same reasons. --light darkness^(talk) 19:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Borden, producer of
telefilm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.40.20 (talk • contribs
) 02:31, 18 April 2006

Delete, per nominator, shiny crystal balls. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Pebble Version

ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.
The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.
You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our
policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy
for more information.

This Pokemon fan fiction webcomic can be seen here and you can see their user forums here. It achieves an Alexa rank of over 5 million. A Google search for "Pebble Version" brings up 125 hits, many of which don't refer to the comic at all. (It also seems to be some sort of Java blogging tool amongst other things) -
n 00:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

This has been listed on
Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC) [reply
]

Delete nn webcomic, over 5 million alexa ranking.--Jersey Devil 02:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alexa rankings can be iffy, but for a site that's been online for two and a half years, that's clearly nn. T e K E 04:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nortelrye 05:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
Danny Lilithborne 06:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - as per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 07:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn webcomic. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn webstuff Deizio 16:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --(talk) 16:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom --Doug (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alexia rankings have proved to be highly unreliable and my attempts at the aforementioned google search have turned up more hits than previously reported. In addition, being a fan of Pebble Version, I know of many sites that mention it which do not show up in the google search. Finally, it tends to rank in the top 30-40 on Top Web Comics, so it clearly has a decent following. --NBolt (talk) 22:120, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete The
Torchic article has a paragraph on it since Torchic is the main character. Pebble Version doesn't need one. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 10:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The author is actually asking users to keep it. Which explains all the IPs... H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Actually, he's merely pointing out that the article is up for delation and mentioning that people can comment if they would like. If he was really asking people to do it there'd probably be a lot more respones. Also, he does make of point of telling people to make intelligent comments and not spam if they do come here. --NBolt (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep firstly torchic is not the main charicter, it is brenden secondly if what TKET is true then we can delete some younger stuff —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 84.64.23.74 (talk • contribs
) .

Poké-centric wise (le sigh) H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - His comment is actually, in spite of its 2 year run, it still hasn't managed to generate big numbers. We do delete a lot of younger stuff, but webcomics pop up on Wikipedia all the time, it's hard to keep track. -
n 13:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep You guys are picky... can we just let ONE entry stay on Wikipedia for once?!? Pebble Version is a poplular, and good comic. It is linked to on Bob and George. I would hate to see it's entry deleted. Please, have mercy. --
unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.204 (talk • contribs
) .

Keep: It rocks. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 68.98.138.235 (talk • contribs
) .

Keep: It is a very good comic and deserves a page if it has been running for two years.--Linkmasta 22:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What does this even mean? I have a very good friend, he's been alive for 20 years? Keep? This really isn't about how good something is. -
n 02:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, article does not assert notability of topic, does not meet
WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 17:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Turnstep 01:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macc lads (muttleys) bass cabinet

An unencyclopedic and borderline nonsense tale about a speaker cabinet that once belonged to the Macc Lads. Bige1977 00:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Macc_Lads & delete.Bridesmill 01:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bridesmill. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 01:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Doing sessions from Live tours and studio dates!" Okay, unimportant. T e K E 04:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mostly nonsense, not vaguely notable or encyclopedic. If it's important it will / would be in the parent article without direction from us. Deizio 16:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly nonsense, is non-notable, the source links are to blogs. --(talk) 16:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus/keep. While the people voting for delete had a 68% simple majority, I fail to see how this page could be considered so unsalveagable as to warrant deletion. The page has valid references, and appears to be attempting to summarize that research, rather than just being plain original research. Deserves a cleanup and/or an expert tag, and a possible rename, but not a delete. Turnstep 01:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attractiveness, Self-Image and Body-Type Preferences among Whites and African Americans

Non-notable and usesessly specific article subject. This article is non-encyclopedic content Berger 00:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencycopedic. dbtfz ^talk 01:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the "good" version and I stand by my opinion. This might make a good essay, but it's just not encyclopedic. dbtfz ^talk 02:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after Merge to Physical_attractiveness.Bridesmill 01:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ~~per nom. Don't merge or redirect, nothing is salvagable from the page as is (the resources used could be from anywhere).~~ Per
WP:OR--Jersey Devil 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Look at the history. The version that has been tagged for deletion is the result of massive vandalism. I suggest that the nominator withdraw the nomination and revert to the last good version [5] of 22:11, April 12, 2006, and then reconsiders the AfD issue. Lambiam ^Talk 02:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, thank you for bringing that up. But I still think is should be deleted per
WP:OR.--Jersey Devil 02:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Good call Lambian, decent article with references. Not my cup of tea, but it's academic research. T e K E 02:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not original research; the article summarizes academic studies performed by others in a neutral way. I don't understand what makes it "just not encyclopedic". I hear what you say and I think it is "just not an argument". Lambiam ^Talk 02:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, yes it lists "resources" which can be from anywhere. Simply putting down a name and a title of an article without where the article was published does not make a resource verifiable and thus this is OR. See I can do it as well Jersey Devil PhD. "Wikipolitics: Islam, POV forks, and Systematic Keep Votes"--Jersey Devil 03:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, and I agree this this is probably a paper someone wrote. I think with cleanup by people who know psychology, it can be turned from a paper into an article. I'd like to see it around for sixty days to give a chance for cleanup, because the subject has merit per Not a paper encyclopedia and the other psychological relation articles. I'm not a fan of the article as is, but I see no reason to delete. T e K E 03:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some content in this article may be suitable for merging into other existing articles, but unless it is truly encyclopedic to have an article devoted solely to attractiveness, self-image and body-type preferences among JUST whites AND African Americans, this article should be deleted I believe. I mean, should we also have an article called "Attractiveness, Self-Image and Body-Type Preferences among Asians and Pacific Islanders"? I know, a little exagerated, but I think you get my point. I just don't think its encyclopedic to have an article for a non-notable study done on a non-notable subject. --Berger 03:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the good explaination. I personally disagree because of the disparity of interracial relations due to this preference. I'm still staying by keep, but you response is convincing and I have no problem with consensus here. T e K E 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point as well TeKE. However, when an article is questionable, I usually like to air on the side of keeping Wikipedia clean and thus deletion. --Jake11 21:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's my philosophy too, most of my voting history shows. As I said, I'm not a fan of the article but I do think this is rather quick for deletion, because it could be cleaned up. I'm not the person to do it, I'm no expert. This RfD is a bit hasty to me is all. T e K E 03:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Jersey Devil's unverifiability complaint: It is not hard to find verifiable versions of most references – it took me only seconds. I added the completions. Lambiam ^Talk 10:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What is this, Wikipolitan Magazine? Far from encyclopedic. --Craw Returns 02:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-encylopedic. DarthVader 04:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic. --
e Ong 04:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom & unencyclopedic Nortelrye 05:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
OR, unencyclopedic, and absolutely too subjective to be useful. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with physical attractiveness. --Knucmo2 10:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,
WP:OR, non-encyclopedic essay. -- RexNL 14:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, barely referenced, subjective, ne essay Deizio 16:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not OR, as explained above. Also, if it's so NN, why have several academic studies been done on the subject? Still, it could use a cleanup and possibly a new title that doesn't limit it to "Whites and African Americans." Doctor Whom 16:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Eusebeus 16:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. I've seen the "good" version myself, and this is plainly original research. Spice it up and it might make a good Cosmo article, keep the tone and it'll do for any number of academic journals, but.
RGTraynor 18:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. An article on this subject is encyclopaedic. Needs cleanup and moving to a more succinct title. David | Talk 18:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think I saw something like this in one of the magazines on the checkout line at Wal-Mart. It may be suitable for an episode of Oprah, but not an encyclopedia. Erik the Rude 21:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Better than I thought it would be.--God Ω War 06:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & revert to a good version. JeffBurdges 20:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD G1.
t||c|m 03:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Phantasy_tour

ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.
The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.
You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our
policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy
for more information.

Page originated as a joke starting on said message board and is comprised of highly opinionated comments. Spellcheck10 01:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highly opinionated comments? Oh noes!! —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 68.19.137.247 (talk • contribs
) .

get loser, let it be who are u the internet police —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Andrew kachur (talk • contribs
) .

THis is as close to the truth as it gets! PT is the real deal —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 68.7.153.41 (talk • contribs
) .

Delete if not speedy; it's already been speedied twice with pretty much the same content (and tripped my watchlist as such). Andy Saund e rs 02:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsense
t||c|m 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete and protect from recreation T e K E 02:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete pure nonsense. Montco 02:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as hoax. —
T
[12:40, 16 April 2006]

Jake Utah

Appears to be a hoax. Can't verify anything about a "Jake Utah" via Google except that he is a 22-year-old with a MySpace page. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity, bollocks, nn bio, etc. dbtfz ^talk 01:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:V. The claims made by the article need to be verifiable.--Jersey Devil 01:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unless verified. "Jake Utah" and "Best Week Ever" returns 1 Google hit....to a myspace page that Jake Utah has left a comment on. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 02:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity, perhaps hoax. DarthVader 04:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. If he was a co-host of "Best Week Ever" I think VH1 would know about it. Fan1967 04:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanity, hoax, nn. --
e Ong 04:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per nom Nortelrye 05:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 12:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 08:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Waldo's wallpaper

Non-notable, vanity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trebor Rowntree (talk • contribs)

Keep - No advertising and not for profit site - if you like we can delete it and I will add it back so we can strike the silly "vanity" fru-fru. Also, his site is notable having been written up in Computer Graphics World Magazine and it's been in yahoo for over nine years.
Jmunchovie, you have to sign your posts with four tildes (like this ~~~~ in order for your votes to count.) --Saforrest 04:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn -
WP:BAI for several reasons.Bridesmill 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No Alexa ranking, fails
WP:WEB. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 02:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 04:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. That it has no advertising and is nonprofit makes no difference; there is no evidence of notability currently present. As well, we have seen lots of vanity articles for noncommercial sites. --Saforrest 04:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while jmunchovie's defense is admirable, it doesn't change the fact that the subject of the article is non-notable Nortelrye 05:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge site doesn't rise to real notability, but the pictures on it are nice. Its url could be listed in a list of external links in an article about artwork of this type. Phr 05:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. RexNL 14:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:WEB noncompliant, agree with Phr under right conditions. Deizio 16:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was moved to Categories for deletion. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ambidextrous people

This page isn't relevant for any of the people listed, except for footballer Donovan McNabb. This irrelevancy is reinforced by the fact that there's no mention of ambidexterity on the articles for John Roberts or Kurt Cobain. Chaser 01:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object.
James Garfield is listed and he was indeed ambidextrous. He could write Greek in one hand and Latin in the other, simultaneously. Эйрон Кинни (t) 03:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to CfD. This is a category, not an article. -- Mithent 12:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have now moved to CfD. -- Mithent 12:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 04:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Middleton

Vanity, can't really be made into a userpage —User:ACupOfCoffee @ 02:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Tony Bruguier 02:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnotable minor radio personality. Green Giant 02:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - would being a presenter for a BBC station make him sort of notable? The page just needs to be made into less of a shrine than it currently is.Montco 02:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Considering he's a freelance presenter on an early graveyard shift at three regional stations and only a stand-in for two other regional stations, I'd say he's not very notable. Admittedly BBC WM (West Midlands) has a large potential audience, but this guy is hardly a Tony Blackburn or a John Peel. :) Green Giant 03:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Notable enough in my opinion, being a presenter for a BBC station. Needs to be cleaned up if it stays. Is the article just randomly copied from some other source? DarthVader 04:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability. --
e Ong 04:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. --Saforrest 04:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 12:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable person. RexNL 14:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or keep the subject if anyone wants to prune it to a tenth of the length (max). Tyrenius 15:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 100% non notable. Anyone who thinks a freelance BBC local radio presenter is automatically notable doesn't know much about
WP:BIO or BBC local radio. Deizio 16:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep per DarthVader Jcuk 23:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom SYSS Mouse 03:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 08:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Christian Joy

Article about someone who designed some shirts for the singer of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. Doesn't seem notable enough. Recury 02:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Tony Bruguier 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 04:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability. --
e Ong 04:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per nom Nortelrye 05:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete" Article is accurate and contains a viable, current link. Christian Joy's been in Nylon magazine and on my blog, and I'm betting none of you Deleters have. Oh, and Christian Joy does great stuff.

Delete per nom, no assertion of notability. --Lockley 22:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 08:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Stripcreator

Delete this was actually deleted before (See Here) but it was so long ago (October 2005) that I wasn't sure if I should just put up a speedy deletion tag. The article as is, is just an advertisement for a site with over 250K alexa ranking. [6] If this article is deleted (which it likely will) there should also be a {{deletedpage}} tag added to stop the members from that place from recreating it. Jersey Devil 02:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete and put tag, per nom Tony Bruguier 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed on
Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 03:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC) [reply
]

Delete, non-notable, and protect it from recreation. --
e Ong 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per nom, and protect from re-creation Nortelrye 05:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 21:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merged back to
Mailer Diablo 08:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Malaysia-Indonesia Confrontation Victoria Cross recipients

listcruft, unedited for more than 1 year Tony Bruguier 02:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even today's edit didn't improve it much Nortelrye 05:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign, this article will only ever have 1 entry, no matter how badly we try to expand it. As a result, it's unnecessary listcruft. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. Kukini 18:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see above. --Doug (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, degenerate list. Quatloo 05:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Part of a series which should be complete. CalJW 10:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 16:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Forshaw

Delete, Smacks of pure vanity. claim about nobel prize nomination is unverifiable as nominations are secret for 50 years. other than that, nothing else can make this fellow more than an ordinary physicist. Montco 02:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity page - Green Giant 02:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tony Bruguier 02:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
t||c|m 02:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Sounds like a cool guy, but this is vanity. DarthVader 04:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was speedied under another name [7], IIRC, I was the one who tagged it, and I believe it was complete bullocks. --light darkness^(talk) 04:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --
e Ong 04:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per nom Nortelrye 05:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As an alumnus of that university department, I can confirm that this guy is non-notable. Oldelpaso 11:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe this is vanity. It reads like a send-up of the guy. It's material taken from his university website page, apart from the Nobel Prize bit, and this:

"The following is taken from Jeff's website in his own words, listen to the genius."

That doesn't sound like the subject of the article talking. It sounds like a disaffected student. Tyrenius 14:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 08:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Josh MacKenzie

nn, vanity Tony Bruguier 02:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete personal CV - Green Giant 02:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Resume made into two pargraphs. --Fuhghettaboutit 02:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
t||c|m 02:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as non notable, vanity. Montco 02:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nn, vanity. DarthVader 04:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn, vanity. --
e Ong 04:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per nom Nortelrye 05:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Green Giant, Fuhghettaboutit. Samaritan 08:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 08:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Rebecca Parsons

nn, vanity Tony Bruguier 02:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more vanity or possibly even advertisement - Green Giant 02:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Montco 02:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. --Calton | Talk 05:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Nortelrye 05:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 08:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Agile Alliance

nn [8] Tony Bruguier 02:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nn-advertisement.
AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as an advertisement Nortelrye 05:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep (aeropagitica)  (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plain Old Java Object

Unsure about this one, but it looks to me like a jargon entry that is not that notable. I'd say it's a weak delete Tony Bruguier 02:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well known term in the Java circles. There are books about this [9] [10] Weregerbil 10:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well known term. --
MaNeMeBasat 07:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep useful info Jordanmills 22:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep useful info ArgusCavalcante 12:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep good definition of POJO 19:12, 20 April 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 no consensus.
Mailer Diablo 15:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Walker Middle School

nn Tony Bruguier 03:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Not notable enough. DarthVader 04:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It takes a very strong case to keep a middle school for an encyclopedia. T e K E 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most schools are notable. bbx 04:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I believe the school debate only really concluded that high schools were borderline notable. I might vote to keep if it was a decent article. —UTC
)

Delete - I can't believe that all high schools are notable. Elementary schools certainly aren't. Montco 06:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per well established precedent. --Rob 10:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I ask that you please, please don't consider precedent a reason for an AfD. With a thousand articles deleted every day through speedy, prod and here, context for the current situation is applicable. Sure, there are other middle school articles that may exsist because they escaped notice of the process, or notability exist (which isn't an official guideline either). Seriously, do you think paraphrase "Walker Elementary School in Oregon has a 1,000 students. They have education and sports" is the foundation for anything? T e K E 00:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly will consider precedent. I don't beleive in acting randomly. Over the last year there have been a huge number of school AFDs. The overwhelming bulk of schools (including ones like this) are kept. It's not "happen stance" that elem+middle schools are kept. It's the norm. Deletion is the exception, and almost always involves non-verifiability.
Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive/2005 shows the standard is it to keep all verifiable real K-12 schools (including elems and middle schools). Schools are in Wikipedia, because they are wanted, not because they "escaped notice". It is very intentional that school articles are created, and kept. Incidently, I don't vote to keep preschools normally, because I feel there is a clear precedent to delete them. I think we need to follow precedent, in order to provide reasonable and predictable results. --Rob 01:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for your rational response. I was looking for evidence on votes to provide concensus, and I respect your POV. T e K E 02:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, real middle school.
Kappa 10:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep if it's a real school. Tyrenius 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Montco. RexNL 14:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or Merge w/district unless article expanded and referenced. Currently fails
WP:SCH. Gateman1997 18:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Nothing can fail
WP:SCH. It's a Wikiproject. The old Wikipedia:Schools page is a rejected guideline, since nobody could agree on anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Wrong, WP:SCH did have a proposal out... and this fails it. Gateman1997 06:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a proposal that isn't supported by consensus (or pretty much anyone, any more) doesn't carry a lot of weight. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I still support it as it was the only good faith compromise brought to date. Gateman1997 17:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or, failing that, merge to district or high school articles). "There's a school named X" isn't an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rob. Jcuk 23:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject. Hawkestone 00:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's see an end to these tiresome nominations. Many school articles are created every day. The odd one is nominated and usually it doesn't get deleted (never if it is a high school). What is the point of going on with these nominations. There are many classes of article on the margins of notability, but only this one gets picked on regardless of how many nominations fail. CalJW 10:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep useful info Jordanmills 22:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're citing a subpage for a rejected policy proposal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, schools are more notable than train stations, and train stations are by policy notable per se. Monicasdude 22:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy is that? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there were an article on the school district so that we could merge this two-liner article there, but we don't. Well, it is an article at least, and precedent on schools is clear, so keep and hope for a merge or expansion later. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not really meet even the minimal suggested standard for a school. This could probably be speedied as an empty article. Vegaswikian 21:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with district article. I'm from Oregon and can verify this is a real school. --Liface 22:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Isn't it about time to rethink this "all schools are notable" nonsense? Hirudo 06:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and allow for organic growth. Schools are notable and without question worthy of an encyclopedia which aims to be the sum of all human knowledge. Bahn Mi 17:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 08:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Dave O'Loughlin

Non-notable vanity. AlistairMcMillan 03:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, vanity Tony Bruguier 03:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this and related photographs per
Danny Lilithborne 20:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 08:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Cafe nine

non-notable club, advertising tone Tfine80 03:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, advertisement Tony Bruguier 03:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this isn't a business directory --Berger 04:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jordanmills 22:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep.
Mailer Diablo 08:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Rendcomb College

nn Tony Bruguier 03:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete. Not notable. DarthVader 04:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Changing to keep as per Rob. DarthVader 13:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete - sounds like an ad. Montco 06:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per well established precedent for schools. --Rob 10:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~.
Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Weak Keep. Weak assertion of notability provided through alumni, but I'll bite. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Rob Jcuk 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As with any senior school. Hawkestone 00:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per school precedent. The article is also well-sourced. Carioca 03:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep High school CalJW 10:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete.--Adam ^(talk) 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avila (journalist)

Possible vanity page SDC 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to determine if she is notable or not. Google gives so many results for the Spanish city or St. Teresa of Ávila (or things named after them) that I can't find her among them. However, this is so POV and full of hero-worship that I doubt there's a salvageable article in there. Fan1967 05:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - this is clearly nonsense. Look at the history for even worse examples. Nuke article from orbit. Georgewilliamherbert 06:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The person is an obvious troll. Posting his IP would help others to detect similar annoying stunts.

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

The result of the debate wasspeedy delete as nonsense. JDoorj a m Talk 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grape quarter water

This article is better suited for a
MySpace post or an Urban Dictionary entry, but that would mean it would have to exist. No pages come up when searching for "grape quarter water" on Google or Yahoo!. Tokachu 04:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per nom. --so U m y a S ch 04:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. --
Elkman - ^(talk) 04:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I threw a {{db-nonsense}} tag on there. -zappa 04:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I deleted it. JDoorj a m Talk 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep for now, with the proviso that evidence of notability is sorely needed and another AFD would be entirely appropriate in the near future if none is found. Turnstep 02:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie (program)

Appears to be nothing more than an obscure, single-author piece of
list of BeOS programs. If evidence of notability comes to light, then I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination, but until then I suggest that we should delete it. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 05:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This article could be expanded, (which I'll do), and I might be able to get sme notability. All software articles should be kept in my opinion. Linuxerist
L/T 17:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - the (unmentioned) author is
Tracker, the desktop/file manager that everyone uses, was mostly his work), and currently works on Finder at Apple. He's notable enough as software developers go. We have many articles on potentially un-notable pieces of software due to the notability of their authors. --Kiand 19:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't, however, think the plugins list needs to be a seperate article, nor should there be articles about individual plugins. --Kiand 19:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep - let's see if there really is evidence of notability. - Runcorn 21:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some evidence of notability is provided. The El Reyko 21:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what 'evidence' means, but Eddie featured heavily in the BeOS Bible, a fairly hefty dead-tree book published in 1999 about BeOS, including a 5-page interview with its author (although not as heavily as its then-commercial competitor Pe (text editor), due to the books heavy inclination towards pay-software...). I'd be willing to suggest that its as notable, if not more so, than many of the entries on the list of text editors. --Kiand 22:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate on this? It could well be the evidence we're looking for, but I'm afraid that I can't find "Eddie" listed in the table of contents. I would suggest that the interview you mentioned goes more towards establishing the notability of Pavel Císler than about any particular piece of software he created. Indeed, perhaps what we could do is to summarise the contents of this article and merge it into Pavel Císler—who does appear to be notable. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That TOC and the book beside me don't agree about contents in all cases so don't take it as canon, but its mentioned along with other text tools; during the text on Pe; during the StyledEdit section, and a few other places. --Kiand 01:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline in Wikipedia:Notability (software) requires that: "The software has been verifiably the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software developer, such as a major media news media, a book, a peer-reviewed scientific publication, or an article in a reputed technical magazine. A single such publication that is specifically about the software is sufficient; for publications that mention the software while not being specifically about them, and for publications of lower profile (such as a local newspaper or an e-zine), multiple such works are needed." So this helps, but it would probably not be sufficient on its own. Do you know of any other references? I've done a Google search, but I coudn't find anything that appeared to meet these criteria. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 03:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep.
Mailer Diablo 08:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Son of a bitch

More appropriate for wiktionary and a neologism to boot. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and imrove, it cane certainly become more than a dicdef. Widespread "neologisms" (created during the early-mid 20th century?) are notable. —UTC
)

Keep, there are dozens of articles on wikipedia for all manner of swear word/phrases albeit this one could do with some improvment. Keep the article and add it to List of profanities. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 10:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A phrase such of this is more than just a word, it requires more than a dictionary definition, ergo it can be encyclopedic and not dictionaryish Robdurbar 16:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand as a notable phrase that's been around for a while. — TKD::Talk 17:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't understand why you're all voting to keep. Don't you know what a son of a bitch is? Isn't
WP:WINAD policy, or has that been rejected now? Erik the Rude 21:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete dicdef -
^ask? 23:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. ↑ We are quite aware of the slang usage of the term "son of a bitch." Despite the literally meaning, the slang term is a very popular neologistic phrase in the world today and not a simple dictionary definition. (Я не имею—никакой жизни 23:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Strong keep. The Oxford English Dictionary Online's entry for "son of a bitch" is two pages long when copied into MS Word. You can say it brings nothing to the table now, but there are at least five meanings and numerous spellings not included in the article currently. I wouldn't even want to know what a slang dictionary like Partridge's would have to say about it. If anything, it needs dramatic expansion.--Primetime 03:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Dictionary that's why it should be on Wiktionary and not here and why this article shouldn't exist here. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
↑ I think you're failing to see the point of the opposition to your nomination and opinions toward deletion. There are many notable words and neologism in Wikipedia that are more than mere dictionary definitions. By your logic, the words fuck and bitch should also be deleted. (Я не имею—никакой жизни File:Nazi Swastika.svg 03:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I agree. An encyclopedia is a reference work that deals with all fields of knowledge. The word comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia meaning "general education". All encyclopedias define at least some vocabulary terms and some even have embedded dictionaries (e.g., Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana). Besides, it is not a dictionary definition. See "good" to see what a dictionary definition looks like.--Primetime 03:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Further, although
WP:WINAD, there is potential for well-known swear phrases/words to be expanded into encyclopedic articles discussing etymology, usage and social acceptance over time, etc., that a simple dictionary definition does not have. — TKD::Talk 04:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unless improved. Is there third-party research on the usage of this term? If so, let's cite it already. -- ~~Visviva 16:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment: Keep votes like the ones above are why I could never, ever take Wikipedia seriously. We're disagreeing on fundamental definitions here, and if you don't know that adding a bunch of alternative spellings and trivial usage examples to a dictionary definition gets it no closer to being an encyclopedia article, well, I can't see agreeing with you guys on anything, even the color of the sky. Somebody might as well get rid of
WP:WINAD, because it's not being followed at all here. I just hope the closing admin ignores the votes that go contrary to policy, but that happens only very rarely. We're on the slippery slope, people. Enjoy the ride down. Erik the Rude 16:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
We'll let the consenses decide that; thanks for your concern. (Я не имею—никакой жизни File:Nazi Swastika.svg 17:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

son of a bitch. Robdurbar 20:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Right now this is no better than a dictionary entry, and I don't think it's a very notable phrase, but it's possible it will grow into a lengthy encyclopedic article detailing historical events/figures and controvery surrounding the phrase, etc., full of relevant citations and captions. I think it should be deleted at some point if it does not improve significantly, but I don't see any urgency to delete it this instant. –Tifego^(t)_{17:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete per
AmiDaniel (Talk) 20:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

delete - dicdef/wangi 20:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; I despise dicdefs, but the FDR quote is a nice touch. Melchoir 21:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, to clarify, I don't think this is clearly a dicdef. Melchoir 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ignore all rules, the five major curse words are important. T e K E 01:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bitch, until such time as a substantial core of verifiable content emerges. Per usual arguments for relatives of the famous. :-) -- Visviva 16:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. A lot of potential here. Grue 20:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's already more than just a dictdef. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 05:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not establish the cultural significance of the term beyond the cultural significance of any other terms in the English language. Cedars 17:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it's clear that people can't stand the thought of this pathetic little excuse of a dictdef being deleted I have proposed on Talk:Son of a bitch that it be merged into Bitch which already has mention of derogatory uses of the term. Any discussions regarding that (unless changing a vote here to merge or voting to merge here) should be directed there. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your idea to move the article into the Bitch article, but I believe for merging articles, one should discuss the merging in the discussion page of which is it proposed to be merged. Therefore, we should direct comments to Talk:Bitch to incorporate opinions from that article as well. — Я не имею никакой жизни File:Nazi Swastika.svg 06:18, 06:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Oops yeah, that's my mistake. The template points to talk:bitch not talk son of a bitch so discussions should be done there. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a dicdef... pure and simple.--Isotope23 20:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, CSD A7

Ernest Raymond Jones

I put the {{importance}} tag here a month ago and there haven't been any edits since. In fact, the only user who has edited this page has Jones in his username and is probably a relative of this dude. A search of google turns up little new. The only page that links here is the list of
RHIT alumni Ergo, delete -Wiccan Quagga 05:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to goon. --F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 04:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hired goons

Not a term in common usage. Delete as probable Simpsonscruft. Redirect to goons, perhaps. Wiccan Quagga 05:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not referenced. Tyrenius 14:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to goon. A dicdef at best, and not a very reliable one. Haikupoet 02:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.
Mailer Diablo 05:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

List of publications in biology

The topic is so broad, it is inconceivable that any treatment could do it justice. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All peer-reviewed biological journals & influential papers & text books related to biology? A list this large would be useless to a researcher. (aeropagitica)  (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. --Ton e 12:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per (aeropagitica). — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per (aeropagitica) SorryGuy 00:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a list of all publications. It is a list of important publications. All that is needed is for the Biology community here to decide on criteria for importance. This article is part of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls. --Bduke 01:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep but clean up. These are the key publications, the criteria for inclusion are clearly noted. There are several similar articles with key texts as well, see for example
List of publications in mathematics. --Salix alba (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep useful info Jordanmills 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently and insolubly PoV, and unmaintainable, but useful information. Conditional Keep, but only in WP namespace. Septentrionalis 00:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Salix. -- Visviva 16:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 08:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Family fun pack for sims

Advertisement for upcoming product. De-{{
prod}}ed by anon. Delete as spam. GTBacchus^(talk) 06:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Also the title would need to change if it is kept as the official title seems to be "the Sims2 Family Fun Stuff Pack". By the way what is the "4 out of 7" in the article about, is it a rating or something else? --blue520 06:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising.
talk • contribs) 09:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete crystal balls. Tyrenius 15:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was
FCYTravis deleted "Big mouth corner" (nn). --blue520 07:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Big mouth corner

nn club.
_Fire! 06:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - as per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 07:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was
FCYTravis. -- blue520 07:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Stiffilis

hoaxcruft.
_Fire! 06:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete - Nonsense, repost, hoax, ect ect ect. --light darkness^(talk) 06:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete --blue520 07:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep.
Mailer Diablo 15:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Masjid Tun Abdul Aziz

parishcruft (sort of, more like mosquecruft)
_Fire! 06:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Seems non-notable; nothing to distinguish this mosque from all of the other small ones. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main mosque of a city of 450,000 people, so it's the rough equivalent of a cathedral, but there is no such designation in Islam. The nominator's suggestion that it is the equivalent of a standard parish church seems to be quite wrong and misleading. Hawkestone 00:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hawkestone Monicasdude 22:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major mosque in major city. --Gene_poole 05:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion for repost. enochlau (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bepenfriends

advertisement, possibly copyvio from Bepenfriends (have not checked). Site is non notable date cruft.
_Fire! 06:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete and protect from re-creation. This has been speedied at least once and I want to say twice. Montco 07:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This really doesn't need to go through AfD, especially if it's already been deleted before.
AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete was not aware of that. Change my vote to speedy, will also be adding db-repost to article
_Fire! 09:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Erotic Engineering

Delete. I googled this term and found numerous different definitions for it, including transexual operations, sex toys, and mind control, but not the stated definition. The article is poorly written and is not neutral POV. Ricaud 03:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same results as you using google, but I would note that excluding wikipedia, only 94 unique hits are found. So even if the term was accurate, it would appear non-notable. With these results, not a candidate for transwiki. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not notable or accurate; wikipedia is not the place for this misinformation. 68.32.34.152 04:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --
e Ong 06:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Inaccurate dictdef, pointless to redirect to
prostitute as the neologism is not specific. (aeropagitica) 07:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as neologism. Also, you don't need a four-year college degree to practice it, unlike
E lkman - ^(talk) 14:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, neologism misusing the term engineering. Pavel Vozenilek 17:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't need another word for
Prostitute. Somebody, maybe someone who has sex for money and doesn't like being called a "whore," seems to be throwing stuff at Wikipedia to see what sticks to create standing for a neologism. Brian G. Crawford 17:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete nn Funky Monkey 22:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under WP:SMOKINGCRACK. No? Okay, just get rid of it as original research or a reasonable facsimile thereof. Haikupoet 04:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Neologism completely divorced from the legal meaning of engineering. Seems to be just a definition of something like "sex worker advocacy". Peter Grey 07:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism stretching the meaning of "engineering". Herostratus 03:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as reposted AfD'd material. -- RHaworth 08:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic Engineering

neologism, apparently made up term: Google search in comes up with less than 900 hits.
_Fire! 07:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Withdraw, I've changed to Speedy delete, repost
_Fire! 07:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 08:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Gang of creeps

nn band, appx 500 google hits. No national airplay
_Fire! 07:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
WP:MUSIC, airplay was local, does not have two full length albums. --light darkness^(talk) 07:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete dose not reach
WP:MUSIC.--blue520 13:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As above Trebor 14:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy Keep. Withdrawn by nominator and nobody has advocated deletion. kingboyk 23:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silverknowes and many others that are Edinburgh related

~~Delete~~ Non-notable. Really, why must there be individual articles for these? Ned Scott 07:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above: Jock's Lodge, Gogarloch, South Gyle railway station, Bonaly, Burdiehouse, Wester Broom, Pilton, Edinburgh, Powderhall, Drumbrae, Piershill, Fernieside, Craigcrook, Blackhall, Edinburgh, Trinity, Edinburgh, Mortonhall, Murrayfield, Longstone.

I'd be willing to support a merge if someone can make a reasonable argument for it. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all in principle. Place and railway station articles are automatically acceptable. Though in this case some merging may be advisable. I would suggest a criterion of one article for each postal district (but not, please not with a title of EHx!). For example we already have Meadowbank, Edinburgh which is EH8 so Jock's Lodge should be merged with that. -- RHaworth 08:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all. These are inherantly notable and verifiable, though as above, some should be merged
_Fire! 09:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep all, parts of towns and cities are often far better populated and far more notable than many small villages, but for some reason villages don't seem to get AFD'd. I too have misgivings about a lot of geographical place articles, but it does seem rather unfair to single out Edinburgh. Given time and research, all of these topics have the potential to be good additions to the encyclopaedia. I for one would be very interested to know about the history, topography and demographics of each of these places. (Declaration of interest: I am from Edinburgh; but then so are nearly half a million other people, so there is a potential readership out there.) --Mais oui! 09:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all, places such as these are beyond the usual subjective nominations and debates appropriate for AfD. Interested parties with local knowledge will expand, merge etc. as appropriate. Deizio 09:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all. These are all verifiable and merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Many of these Edinburgh suburbs were distinct villages in their own right with significant history. Per comments above, over time they will come to be expanded into decent articles - Colinton is a good example (compare to original stub). That many are stubs right now is not sufficient grounds for deletion. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Deizio. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Cactus.man although I'm not quite as optimistic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'd be keeping these by default if they were still individual villages; it seems odd to delete them because they've grown! They all have potential for expansion -
talk | 15:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
To follow through on my above comment - the only reason for nominating these seems to be that they're stubs. Areas of exactly comparable importance with fleshed-out articles seem to be acceptable - but the notability of something, and the suitability for an article, should be somewhat independent of what's currently been written.
talk | 15:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep as per above. Joelito 15:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Cactus.man and Angus McLellan. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all. The notability varies, but some are definitely notable. --MacRusgail 19:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With this much support I have more faith that these articles really do have a future. When I was looking at the edit histories of some of them and saw they basically had creation and a stub edit, I was a bit worried. Silverknowes in particular got to me when the only thing it said about the place was that it had a golf course. But if this many Wikipedians really believe these articles have a future, then I have no problem with the articles. Is there a way to retract my nominations or something? It's doubtful that we'd have to wait a week to see the end results. -- Ned Scott 19:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 08:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

New Korea Tours

nn advertisement cruft. Nice of them to mention wikipedia though.
_Fire! 07:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Advertisment for a nn-tour company. --light darkness^(talk) 07:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertisement. Montco 07:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and is there some way to co-nominate the user User:NewKoreaTours for deletion / blocking as well? -- Ned Scott 07:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spamtastic. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 04:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming Chaos

Non-notable, only has 200 members. Appears to be a vanity page. Chairman S. ^Talk 07:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a place to gain fame. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What harm is it doing. Its not a vanity page or something to gain fame. It something of things that are collectively remembered, known and sometimes treasured.

This should not be deleted As the creator of the article, I attempted to make this article objective and completely factual about the site. By adding this article on wikipedia, we do not want fame or fortune, considering it's a nonprofit site. We would be honored just to be recognized on wikipedia, and the members pledge that by adding this article, we do not intend to abuse this great community and its articles. Jywayne 19:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)jywayne[reply]

Delete: The article does not assert notability, and the website has an Alexa ranking of 684,719. --Hetar 09:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --blue520 13:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable Lylum 00:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete They are not trying to gain fame or anything. All they are doing is trying to keep their memories sacred by using the power of wikipedia. Also, the info is in a good and appropriate manner. I think that it should be allowed to stay.

Don't delete I think it is a well written article while accounting good memories. If someone needed information on them, then now they can get it.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ship Of Fools (band)

Clearly non-notable band, haven't even released an album yet. Chairman S. ^Talk 07:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure of
WP:BAND and WP:NOT A CRYSTAL BALL. --Hetar 07:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails to meet criteria in
WP:MUSIC Trebor 15:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

High Alliance

Non-notable internet empire. -- RHaworth 08:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per above. -- Karada 11:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Shehzad Bhunnoo

Non-notable, possible vanity Mtiedemann 08:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this as non-notable and mendacious vanity. One of the editors of this article, one "Shehzad Bhunnoo", claims "I am not he. Just a fan," which is really extraordinary. --Lockley 22:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was transfer to Wikibooks. However, the originator of the article has said that he will expand the article. If that does not happen, and somebody wants to transfer it, please drop me a line and I will delete it at that time. Turnstep 02:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creed of the Noncommissioned Officer

Transfer: Nothing more than a word for word quote of the creed, belongs at Wikibooks. --Hetar 08:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer as per nom. Tyrenius 14:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 13:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Celtophobia

Original research, completely unsourced.
_Fire! 09:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete While this may well be an actual category of bigotry, the name is clearly made up and the article (as noted) is wildly unsourced. Unless it can be shaped up quickly, it should probably go. IrishGuy 09:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely unsourced and crammed full of
OR. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, neologism,
OR - RexNL 15:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, it almost sounds like it belongs on Uncyclopedia at some points. Arzikl 15:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Delete; this was entirely lifted from an older version of
Anglophobia. IP Address 23:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 13:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Anry Nemo

Non-notable artist;
reliable sources
in evidence.
For past discussion on deviantART users, including this one, see AfD/Suzi9mm and AfD/Anry Nemo et al
Melchoir 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom Tyhopho 10:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--blue520 13:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i would say he is well known outside of DA - i wasn't aware that he is on DA or gfxartist at all. Actually i'd say that lots of people know his art without knowing it's from him. His gallery (currently offline - here's a partial mirror - [11]) will come as first page (from 500k hits) on google just on search term 'anry' alone. If i'll have time, i'll try to lookup some russian sources on him, but my russian is not very good. I won't vote because i am inactive on wp for long time, i just thought you should know this.- JohnyDog 19:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That first result which pops up doesnt function and redirects to a webhosting service. Also a quick flick through some of the other results lead to other uses of the word anry (or in one case what seems to be another person using the same name). Yes he has other galleries featuring his work, but I could quite easily place some of my photos on multiple galleries and websites and use that to claim 'notability' for my work. What I think is the issue for these artists who have been tagged AfD is that although they may be extremely talented artists they lack further impact or notability beyond these websites which feature them.
DeviantART. Tyhopho 20:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, that is exactly why I haven't nominated those two. Melchoir 20:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Hetar 20:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Blackeri

Non-notable artist;
reliable sources
in evidence.
For past discussion on deviantART users, including this one, see AfD/Suzi9mm and AfD/Anry Nemo et al
Melchoir 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom Tyhopho 10:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--blue520 13:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NN. SorryGuy 00:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 13:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Bri-chan

Non-notable artist;
reliable sources
in evidence.
For past discussion on deviantART users, including this one, see AfD/Suzi9mm and AfD/Anry Nemo et al
Melchoir 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom Tyhopho 10:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --blue520 13:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NN. SorryGuy 00:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 13:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Daniel Conway

Non-notable artist;
reliable sources
on this individual in evidence.
For past discussion on deviantART users, including this one, see AfD/Suzi9mm and AfD/Anry Nemo et al
Melchoir 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom Tyhopho 10:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --blue520 13:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SorryGuy 00:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Pu-sama

Non-notable artist;
reliable sources
in evidence.
For past discussion on deviantART users, including this one, see AfD/Suzi9mm and AfD/Anry Nemo et al
Melchoir 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom Tyhopho 10:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --blue520 13:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SorryGuy 00:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ssilence

Non-notable artist;
reliable sources
in evidence.
For past discussion on deviantART users, including this one, see AfD/Suzi9mm and AfD/Anry Nemo et al
Melchoir 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom Tyhopho 10:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--blue520 13:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SorryGuy 00:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as failing
FCYTravis 09:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Dryice, DryicE-corp, and Dryice-corp

Delete: These pages are all the same. NN corporation that does not meet
WP:CORP. --Hetar 09:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Advertisements written in the first-person. --CrypticBacon 09:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spamtastic. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 17:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Dale

Non-notable poorly written bio. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 09:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. seems to not reach
WP:BIO.--blue520 13:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete --Knucmo2 17:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, VanityCruft. Stunned to see this has been around since November. Deizio 23:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 13:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Frederick A. Kerry

Not notable for himself, add info to Richard Kerry and/or John Kerry. Arniep 11:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't believe that suicides by relatives of famous people are worthy of their own articles. Content can be merged into the famous people articles. Montco 15:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination seems to be part of a campaign to delete category:Famous people's relatives who committed suicide by emptying the category. I'm convinced by Deiz's argument below that on this one, it's not that notable. So no objection here.--Mike Selinker 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I nominated these as various other articles of relatives of famous people have been deleted and we need to decide whether just the fact that a person committed suicide but has not done anything really of note during their own life makes them notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Arniep 20:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I say NO. Delete. The El Reyko 21:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign is a bit strong. The category advertises that it's subjects are not notable, and I was about to go through the category and nominate those which are indeed nn myself. It's called cleaning up/enforcing our guidelines and policies, not a "campaign". --kingboyk 22:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word "campaign" turns out to be more loaded than I intended. What I meant was, all of the articles were nominated at once (and, of course, in seven different spots), rather than determining the success of the category first. I'm not happy with that, as I'd rather not see a category used as the basis to delete an article. --Mike Selinker 04:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Worthy of a mention in his brother's article but I don't believe he's notable per
WP:BIO. --kingboyk 22:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, completely nn save for famous descendants. Everything in this article is already mentioned at
WP:BIO? The disputed category is entirely redundant, as committing suicide and being related to a famous person does not make for a WP article, that comes from at least being involved in a newsworthy suicide, a different criteria altogether, plus the cat authors have admitted it is designed to contain non-notable people, and that they hope the articles within it will be used to conduct original research. Deizio 22:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Um, I'm the category's author. You have inaccurately divined my "hopes." I created the category, after discussing it with User:Michael David, as a method of categorizing the existing articles.--Mike Selinker 04:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, doesn't answer my question. Do you personally believe that Frederick A. Kerry meets the criteria set out at
WP:BIO? Deizio 10:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
You're asking whether I believe an article in a category defined as "non-notable people" passes a notability test? If it were part of a category called "The Kerrys" (as opposed to John Kerry), I'd vote to keep it in a heartbeat. Famous relations are fine with me, as it fleshes out the character of otherwise notable people.--Mike Selinker 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mike, that's not how the project works. Individuals must satisfy the criteria at
WP:POINT, especially when trying to "save" an article or category you have created or edited. Information on notable individuals (including important events involving family members which have a bearing on the individual's life) should be "fleshed out" on their own page. However, I'm sure you've figured all this out for yourself by now. Deizio 16:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I've been here for a while, Deiz, so among the things I've figured out for myself is that
WP:BIO is a guideline, not policy. It's not the only reason an article might need separation from a main article. One reason might be to avoid clutter in a complex article. Another reason might be that the subject is not as significant as the main article. The notability test is one reason why you might believe an article should be deleted, but it isn't a reason that all users must follow for every article. Again, I didn't create any of these articles, but I think all (except maybe Daisy Keith, which is the stubbiest of stubs) are intriguing, and thus I vote to keep them (and thus try to categorize them in some useful way). Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 19:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
But if they alone don't meet the likes of
WP:BIO, then they don't merit an article of their own, so add their information to their notable relative's article. I'm not dismissing what you and Michael have identified as being pointless or uninteresting, but I don't think the framework of a general encyclopedia is the place to pursue it. Perhaps a third-party webpage or website linked to Wikipedia...? Regards, David Kernow 16:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

BIO is indeed a guideline, and sometimes notable people don't fit, but I'm still wondering: what is the significance - or intrigue - of this piece? The suicide took place 22 years before John Kerry was born, and when Richard Kerry (who seems to have written one book and had a decent career as a diplomat) was six years old. If there was documented evidence that the event had affected the life of a notable person, this might be something. But there isn't, its still just a guy who killed himself and whose grandson would eventually run for President. There is is a very big difference between Fred Kerry and, for example, Cheyenne Brando, whose entire life was influenced by her relation to a celebrity, and whose newsworthy suicide has been linked to it. Mike, much love. Deizio 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, that's a very good point, Deiz. It's possible my interest in this one is influenced by Hannelore Kohl and Cheyenne Brando, which might be more interesting than this one. But this seems complete enough for at least me to be neutral on it. (Of course, I never want to delete any article.)--Mike Selinker 03:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing sufficiently notable for a general encyclopedia in this life summary. David Kernow 01:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Somebody's grandfather? Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs)

Delete Relative of a notable individual is not sufficient to confer notabiliity. JoshuaZ 15:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 13:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Daisy Keith

Not notable in herself, add info to Brian Keith. Arniep 11:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't believe that suicides by relatives of famous people are worthy of their own articles. Content can be merged into the famous people articles. Montco 15:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination seems to be part of a campaign to delete category:Famous people's relatives who committed suicide by emptying the category.Revising my vote to abstain. This is barely a stub, and doesn't have anywhere near the depth of the other articles nominated for deletion in this batch. So it doesn't make sense for me to say "Keep" on it.--Mike Selinker 19:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated these as various other articles of relatives of famous people have been deleted and we need to decide whether just the fact that a person committed suicide but has not done anything really of note during their own life makes them notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Arniep 20:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The El Reyko 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --kingboyk 22:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and Frederick A. Kerry Deizio 23:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Brian Keith per Arniep. David Kernow 01:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.
Mailer Diablo 15:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Zinaida Volkova

Doesn't seem to be notable herself, add any important info to Leon Trotsky. Arniep 11:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't believe that suicides by relatives of famous people are worthy of their own articles. Content can be merged into the famous people articles. Montco 15:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- well, I wrote the current articles about
Trotsky. Ahasuerus 16:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Nomination seems to be part of a campaign to delete category:Famous people's relatives who committed suicide by emptying the category.--Mike Selinker 19:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated these as various other articles of relatives of famous people have been deleted and we need to decide whether just the fact that a person committed suicide but has not done anything really of note during their own life makes them notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Arniep 20:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- and let my vote be delete on all the other "Famous people's relatives who have commited suicide" up on AfD because I can't be bothered voting on them all individually. The El Reyko 21:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with merge & redir, an interesting life but no assertion of notability other than famous relative. Again, per nom and Frederick A. Kerry Deizio 23:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simplify and merge with Leon Trotsky. David Kernow 01:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
MaNeMeBasat 07:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, do not merge.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do not merge; not likely to be a good fit with Leon Trotsky. Septentrionalis 23:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. KNewman 04:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : If not delete or merge, then what's notable about Zinaida Volkova that doesn't have some association with Trotsky? Regards, David Kernow 13:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Yakov Dzhugashvili wasn't notable for anything that didn't have some association with his father, yet we still have a separate article on him. Why not on Volkova? We cannot possibly cram information on every somewhat notable person who had association with Trotsky into one article, can we? Anyway, I am an inclusionist, therefore I am biased when it comes to AfDs, but as I am entitled to my bias I voted to keep the article where it is.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I've left my vote to stand as it's to simplify/merge rather than delete. Thanks for your thoughts, David 17:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, there has been a low level controversy over the nature of her relationship with Trotsky as of late. Some documents seem to suggest that she was mentally unstable at the end and had a crush on her father, which may have contributed to her suicide. It wouldn't be too hard to get it all compiled and NPOV'd, but I am not sure if it would help make her "notable" for the purposes of this discussion. Ahasuerus 18:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, independent if limited notability. Monicasdude 23:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, do not merge.—Vald 22:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.
Mailer Diablo 15:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Assia Wevill

Doesn't seem to be notable in herself, add important info to Ted Hughes. Arniep 11:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't believe that suicides by relatives of famous people are worthy of their own articles. Content can be merged into the famous people articles. Montco 15:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination seems to be part of a campaign to delete category:Famous people's relatives who committed suicide by emptying the category.--Mike Selinker 19:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated these as various other articles of relatives of famous people have been deleted and we need to decide whether just the fact that a person committed suicide but has not done anything really of note during their own life makes them notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Arniep 20:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is more than a simple footnote and also had a book dedicated to her. IrishGuy 21:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per IrishGuy --kingboyk 22:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, closer to the bar but still not, imo, independently notable. No evidence that she displayed excellence or distinction in her field, whatever that may have been, hence at best this is merge & redirect. When having a book dedicated to you becomes a WP:BIO criteria, the battle to keep cruft out of WP will have been well and truly lost. Deizio 23:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simplify and merge with Ted Hughes. David Kernow 01:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep and enhance, her suicide and relationship with Hughes is significant in the lives of two of the foremost poets of the 20th century, one of whom (Hughes) was the poet laureate of the UK for a number of years before his death. Wevill's 'reenactment' of Plath's suicide, has significance for historical judgements of Hughes and for the feminist movement in general

--Dbspin 21:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC) (Users 3rd edit on Wikipedia Deizio 22:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I still fail to see a) how this individual meets
Heymann Standard of improvement is necessary to prove otherwise. Deizio 22:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, notable for involvement with Hughes/Plath events. Monicasdude 23:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets the standards of inclusion -- for Wikipedia. The scope of her entry, however, needs to be broadened. The Muse/music dichotomy of art is a generation-defining issue! Defenestration

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Diane Linkletter

Linkletter Diane...Fact, the same man who was with Linkletter when she "Jumped" was later with Carol Wayne, of the Johnny Carson show, when she died of mysterious circumstances in Mexico. Doesn't seem to be notable in herself, add important info to Art Linkletter. Arniep 11:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as her death is notable in its controversy. -- Grev 15:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Grev and per
WP:MUSIC for her participation in Grammy-winning recording. --Metropolitan90 17:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Nomination seems to be part of a campaign to delete category:Famous people's relatives who committed suicide by emptying the category.--Mike Selinker 19:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated these as various other articles of relatives of famous people have been deleted and we need to decide whether just the fact that a person committed suicide but has not done anything really of note during their own life makes them notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Arniep 20:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say winning a Grammy is fairly notable. IrishGuy 21:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The story (false or not) of the "flying LSD girl" is surely an urban legend by now. There's a film about her too (The Diane Linkletter Story) so I think this is a safe keep. --kingboyk 22:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Grammy winner plus newsworthy suicide puts her safely over the bar. Note this has nothing directly to do with simply being related to a celebrity and also committing suicide. Deizio 23:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the grammy award, so I agree keep for this. 00:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arniep (talk • contribs)

Keep as per most of the above. David Kernow 01:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Famous. Herostratus 05:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kingboyk & others. --Lockley 22:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I guess this has been resolved, but STRONG KEEP. She is not in any way obscure. It was a big news story in the late 60s. Rather notable. Moncrief 04:32, 10 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 15:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Cheyenne Brando

Keep - she was a key player in unfortunate events, albeit made notorious by the family connection.--mdecker

Doesn't seem to be notable in herself, add important info to Marlon Brando and/or Christian Brando. Arniep 11:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I would say that she is notable, since there was a huge court case surrounding her, her father, and her brother. Roodog2k 13:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't believe that suicides by relatives of famous people are worthy of their own articles. Content can be merged into the famous people articles. Montco 15:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep this. She was newsworthy for a number of years. There must be people who would want to get the facts. In fact, I did. Also this is a much more interesting article than some, like individual episodes of TV programs. Rbraunwa 18:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think she was ever in the news before the court case, and really even then the focus was more on her brother than her. I think we should just redirect this to Marlon or Christian Brando. Arniep 19:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - she was a notable participant in at least briefly notable unfortunate events. Georgewilliamherbert 19:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination seems to be part of a campaign to delete category:Famous people's relatives who committed suicide by emptying the category.--Mike Selinker 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated these as various other articles of relatives of famous people have been deleted and we need to decide whether just the fact that a person committed suicide but has not done anything really of note during their own life makes them notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Arniep 20:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom; I don't think she's independently notable. --kingboyk 22:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, model involved in several news events including her suicide. Deizio 23:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think she was really a serious model, but perhaps the fact she was at the heart of the shooting case makes her noteworthy. Arniep 00:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simplify and merge with Marlon Brando unless information/evidence indicating her own notability as a model included. David Kernow 01:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, involved in sequence of unfortunate events treated as highly newsworthy by media. Monicasdude 23:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 04:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hannelore Kohl

Doesn't seem to be notable except for a cookery book which probably wouldn't have existed if she wasn't wife of Helmut Kohl. Arniep 11:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this subject falls marginally over the line of notability. The debates over the cause of her suicide also make her notable. David | Talk 11:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't believe that suicides by relatives of famous people are worthy of their own articles. Content can be merged into the famous people articles. Montco 15:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination seems to be part of a campaign to delete category:Famous people's relatives who committed suicide by emptying the category.--Mike Selinker 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated these as various other articles of relatives of famous people have been deleted and we need to decide whether just the fact that a person committed suicide but has not done anything really of note during their own life makes them notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Arniep 20:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I think she probably falls just short of independent notability, but it's hard to tell not being German. --kingboyk 22:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. She was in the public spotlight quite often independently of her husband. Deleting this article would be the same as deleting the article on Laura Bush -- Lylum 00:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the combination of her medical condition, controversy over her death and (assuming the article's description is correct) her fame as a culinary author are all of potential interest. Have added cleanup notice. David Kernow 01:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable in her own right for her charitable work with de:ZNS – Hannelore Kohl Stiftung. Valiantis 01:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, apparently noteworthy as published author regardless of other issues. Monicasdude 23:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep -
? 00:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Tarita Teriipia

Only acted in one film, Mutiny on the Bounty, then married Marlon Brando, not notable enough to warrant own encyclopedia article. Arniep 11:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Marlon Brando. --kingboyk 22:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Nomination is chronological bias. She had a major role in a famous Hollywood picture and then married a superstar. If a young actress had a major part in a 2006 Tom Cruise film and then married him and retired, would she have an article? Do I need to answer that? Hawkestone 00:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it was really a major role, and I'm not even it sure it really qualified as acting as she just played herself (a Tahitian) and had never appeared as an actor before or since. Arniep 01:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There no doubt are people who will look for this article. And anyway, what's the downside here? Rbraunwa 17:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They would look for Brando first, and any information on her (of which there isn't much) can go there. Arniep 20:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep useful info Jordanmills 22:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is being considered here is not whether the info is useful but whether she is notable enough for her own encyclopedia article or whether she is merely known for being the wife of Marlon Brando, in which case she should not have her own article. Arniep 23:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hawkestone. Monicasdude 23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. kingboyk 00:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redmond UK

Article about an aspirant rapper, appears not to meet the criteria in
Wikipedia is not MySpace. -- Karada 12:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:MUSIC.--blue520 13:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As above Trebor 14:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (aka "oppose" ;). If the argument to delete is about the non-usefullness of the language-phone articles, then please start with a more established one (e.g. Anglophone) or better yet, nominate them as a group. Turnstep 02:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainophone

A clear-cut dicdef about a very rare term. Just like with
Francophone the information contained that isn't about language usage (wiktionary information) is duplicated in the main language articles, in this case Ukrainian language. I don't see how any of the language-phone articles are relevant to Wikipedia. They often don't even contain any encyclopedic information, just examples of how the term is used and by whom, something sorted under the section header "Usage notes" at English wiktionary, and usually just duplicate the main language articles. What little verifiable information contained that can't be found outside of these articles is not made more accessible by keeping these kinds of articles. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose a term very valid in modern UA politics. The issue about parts of population being Ukraino- or Russophone is very significant in much of UA politics and this is the article to elaborate on that as well. --Irpen 16:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's about Ukrainian politics, it should be in
Ukrainian people or Ukrainian demography (or something). "Ukrainophone" is a pure dictionary definition. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose per Irpen. --DDima ^(talk) 18:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are all the other "phone"s also up for deletion? I think this one has just as much right to stay as any other. And I double dog dare you to suggest delete francophone and watch the wrath of every single Quebec WPdian unleashed on you. :-) Kevlar67 08:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is not ambigious; there is only one article up for deletion. However, there is absolutely no difference between Francophone and Ukrainophone except that the former is more widespread. The added cultural meaning of Francophone doesn't make it more encyclopedic; it just means that additional information should be added to the Wiktionary entry. It would be so nice if participants could show even a modicum of reason and try to discuss the matter itself instead of voting on every imaginable bureuacratic irrelevancy. I think we can decide on the merit of a single article without assuming that it creates a carte blanche for anyone who wants to zap all similar articles out of existence. / Peter ^Isotalo

Well first off you're right, the francophone and ukrainophone articles do have the same information value, which is why I say that one should not be deleted if the other is not, simply for consistency’s sake. However the cultural value attached to them is exactly what makes them worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia or not. Why write about something that isn't "valuable"? My personal opinion is that the article on the Ukrainian language is too long (in fact it says so when you edit it). I think it should be split, and some of the information on geographical distribution moved here. The same could be done for francophone, etc. That would be much more useful than deleting this page. In other words I oppose the deletion. Kevlar67 12:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All terms have "cultural value", even dictionary definitions. You could vote to keep any dictionary definition by claiming it has a certain cultural value. "Ukrainophone", though, seems to be so rare that it might very well be considered a neologism.

That
geographic distribution of Portuguese
for a precedent.

Please have a closer look at how language articles are written and keep in mind that none of "-phone" articles I'm aware of contain encyclopedic information (i.e. not just language usage) that wouldn't easily fit in the main language article or isn't already contained in them. I believe you should reconsider your vote.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Sppedy Delete, blatant copyright infringement
emp | talk 18:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Armenian allegations

Seems to be a long-winded, one-sided
Turkish-Armenian relations perhaps?) this isn't going to help one jot, and it would be better to start off from scratch. There are also copyright issues here and strange assertions on copyright. — Dunc|☺ 13:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: First of all this article is not copyrighted (if you could read the first sentence) and is rather promoted by a governmental institution to be published anywhere. If you think this article is biased, then it should also be illogical for the Wikipedia to have an article named "armenian genocide" online, since even the United Nations approve the fact that it cannot be named as "genocide" and therefore should be regarded as "allegations" only. Millions of people from tens of countries oppose the idea of so-called Armenian genocide by Ottomans. Also looking at the issue from a different point of view, half a million Muslim Ottoman citizens were also murdered by Armenians (not Russian, Italian, British or other forces in a war) and if there has been an Armenian genocide, then there surely is a Turkish Genocide by the Armenians. This article reflects the views of millions of Turks, including many Armenians of Turkish descent living freely and happily in Turkey. Its objectivity comes from the extensive proof and facts from the archives of tens of organizations and countries. Therefore, deleting this article does not improve Wikipedia's credibility, but only diminishes its objective and neutral attitude. It is also a major offense for the memories of hundreds of thousands of Muslims, who have been murdered by Armenian terrorists 1914-1922, and their relatives. Having a debatable topic like "Armenian Genocide" but not allowing people to edit it is unbearable since some of that article is based on the fake documents and some doesn't even have a basis. Now, deleting this article for it opposes a debatable topic is neither a wiki-style nor a democratic/historical approach. I believe that people should read both articles and then freely decide on their points of view. --Kayaakyuz 13:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone see what I mean about the m:MPOV? — Dunc|☺ 13:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has problems with
Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, but if that is the case and copyright sorted out it could be transwikied to wikisource if suitable.--blue520 14:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I thought the Armenian genocide was well-established, to the extent that Turkey has a law against mentioning it, recently applied to one of their notable authors whose name alas escapes me. Hence Armenian genocide. Midgley 14:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Orhan Pamuk. As you can read there, the case went nowhere. If you are interested in such things, here is an interesting interview with the author: [12]. Lambiam ^Talk 14:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but perhaps call it Armenian Genocide, Official position of Turkey. I was going to say: Merge with Armenian Genocide and position of Turkey, but that article has mysteriously disappeared, even though the debate on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Genocide and position of Turkey was closed on 10 March 2006 with speedy keep. The article needs to be turned into something readable, which is a tough and thankless editorial job, but it is important to present the official position of Turkey (in an NPOV way) on Wikipedia. Lambiam ^Talk 14:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lambiam ^Talk 17:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete I am surprised there isn't an article on the Armenian question. A good article can incorporate the positions of both parties. But poor articles like this written as strong POV from either side are not useful. Montco 15:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, title is POV, topic already covered in
UTC
)

Speedy Delete and suggest final warning to users. I believe the
Armenian Massacre so as not to arouse a minority, but even the word 'massacre' is apparently disputed by one of the users involved in the edit war there, so it's best to draw a line in the sand to avoid editorial creep. Whatever the Armenians did to the Turks is covered elsewhere I'm sure, and does not detract from the reality of histoical events. Just because there are more Turks than Armenians doesn't mean they get to rewrite historiography! As a neutral European (with friends of Armenian and Turkish descent), I believe that nearly a century has passed, and these issues will be acknowledged by the Turks sooner or later. And even if that weren't such a huge inflammatory NPOV question, the article is also appallingly badly translated, has not been through the usual Wikipedia creation process, and the people who uploaded it don't seem to understand the GFDL. Are they in fact the copyright holders? Because if not, they cannot declare it GFDL, nor if it is public domain. You can hand out leaflets, but they have to understand that you cannot do this on Wikipedia. --Cedders 16:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't understand what is meant by "suggest final warning" above. I contest that the
Armenian Genocide article is a good Wikipedia article as it stands. Confining myself to the issue at hand, the article is confused or confusing about the notion of "Turkish authorities", which are contrasted with "Turkish intellectuals". Are Turkish historians not Turkish intellectuals? Why are they lumped together with "authorities"? They may be authorities in their field of research, but that is not what you would normally understand "Turkish authorities" to mean. Why is Zeki Kuneralp quoted as an "authority", and quoted as if he spoke yesterday instead of more than 15 years ago, while the poor man, who has now been dead and buried for almost eight years, had then been retired for more than ten years? What is the subtext of the section heading "Political Arguments"? The excerpt or summary of the official position of the Republic of Turkey, although not entirely wrong, is quite incomplete. There are external links, but it is very difficult to navigate them to find reliable further details about the official position. Some people who have a strong point of view on the matter, from both sides, want to censor the presentation of some different points of view. I strongly believe that the viewpoints of all major players in this tragic, deep, and long-standing conflict should be reported accurately and comprehensively in Wikipedia. Lambiam ^Talk 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
They should be reflected in a neutral article, not in a series of POV forks. And the amount of coverage given to each strand should be based on its credibilty among neutral experts, not the number or the strength of the feelings of the antagonists. Hawkestone 01:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible delete Nothing but a propaganda release. Hawkestone 01:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, historically falsifiable propaganda. Haikupoet 02:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So if I understand you guys correctly, because you don't agree with the position of the Turkish government on the issue, the information about that position should be withheld from other readers of Wikipedia. Lambiam ^Talk 02:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Information about the position is not being withheld from readers. The identical text is linked to from
Talk:Armenian Genocide. By 'final warning to users' I meant that an admin should take this in hand and make it very clear to him that uploading 160KB of someone else's undeited inflammatory propaganda and making or repointing a dozen redirects to it (which I've now listed on RfD) is not part of editing an encyclopaedia. I don't think either holocaust denial or raising awareness of massacres should be a crime, but if the user concerned doesn't get it and continues to disrupt, should they be banned like the similar user who blanked Kurdistan? --Cedders 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Both sides produce inflammatory propaganda, but if you call this inflammatory propaganda you haven't seen much. Personally I think we should not have the debate here, or on
Talk:Armenian Genocide, but leave it to historians and record what they report. Loaded terms like "genocide" are inherently POV, and in particular terms such as "denial", implying that one side is "wrong", should be avoided. But I must confess (blush) I had overlooked the fact that that third bullet gives access to this "inflammatory propaganda", and therefore I have changed my vote to "delete". I think, however, that it is not given sufficient prominence or representation. For the record, the remaining defendant in the trial is a journalist, not a historian, and the charge, based on his criticism of a court decision, is insulting the Turkish judiciary and attempting to illegally influence a court case (where the latter carries a much higher penalty than the former). That is not to deny that such cases have a chilling effect, but I think the reason behind bringing charges has nothing to do with Armenian issues, but is really aimed at undermining the EU policy of the Turkish government. Lambiam ^Talk 17:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I think that what folks are saying is that this piece is hopelessly POV and that relevant NPOV information should be added to the existing article on the subject. This reads like a rant.Montco 02:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Biased fork. ReeseM 04:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! Wikipedia should stay in the center and should not be the representative of Armenians living abroad. If they loved their country so much, they should live in Turkey with peace, instead of cutting the vessels of the country. If they hated Anatolia then they should live in Armenia now, not in the foreign countries with a big majority. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Rirez (talk • contribs) 07:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete If an article which doesn't pretend to be anything other than government propaganda doesn't get deleted the hope that a volunteer edited encyclopedia can work will be over. Choalbaton 10:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' I think the article should be kept since it reflects different opinions based on facts and proofs on a topic that is highly debatable among the historians. Showing both sides of the argument through [Armenian Genocide] and [Armenian Allegations] is necessary. Therefore the article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by anon ip (talk • contribs)
As has been pointed out, such 'POV forks' are generally unacceptable in
Talk:Armenian_Genocide. --Cedders 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment; see [13] for very obvious sockpuppet Cemcem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) voting 4 times. I just reverted it rather than proper commenting them out. — Dunc|☺ 16:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it appears that Serdar Argic is running amok on WP. --EngineerScotty 00:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV topic. *drew 03:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is shocking to see such a thing in an encyclopedia. Chicheley 17:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 13:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Peggys tavern

A contested PROD candidate. This seems to be "just some tavern" in a college town, with no claim to encyclopedic notability.

Delete. Joyous | Talk 13:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Best of luck to the happy couple, of course. Midgley 14:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or better still merge with Drake University (a private, co-educational college)... Tyrenius 14:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising. Peggy's tavern has similar text. --Iowahwyman 16:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley 22:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 13:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

HighTyde

Simply a non-notable vanity page. Also note that User:Hightyde, which I'm guessing is the guy himself, was the one who removed the prod. Urthogie 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete,
CSD A7. RexNL 15:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Rex, I don't think this can be speedied under A7. He didn't request deletion. He removed the prod.--Urthogie 15:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misread.
Bachrach44 16:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

My mistake, I assumed general meant 'A' cus it was first. Heh, --Urthogie 16:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable singer. Google turns up mirrors, blogs, forums etc. but no evidence of
WP:MUSIC, nothing at Allmusic. Deizio 15:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Google turns up some interesting links. [14],[15], [16], but still looks non-notable. --(talk) 15:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Indeed. The clearchannel link is actually just a place where anyone can sign up to be on, its not an article or anything.--Urthogie 15:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete nn-bio --
Bachrach44 16:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete as above (
nn-bio}} earlier... WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Having just deleted one nn rapper, I think this one is a little closer to an assertion of notability (the criterion is quite explicit, no assertion of notability not no notability) - "He has been writing, recording and producing for well over 7 years and is a local sensation", and has multiple albums. I won't be offended if another admin decides to speedy delete or close as
WP:BEANS but for now, let the AFD continue! --kingboyk 00:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. A look at HighTyde's website reveals a tour that covers three states (does that make it a nationwide tour?), however this article is a blatent copy of his biography, just moved from the first to the third person.--LukeSurl 22:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 13:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

A New United Ireland

Pretty much an unencyclopedic, unreferenced, POV essay about Ireland. Was PROD'd but the tag was removed without discussion. W.marsh 14:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete School essay Maustrauser 14:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very POV, and not clear how it can be made not so. Eron 15:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. The history is very bad too. See History of Ireland for discussion of the issues raised. Jdorney 16:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, as most of the links provided aren't directly related to this topic in the first place. Unencyclopedic. Biased. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an essay rather than an encyclopedia article, falling foul of
WP:NPOV. —Wh o uk (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom.
Harr o5 22:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Essay. Hawkestone 01:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very biased with no citation Socom49 12:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 13:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Drew McCabe

Don't delete, found more stuff on him looking through google pages. Apparntly has film a handful of teenagers have mentioned on thier website, seems to be gaining a true cult status, might be worth leaving up and seeing what happens. User:Jeandré du Toit Can't find anything about this person anywhere. "Drew McCabe" gives less than 200 results on Google. Delete as not notable. Trebor 14:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Appears to be a student at University at Buffalo, apparently a student filmmaker. Fan1967 15:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Obviously non-notable, and very probably vanity. Bill (who is cool!) 16:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn-bio, fails
WP:BIO. --light darkness^(talk) 19:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 13:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Spice Girls Hits (album)

This album does not exist. All content is pure speculation. Ac@osr 15:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete charming though it is. Per nom Tyrenius 15:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's fake. --hottie 19:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as speculation, crystal-ball fancruft. Cheers to the Spice Girls though. --Lockley 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 17:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

David lavon

The author removed someone else's speedy, so I'll take it here. I happen to have heard of David Lavon and have seen his videos. I can tell you from personal experience that he is incredibly talented, and at the same time, an entirely unnotable internet phenomenon. --
Bachrach44 16:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not every video - even popular ones - are notable or encyclopedic. --Hamiltonian 18:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough Trebor 22:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons listed above. HistoryBA 23:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 15:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Simpsons Stores & Signs

This is a pointless incomplete list. --Maitch 16:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --Maitch 16:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 16:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very unencyclopedic cruft. -- Krash (Talk) 16:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have sufficient information in the entire Simpsons place-related category; this is just listcruft. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And if this list were ever complete, it would be so big it would be unmaintainable. Yep, that's listcruft. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Listcruft, per above. --light darkness^(talk) 19:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simpsoncruft.
Danny Lilithborne 20:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment This nomination was just blanked by 70.162.75.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good idea for a topic (and will prevent individual cruft articles), just needs expansion and organization. Gamaliel 06:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Lockley 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; important shops (Kwik-E-Mart, Leftorium) can be in articles about the characters they relate to (Apu, Ned Flanders). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 17:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are thousands of people who try to record all the places in Springfield, including me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comehomeusa (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. While it has two "references", that is a far cry from being in pre-production. Mention of such a tentative movie belongs on the
WP:NOT. Turnstep 02:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Scary Movie 5

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nothing on the IMDb. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as speculation, WP:NOT--Zxcvbnm 16:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I watched that episode of Dr. Phil, and Zucker said there would be a Scary Movie 5. That's not speculation. Mshake3 17:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too early to make an article for Scary Movie 5--hottie 19:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOT. SorryGuy 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The movie is confirmed. It deserves a page, even if it just says "Scary Movie 5 will come out in a couple years." Mshake3 02:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep Zucker is working on it. The cast have contracts for 5 and 6 and possibly 7. (Alphaboi867 13:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - when it has an IMDb page, I'll believe its definitely happening. Until then, it's just another movie in early development which could still collapse, despite the best intentions of those involved. There are thousands of such movies being worked on at any one time, and Wikipedia doesn't need articles on any of them. Alternatively, this could be redirected to either
Terminator 4). — sjorford (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
So you'll take IMDB's word over the director's own word? Mshake3 04:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zucker says he wants to make the movie. Weinstein says he wants to make the movie. That's fine, but nevertheless, it hasn't actually been started yet. I'm not treating IMDb as the decision-makers, but it's a good indication that a project has started active pre-production, which SM5 hasn't. And until it actually gets started, it could very easily fall by the wayside and never happen. — sjorford (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - According to the article, Weinstein has confirmed that the movie will be made, that sounds official enough to me. Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not only will the day imdb be up to date be the day that I run for President if all have confirmed there is no reason why there shouldn't be a page (Pally01 15:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 17:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

List of musical groups named after references from The Simpsons

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is my basic reasoning for listing this, but I also thought that I'd test the water following a discussion on the worthyness of the various Simpsons articles on Talk:The Simpsons. This page is unverified trivia that Wikipedia does not need, amounting to Fancruft. Its quite an ugly list too, and ought to go. Robdurbar 16:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just noted that someone else has listed List of Simpsons Stores & Signs. I thought I'd point out that I wasn't aware of this when nominating and that I do not know User:Maitch; this is not part of some sort of anti-Simpsons project, but more of a test to see the community's opinion on the many articles on the Simpsons. Robdurbar 16:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and any other Simspon's-related list that isn;t explicitly about the show (i.e. lists of characters or locations in the show). —UTC
)

Delete per nom -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 16:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unremarkable fancruft trivia. -- Krash (Talk) 16:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial, non-notable listcruft. Many of those band I'd doubt would belong on the Wikipedia in the first place. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, listcruft. Most of the bands are non-notable, anyway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.--Ton e 19:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless article.--hottie 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simpsoncruft.
Danny Lilithborne 20:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. SorryGuy 00:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nuge talk 16:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 17:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Going Out to the Shed

Neologism. rehpotsirhc 16:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unencylopedic. bcasterline t 16:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gwernol 18:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Slang dicdef, neologism, belongs on UrbanDictionary. Besides which I would think "going out to the shed" would be a process involving a shotgun and a shallow grave. Haikupoet 02:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, not verfiable, dubious dicdef, slang dicdef, and the only article edited by user "Desmondmorris". --Lockley 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 17:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Middle East Gay Journal

Don't Delete - I authored this entry because I found this site and think it's important. And there are Google hits. Dirija 11:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No single hit in Google! A newly created blog. Szvest 16:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

delete it appears that nothing links to it. --
Bachrach44 16:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - doesn't satisfy
WP:WEB - Politepunk 17:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Non-notable weblog at this point. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn, per nom. --light darkness^(talk) 18:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 17:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Intelligent Systems A/S

Non-notable, company started a couple of months ago--Zxcvbnm 16:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:CORP - Politepunk 16:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as a failure of
WP:CORP. --Hetar 18:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 17:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Moosehead studios

I tried to PROD this article, in the belief that it failed
WP:CORP uncontroversially and exhibits crystal-ballism about the future prospects of the company. - Politepunk 16:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per my nomination. - Politepunk 16:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most of the articles facts are verifyable on the link given at the bottom. rather than deleting the entire article, the article should be edited so that the few facts that are unverifyable are no longer there.Barcode 17:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please read Wikipedia's
policy on verifiability, which requires independent, third party soures to verify information cited in articles. The Moosehead studios site does not count as an indepenedent source verifying an article about Moosehead studios, I'm afraid. Gwernol
18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Clearly non-notable movie "studio". The linked page makes it clear that the article on Wikipedia is there for the purpose of driving traffic to their site: Wikipedia is
not for advertising your venture. Gwernol
18:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Purdue Exponent has an article on the studios for November 14, 2005. It is not online. is there a way i can still cite this article.Barcode 19:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But this studio is
non-notable Delete--E ivind ^t ^@^c 21:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment its in a local newspaper that reaches over 30,000 Purdue Students, not to mention faculty, and employees of the Purdue University so it has local notability.Barcode 23:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting a mention in a 19,000-circulation (not 30,000) student newspaper is not even close to major media coverage. --Calton | Talk 02:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Google search on "Moosehead Studios" brings up only *six* returns, four from Wikipedia. Their own website doesn't show up on Google yet. "Moosehead Films" brings up *no* returns at all. No films on IMDB. Textbook definition of non-notable. MikeWazowski 02:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pr nomination, and for failing
WP:CORP. --Calton | Talk 02:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 17:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Events in Toronto

Event calendar, not suitable for an encyclopedia--Zxcvbnm 17:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mention annual at Toronto. --Ton e 19:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Wikipedia is not an
alternative weekly. Haikupoet 02:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Haikupoet. Well said. --Lockley 22:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 17:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Russian women

Okay, I wavered on this one for a while before bringing it here. I'm not sure if there should be a real article with this title or not, but this looks like someone's midterm paper for a middle school social studies class. --
Bachrach44 17:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as original research. The external link supplied only seems marginally related, though I could be wrong as it's not in English. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I saw this and wavered as well. In the end, I just deleted some links that were Russian Mail order bride links. Seems like this was intended to be an advert for an agency. After another look I wonder why I wavered. Montco 18:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not assert notability,
Danny Lilithborne 20:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I think some of the "Russian women today" section could be rewritten and smerged into
master ka 07:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep topic of the article is fine, needs referencing though. Merge the Russian women today bit into Mail-order bride and cleanup the rest. Ans e ll 06:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Kbh3^rd talk 21:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 17:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Shafilea Ahmed

Delete. Clearly violates
WP:NPOV at the moment. I wondered about tagging it {{nn-bio}}, but I decided she wasn't quite non-notable. It could possibly be cleaned up if anyone's volunteering, but it would mean starting from scratch. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or cleanup significantly. Kukini 18:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 17:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Mtrx.net

Fails
WP:WEB only 10 google hits. Alexa ranking, no data. Bige1977 17:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete. The article itself admits that the site "was released to the public in April 2006". Wikipedia is not for establishing notability. — TKD::Talk 17:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Kukini 18:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nowhere near
WP:WEB. --Hetar 20:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. FreplySpang (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 17:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Worwis

Invalid speedy. But this is a minor web site. Article seems to be made to promote it. Fails
WP:WEB in current form. So, while opposing speedy, I support deletion. Rob 17:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Response:
Although the article found by searching 'worwis' is in reference to a blog, it's deletion will not in any way benefit the primary aim of WikipediA.
As mentioned is the article, the sole aim of the blog is to benefit humanity, "whatever culture, race or religion".
I don't think it's a valid point if it's a "minor" website or not. It has a unique purpose and it's contents is different to that of any other article on Wikipedia. The level of uniqueness is such that it should be taken note of and assured it's small space on Wikipedia, as oppose to bieng deleted.
Thankyou
StriveR

Delete, per nom, unless updated to respond to WP:WEB issue. Kukini

Delete - per
WP:WEB
.

Delete - not notable, and obviously not well written (although this is not a deleting factor). There is not much information in the article that benefits Wikipedia. > Iridescence < ^( talk )_{( contrib )} 00:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kukini, what do you mean by "per nom", and also by this "unless updated to respond to WP:WEB issue"?
Thankyou
StriveR

Hi StriveR. "per nom" just means he agrees with the nominator's reasoning for deletion (e.g. me).
WP:WEB is a guideline for inclusion, which you need to read. Basically, what you need is to identify a number of reliable sources, who have written in depth, about the web site. You need to show that more people, then you, and the users, are interested in it. We need information about the site, that doesn't come from the site. Most web sites, don't meeet this requirement, and can't be listed on Wikipedia. It's probably best to use other places, besides Wikipedia, to list your web site. We don't include web sites based on how good they are. We write about web sites that are widely deemed "notable", which few are. Probably a tiny fraction of a percent of all web sites, could every be listed on Wikipedia. So, while you could try improving the article, there's no guarentee you're work wouldn't be lost. --Rob 18:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Only 26 google hits + no assertion of notability. --Hetar 18:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello
Thanks for help Thivierr and Kukini. I doubt many people have written their interest in depth or the like, but for me 26 google hits is quite high :-P. Anyway, please visit the site yourselves so that you may benefit atleast.
Thanks again
StriveR

Delete StriveR, 26 hits is pretty far from high. The site doesn't appear to have much traffic and the article doesn't outline any level of notability. IrishGuy 21:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IrishGuy
I say 26 hits is high because I expected one if any. The people here may delete the article, but hopefully you can benefit from the website. All I wanted to do was to spread it and benefit people, but anyway hopefully different chances to come if this website isn't going to be much help.
StriveR

Delete Not notable enough. Deletion doesm't mean it isn't a good idea, just that it hasn't achieved enough attention to merit a place in an encyclopedia. Hawkestone 01:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Where on Wikiepdia does it say you should use Wikiepdia to advertise your company, striver?

How can it be "the sum of human knowledge" if you don't let people contribute such things? The blog itself was made for the sole aim to benefit as many as possible, so whats wrong with providing information about it's roots and the like?
Earlier today I ate a bowl of cereal. It was corn Chex. Up until me writing this...I was the only person in existence with this knowledge. Should that have an article as well? You know, for the "sum of human knowledge"? Not everything can, or should, be included in Wikipedia. IrishGuy 16:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you did shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Thats because it has no aim to benefit people and is of no benefit anyway. The worwis blog however has hand-picked sayings of the widely known early leaders of Islam - but religious material has been filtered by myself so only the sayings which all can benefit from have a place on the blog. Take this for example: Imam Ali [AS] said: "Silence is the best reply to a fool." and "Be like the flower that gives its fragrance even to the hand that crushes it". Now I think thats worth a space on Wikiepdia.
Whoever deletes the article will put theirselves and others at loss from these beautiful sayings. Why don't you visit it now, because the point is that people like you benefit? br
StriveR 16:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hate to break it to you, but a website filled with quotes that has very little traffic just plain isn't notable. Your aims with your site are completely beside the point. There are very notable sites that have no desire to educate or enrich people...but they are still notable. Your site isn't. IrishGuy 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the sites rules it isn't notable but I think it should because of it's contents [but that's not the point here anyway]. I would of thought a different type of article would be nice to widen the and enrich the variety availible. But it is good, even if it is not set out and designed well, because it is purely words of wisdom. Anyone here can just go to it, be it only two or three people of whatever amount so you can be at an advantage, if you know what I mean.
Just take about three minutes browsing and reading abit Irishguy; I recommend you scroll down and read abit on the sixth blog down on the homepage [spaces.msn.com/worwis]. I'd just like to know what you think and your opinions if you don't mind.
Thankyou StriveR 18:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:WEB --mtz206 18:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica)  (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy's tavern

Prod was removed, so I'm sending this to AfD. The article makes no assertion of notability; Google only returns 114 hits [17]. --Alan Au 17:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peggys tavern. --Alan Au 17:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the other AfD discussion. Gwernol 17:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per nom and the other discussion. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article is important to Drake University students, and thus holds relevant for them. Peggy's is a student staple at Drake. If other users don't like the article, they can feel free to edit it, but it's deletion is unnecessary. There are many articles about the Power Rangers that hold no relevance to anyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glynnmania (talk • contribs)
Comment. Although a Google test is by no means a definitive measure of notability, it's interesting to point out that a search for "Power Rangers" returns 6.8 million results [18], while a search for "Peggy's Tavern" returns 118 results [19]. --Alan Au 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, if this article is kept, then Drink (arguably the most popular nightclub in the area) and other Des Moines-area bars -- not to mention millions of neighborhood bars around the world -- could end up having their own articles. I drive by Peggy's every day on my way to work, and I'm aware of its popularity during the Drake Relays, but this article may be more suitable for a travel guide than an encyclopedia. --Iowahwyman 00:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:CORP. Vegaswikian 21:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 17:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Cocktail napkin science

Was tagged a speedy, but I couldn't quite identify a speedy criteria to put it under. Also, I've heard of this concept before, perhaps not under the name "Cocktail napkin science", but it's possible that this is a fairly well-known concept. "Cocktail napkin science" itself yields only 4 Google hits, but it could be under another name. Thoughts? No vote yet.-- F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 18:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creator of this page has tried to add a reference to it from the Peak oil page to disparage genuine science. At most it should be an alternate title for "back of an envelope" page which by the authors own admission was the original term and is in fact the more commonly used despite his affection for cocktail napkins. The creator's biography also states legal entanglements that would be affected by this article. The content of the article is also questionable as point of view. Carbonate 01:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Carbonate - you're free to criticise within reason - but this legal thing you mention - is that an inebriated rant - or if not what does it mean? As the "creator" I should hope I knew of any legal matters related to
FUD - there is not a wit of hard science referenced in the entire piece to support even one of the 4 main tenants, the best we have is a scrap of paper scrawled upon by the great one. It's poor science, poor economics - classic Cocktail napkin science. Benjamin Gatti 02:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think it is ranting to draw attention to items mentioned on your own user page and if you are involved in some arbitration, it needs to be known by others if fair assessments are to be made. I will admit that I did not check the source of the comments on your user page and if they are inaccurate I apologize for bringing them to light here and suggest you make corrections. As to your references on the peak oil page, you should describe what is lacking in any of Hubbert's published works there rather than create a new page that says nothing relevant and linking to it. You clearly have not read much of the reference material on the peak oil page and I would direct you an easily obtained copy "Twilight in the Desert" by Matthew Simmons who references and digests thousands of papers from the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Carbonate 09:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that even if I were an axe-murderer passing caesarean-encrypted edits through from exile in Bahrain - it would have little to do with the subject of science and whether or not some science really isn't science after the Galilean/Newtonian tradition of empirical and repeatable first-person observation - Indeed, you, my gentle friend, whether you acknowledge it or not, are a product of the enlightenment, and if you had any idea of the personal lives of the icons under whose intellectual umbrella you, and I both take shelter, you might be tempted to run rabidly back into the rain. I suggest politely that it really is inappropriate to rant against a position by attacking the messenger - of which I suggest, you know only a fractional portion of the precious little there is to know. While I am active in the legal sphere, my legal interests have to do with eliminating predatory advertising on public property and nothing whatsoever to do with Peak Oil (which could hardly get into court - there being no evidence on which to base a claim). Moreover, I believe that I did discuss my concerns re Peak Oil as so many have, and my observation is that one point of view has been permitted to dominate the article at the expense of the reader. While I am as concerned as the next about the humanitarian issues surrounding energy, I try not to allow my zeal to confuse the line between belief and science. Nor the line between what is fact and what is
WP:NCB Benjamin Gatti 21:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
Danny Lilithborne 21:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I have a degree in physics and worked as an engineer until I retired, and I do not recall ever hearing this term. pstudier 22:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's presumably a derivitive of Fermi's "
Back of the Envelope Calculations". Benjamin Gatti 01:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Could be interesting if someone could name a scientific theory that actually began on a cocktail napkin or something similar, but I can only think of references on shows like The Simpsons and a Dave Barry article that said supply-side economics became popular after someone held a cocktail napkin with some other theory sideways. --Joelmills 22:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps from this book? [20] Benjamin Gatti 01:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that Napkin and Envelope are exchangeable terms, with Napkin being the modern equivalent of the older Envelope, and that the variation of the phrase from Back of Envelope, Back of Napkin, Calculation, Physics etc are abundant with at least two books combining envelope or napkin with physics or science. True, these variations are not stable and singular within the language; however in all their variety they share the common meaning of a rough estimation of some scientific conjecture. (Bias Declared) Benjamin Gatti 23:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment Perhaps it makes sense to merge into
Cargo cult science is important, and I see evidence that Fermi's Napkin is being merged with Feynman's cult to accurately describe that branch of pseudo-science which achieves social importance prior to rigorous experimentation. Benjamin Gatti 02:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or Merge. Not sure it's notable enough on its own to justify an entire article. I'd keep it all under one title and make it clear that it's also known as A, B and C. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica)  (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.a.'s lounge

Non notable bar. Rory0 96_(block) 18:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Szvest 18:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Delete per nom. Montco 18:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica)  (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shøp

A whole article about a fictional shop that has been mentioned once i one single episode on The Simpsons seemes to much. --Maitch 18:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Maitch 18:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as well as being fancruft. It's one thing if a place appears regularly (or at least is recurring) on the show... it's another when it appears once and then is never seen again in further episodes. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrmpf... As a Swede, I take offense by the claim that this is a fictional Danish chain. Despite the Ø, the Shøp store in the episode in question (Eight Misbehavin') is obviously intended as a parody of IKEA. I think the exterior seen at the beginning of the episode was even blue and yellow. Redirect to IKEA. u p p l a n d 19:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they did actually say a Danish store in the episode and as far as I remember it wasn't a furniture shop, so I wouldn't redirect to IKEA. --Maitch 19:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has potential, someone needs to edit it, and place a "stub" Wikitag onto it. EZZIE 19:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A one note joke that can be mentioned in the relevant episode guide. Redirect if necessary. Gamaliel 19:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dælete Cruftalicious, maybe merge with List of Simpsons Stores & Signs. E ivind ^t ^@^c 20:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which will also be deleted. Just delete them all as Simpsoncruft.
Danny Lilithborne 21:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete though any more simpsons articles and a group deletion ought to be proposed Robdurbar 21:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This fictitious "shop" has absolutely no context outside of the single episode in which it was (briefly and not-really-notably) used. I could see redirecting to Eight Misbehavin', but I'm really having a hard time figuring out when someone would actually search for or link to an article by this title. Wikipedia doesn't need a stub about every single unremarkable fictitious location, from the Simpsons or otherwise. -- Krash (Talk) 22:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smashy. Cruftavio Maximo. Herostratus 06:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's Swedish, not Danish, and it's a parody of IKEA, and the "article" is a predicate nominative substub that qualifies as a CSD. Delete, and then delete the ground it was made on. Geogre 13:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is Danish. That is what they say in the episode. Swedish doens't even use the letter Ø. If it were Swedish the joke should have been "Shöp". --Maitch 13:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but make it a redirect to Eight Misbehavin', the episode where it was taken from. (Having said that, it's perhaps a little pointless, as no pages on the mainspace link to this page.) Nuge talk 16:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pointless Simpsons cruft per Krash. --Lockley 22:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep (aeropagitica)  (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KKWK

Non notable -- Szvest 18:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Delete it fails to establish any notability (and context). E ivind ^t ^@^c 20:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- rewritten for context. Duly licensed broadcast station in the state of Missouri. Haikupoet 03:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Haikupoet. --KHill-LTown 05:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --
MaNeMeBasat 07:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep; the current AFD precedent favours keeping all duly licensed radio stations. Bearcat 07:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Bearcat. Amalas 18:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - author request. -- RHaworth 19:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capital punishment/With wrongful killing rate

It's a fork of Capital punishment, created after a content debate. Eixo 18:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Author requested speedy deletion - I just created this, and I agree there is a better way to accomplish the same ends. --James S. 18:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 17:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Why new manditory security measures are necessary

Delete: This article is a letter/proposal that is pure
OR and riddled with POV. --Hetar 18:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Heycos 18:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly an editorial. Wickethewok 18:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 100% Unencyclopedic. Bige1977 18:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. (By the way, this had apparently been on PROD when the AfD was placed, I have removed the PROD as it is on AfD. This is not a contestation.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, Soapbox, and title misspelled to boot. Fan1967 19:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Soapbox and
original research. —ERcheck @ 20:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for reasons self-evident.
Danny Lilithborne 21:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete.
master ka 07:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Detain, hold incommunicado, torture, deny due process, and delete, per
WP:NPOV. Barno 18:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy (CSD A7). – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC) This article is about a non-notable gang and the only link on Google for it appears to be to Wikipedia. ([21]). Its main editors only other contributions are to vanity articles, this page and to gangs. T.A Stevenson 18:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC) - *Note on the talk page User:69.248.87.242 left an unsigned comment reading http://ebs.gmnews.com/news/2006/0413/Front_page/024.html It's not a fake gang. T.A Stevenson 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- *Delete- Non-notable gang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotwiki (talk • contribs)

- * Delete. They may be a real gang according to the article, but that's the only source we have on their existance and structure. Non-notable. --Doug (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- *Comment It appears there's some widespread vandalism of this article from several different IPs. If this article is deleted, it should be watched to prevent re-creation. Otherwise, it needs to be protected or watched closely. --Doug (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- *Keep- Hey, members have been arrested as being part of the gang- there were 11 people i the gang charged with misorderly conduct, all under E9F.. its real, and stupid.. $.$. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmbfan5804 (talk • contribs)

- *Delete. nn --Strothra 02:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- *Delete - Although they (and their rival gang mentioned) fit the definition of "gang", it's really just a bunch of bored middle-class suburban kids emulating that lifestyle because there's nothing better to do. Really, it's a rather boring little New Jersey town full of spoiled kids and clueless parents. In short, this isn't notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.160.137 (talk • contribs)
- *Delete nn TigerShark 12:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- *Keepi go to this school & i have seen the vandalism & they wear black & greean their "gang colors" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.129.19 (talk • contribs)
- *Delete I also go to the same school as them. While the gang DOES exist and does do all this vandalism, they weren't responsible for the shooting at the mall. Some kid who they confronted had a gun and shot the ground, not them. I hardly consider that a shooting. Delete this, it's not worth being up here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.77.61 (talk • contribs)

Keep This gang while quite silly has become quite a problem here in East Brunswick and is indeed notable. --GorillazFanAdam 00:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica)  (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Los Angeles power outage

First nomination
California electricity crisis; this was a human error, leading to a minor power outage. The fact that the article has to explicitly exclude Al-Qaeda is telling in itself. Put simply, this is an entirely non-notable power outage; and even then, power outages themselves are rarely notable.Batmanand | Talk 18:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete - it is really not very significant but I don't know how recognized it was in 2005. --Ton e 19:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMHO if this had happened (and it has) somewhere not in Soutern Cali or North Eastern US it would have been deleted right away. Very trivial. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 19:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I doubt people in the affected areas remember this, and I seriously doubt that the local TV news will be doing anniversary retrospectives, no matter how slow news is that day. --Calton | Talk 20:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. First AfD failed due to recentism of creator and nominator. -R. S. Shaw 23:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party☀ 02:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titicaco

Not sure if it is worthy. Better than to be speed'ed -- Szvest 19:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Delete - advertisement for something or other. Defo not encyclopedic. Wickethewok 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, blatant ad. Haikupoet 03:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party☀ 02:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Blakley

Non notable -- Szvest 19:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Delete: Non notable and the article only have one sentence.--hottie 19:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per
Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica)  (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy hand

Article is nn coinage. No relevant Google hits except wikipedia and mirrors. mholland 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Funny but useless--hottie 19:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nonsense, neologism, made up cruft. --light darkness^(talk) 20:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Made up in (a very good) school one day. --Lockley 22:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as CSD A6 (Attack page) by TigerShark. --light darkness^(talk) 19:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Sabino

Non-notable biography with a smell of attack. Speedy deletion contested (five times...) Speedy delete as db-bio + db-attack. Weregerbil 19:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The creator of the page hasn't "contested" the speedy deletion properly, just removed the speedy deletion tag without providing any kind of explanation. The page is still just an attack page on a non-notable person. --Metropolitan90 19:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica)  (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dermac empire

Delete- Non-notable faction of a non-notable game. Miguel Cervantes 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Batmanand | Talk 19:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable hottie 19:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica)  (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical 4

WP:NOT light darkness^{(Lightdarkness)} 19:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete,
WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Shanel 19:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 21:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and next week's lottery numbers are... --E ivind ^t ^@^c 21:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete holy crap! I didn't even know they already put up a page for part 4. Mad Jack O'Lantern 22:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SorryGuy 00:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica)  (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moola.com

Complete spam. Rory0 96_(block) 19:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bige1977 20:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spam. -- Szvest 20:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and protect: This article has already been deleted twice. Nothing more than a spamvertisement for a nn website. --Hetar 20:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 15:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ronald MacDonald (composer)

Vanity (see Ronaldm (talk · contribs) and Ronkymac (talk · contribs)). No assertion of notability that's backed up with an independent source. Gamaliel 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanity.
talk • contribs) 20:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom as non-notable vanity bio. --Lockley 22:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Already deleted by Elf-friend. (aeropagitica)  (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Habbowood

Disputed PROD. Seems to be an advertising gimmick promoting
talk • contribs) 20:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica)  (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-instrumental songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics

Previous nominations:
October 2004, October 2005

I'd like to nominate this for deletion for several reasons:

The list is so long that both Firefox 1.0 and latest IE hang for a long time while trying to display the page (on a 3GHz PC with 1GB RAM). This is extremely annoying and makes Wikipedia appear unprofessional.

If this was addressed by splitting the page into many smaller lists by letter, it becomes even harder to maintain. If this AFD fails I think it should be split in that way, though, to at least address the browser issue.

There is very little encyclopedic value to this article.

It is
original research
. I'm aware of the arguments that the entries are easily verified, but show me another list on the subject and I'll accept it's not OR.

It is unknown how many songs are actually missing that should be included.

I find it hard to see situations where this would be useful.

I'm not a deletionist or inclusionists. I don't like such labels and I don't think they have any place on Wikipedia. But I do think that this article is plain silly. I acknowledge that people have put a fair amount into compiling this list, but frankly this fact does not make the article any more useful.
TH 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This nom was orphaned so I am now listing it properly. --W.marsh 20:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Recommendations"

Delete - for reasons stated above TH 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listcruft. Huge and boring, list of songs with a non-notable characteristic. Phr 14:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --TonySt 14:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many articles on Wikipedia in which I have no interest. That doesn't mean they should be deleted. Mosts lists are incomplete, and it's not ideologically unsound for this to be the same (if it were a 'serious' topic, then the incompletedness would be an issue). Its size suggests that there are sufficient people interested in it. If it is unmanagable, then split it up. If you feel you wouldn't like to attempt that, then leave it to someone else. It has already survived twice: accept consensus. The JPS 15:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a data mining operation. There are an infinite number of ways we could divide up the sum total of all songs ever written - how about the songs whose titles do appear in the lyrics, the songs whose titles appear N times in the lyrics, etc? Obviously we can't have them all, so we have to just pick a few. But who decides which are the most important ways to divide up and list songs by arbitrary criteria? I think Wikimedia projects should provide the raw material for researchers to create their own custom lists along these lines, but leave the original research to the researchers. A wiki-datamining project would be interesting, come to think of it... but this isn't the place for it. flowersofnight (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - I voted for it previously as unmanageable, and it has since expanded. On the face of it, a good list, but the more you think of it, the less practical. --MacRusgail 18:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The JPS. Moreover, why does the phrase "original research" pop up every single time a list is NfD? Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be carbon copies of existing works of literature, either in content or in concept. And anyway, it doesn't take much research to discover that a given song doesn't contain the title in its lyrics. -- Smjg 19:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the OR claim is that the characteristic of being a song whose title does not appear in its lyrics is somehow notable. That claim could be established by citing, say, a journal article that discussed such songs. Seeing whether a particular song fits the description is not OR. Phr 01:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per flowersofnight. --
torritorri 20:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete considering there are lists of far less relevance which get kept, I'm not sure what the logic is behind deleting this one, but given that it meets the standards, I must agree.
Danny Lilithborne 20:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, useless listcruft.
talk • contribs) 20:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per most everybody above. Listcruft, absolutely unmanageable, barely loadable. Any list this long (164 KB) is too large to be useful for anything. Fan1967 21:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. garbage list (Notorious4life 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Entirely too broad a list: it's not quite as bad as a "List of songs", but it's too large a set to be useful. --Carnildo 21:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Ton e 21:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — artificial, pointless, and unwieldy list. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Serves no purpose, arbitrary. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 22:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Been proposed for deletion at least twice before, in
October 2004 and October 2005; article obviously was kept both times, and no new grounds have been produced, other than that people have continued to expand the list. Smerdis of Tlön 22:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment This list's endless expansion is grounds for removal in its own right: the defining characteristic for inclusion stops being notable. See
WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See also WP:NBD about revisiting old decisions if it looks like circumstances may have changed. Phr 01:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete- It's becoming increasingly obvious that this list is simply too huge to perform any useful purpose. The El Reyko 22:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A dmrb♉ltz ( T | I | E ) 22:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per flowersofnight, but I have to add that
WP:OR does not apply, because even though this list may be a new synthesis of published works, it does not advance any new position or interpretation. --Joelmills 23:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, listcruft. --kingboyk 00:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1. My computer circa '99 has no problem with it. 2. I'm pretty sure song titles don't change often, so how is that harder? 3. Define encyclopedic value... try (I know it when I see it is not a valid answer). 4. Not OR as anyone with ears can verify it. 5 & 6. not valid reasons. Kotepho 01:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Define encyclopedic value. That an encyclopedia user will look for this categorization of information. --Calton | Talk 02:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone cared enough to make this list and people think Wikipedia is a lot of things it is not. I don't find it impossible that someone would look for this. Kotepho 02:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arbitrary-list cruft. --Calton | Talk 02:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the following reasons.

Everyone is saying this list is arbitrary, however, isn't much of the less "official" stuff on Wikipedia the same? For example, many songs by many bands somehow merit their own encyclopedic entry, with seemingly no "encyclopedic value" to back them up. I cite The Final Cut and Smile Like You Mean It, among others. On a similar note, I will cite 1972, and all of the year entries, which were seemingly created just for the hell of adding an entry that tells us what happened in that year. Arbitrarily done.

In reference to 1972 and the years, as mentioned above, these are similar lists. Extremely long, ridiculous to read in one sitting anyway, and serving no purpose, just as people say about this list.

Also on the same note, articles on dates, such as January 10 are the same ridiculous pointlessness.

Who can feasibly manage any large article? If you are going to be on that bandwagon, who can manage an article such as Number, which is large, and yet still there. And it is also split up, and yet it's there.

In conclusion, I just don't get deleting the article. Especially, as per above, if the consensus has kept it on for two times already.--Ljlego 02:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To address Ljlego's points:

1) Saying "We have an article on Crappy topic A, therefore Crappy topic B is fine" is not good enough. Digging up any old junk on Wikipedia and using it as an excuse to let more rubbish in does not do the 'pedia any good. Perhaps "Crappy topic A" should not be there either, just nobody's got around to deleting it yet.

2,3) If you're looking for examples of long, boring lists to illustrate your point, you could not have made a worse choice than the year and date entries. They're featured on the main page, occasioanlly quoted in newspapers, and are clearly interesting.

4) The Number article is large, but it's of a very high standard and is well maintained. It's also not likely to get much bigger. The song list is extremely large, it's just a dumping ground for essentially identical info, and there's no indication that its growth is slowing. And the bigger it gets the less meaningful the contents. The El Reyko 03:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per flowersofnight. I'll go as far as songs with titles not in the lyrics, but this is getting silly. No doubt people would like to make such lists, but there are places other than Wikipedia on the Internet. -- Mithent 03:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. This *is* a list of songs with titles not in the lyrics. It would be kind of pointless to include instrumental songs in the list, as they do not have lyrics and all of them would qualify. Kotepho 16:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make Category - turn it into a category. -
talk) 05:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Make category per Zappa.jake. Hopelessly incomplete lists of non-notable phenomena are useless but as a category it will at least provide a chance to browse the most notable songs that fit this criterion. GT 06:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just completely fail to understand why this is useful. Comparing year pages to this is ridiculous... People actually care and frequently look up years, and those pages are well done. I doubt very many people would be so impassioned about this if it weren't on AfD...
masterka 07:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and no category. Useless listcruft. RexNL 16:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: How or why is this list useful in any way? I have not yet heard a single good argument in support of it. Certain trivia can be of interest (even useful) but these aren't. The list of arguments to delete it is endless (see above). --Steerpike 21:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As a music lover and fanatic, this is just the type of random information I come to Wikipedia for. It offers tremendous value for people who organize and collect music. This is what makes Wikipedia so powerful. Where else could we find a list like this? Absolutely nowhere. This article needs to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.168.177 (talk • contribs)

Delete and don't categorize per above. —jiy (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as non-sense and attack. --Nlu (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman chinese

This seems to be a page for the author to express his opinion and not an encyclopedic article. InvisibleK 20:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons self-evident.
Danny Lilithborne 21:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Not an encyclopedia article, and is totally unsalvageable. Lets say czesc to this article. --
Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 22:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What on earth...? As above Trebor 22:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline Speedy G1 as complete nonsense. Kuru ^talk 03:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
masterka 07:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 15:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Hawaii Roster

Delete. This is a list of non-notable wrestlers from a non-notable, independent wrestling federation. It was moved to this page from Hawaii Championship Wrestling Roster to "keep from getting deleted" as the creator of the article stated in the history section of this page— after a speedy deletion tag was repeatedly removed by the creator. The editor of the article has failed to assert its importance, even after being warned that the article could be deleted. (Я не имею—никакой жизни 16:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per the above. --
Darth Deskana (Darth Talk) 20:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm somewhat ambivalent about it. If they can provide information and people show interest, then it should stay. As is, however, I would reccommend it for deletion as per the guidelines for vanity articles. Wizardry Dragon 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this personally, but you sound ignorant and stereo-type "white", when you say that this is a list of non-notable wrestlers from a non-notable wrestling federation. Non-notable by American and Western standards? Isn't this Wikipedia site for global viewing? The importance of the article was asserted by the act of simply moving it in order to protect it.There are people who genuinely want to know what is going on in the Pacific. It is very unfortunate that this article had to be moved to keep from becoming a victim of "speedy deletion" in the first place. It should go back to the original HAWAI'I CHAMPIONSHIP WRESTLING ROSTER page if WIKI will allow it. Also, what "specifically" is the problem according to the guidelines for vanity articles? I like the message in the article and wondered why you are having a problem with it.WrestlinghawaiiGhia (Wrestling Hawaii) 13:33, 18 April 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 redirect to
Mailer Diablo 15:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

DPM Mellon

Contested PROD. No evidence that the company meets the guidelines at
talk • contribs
) 20:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC) *Delete as the initiator of the PROD. I had decided to leave it for a few days to see if anything got added; it hasn't, and as such delete as no assertion of notability. ~~Batmanand | Talk 20:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)~~Redirect as per Montco. Batmanand | Talk 21:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to
Mellon Financial Corporation which is its parent company.Montco 21:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, very long discussion but the vast majority of opinions are for inclusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agnostic atheism

~~Neologism~~. Delete per
WP:NOR. -- noosphere 20:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep there is
weak agnostic and well, this another of a long list. Quick googling finds enough usage and one source and a handful of books. Kotepho 01:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Just because there are articles on other terms qualifying the words "atheist" and "agnostic" doesn't mean "agnostic atheism" is anything more than a neologism. (There might be grounds for AfDing those other articles for similar reasons, by the way). Second, the first link you cite states "agnostic atheism" is synonymous with "weak atheism", which would be grounds for merging the two articles. Looking through the sources on your second link shows that there is no consistent usage of this term. It really does seem like a neologism that people make up to fit whatever theory they seem to be pursuing at the time. If the article itself was better sourced as to where they got their information from I'd have less issues with it, but as it stands it's still
original research. -- noosphere 02:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Then pick some definitions (out of a hat for all I care) and cite them.
WP:OR problem solved. Kotepho 03:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
That's assuming there's anything notable worth citing. -- noosphere 06:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into
Weak atheism. The article claims a distinction on the basis of "beliefs" vs. "knowledge (or any claim of knowledge)", which are identical when it comes to the supernatural. GT 06:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment How can any of this be merged since it's all original research? Any original research added to the
WP:NOR. -- noosphere 06:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment My suggestion would be to copy the article text to
Talk:Weak atheism with an invitation to add some or all of the information if/when any valid sources for it are located. GT 08:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I think that's reasonable. -- noosphere 08:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, from [22]: "agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism." --
t
19:09z
Comment Their definition of agnostic atheism is identical to
Weak atheism. Hence, merge them. GT 22:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Jeandré, your point seems to be that the term "agnostic atheism" is used outside Wikipedia. I am aware of this. However, it still seems to be a neologism for several reasons. First, it's not in any dictionary I'm aware of (apart from online dictionaries that use Wikipedia as their source). Second, the outside sources that do use the term "agnostic atheism" do not say where they got it, so that makes me suspect they just coined it; a suspicion that is confirmed by the relatively few hits this term gets. Searching google for "atheism -wikipedia" returns over 9 million hits, "agnosticism -wikipedia" returns almost 2.5 million hits, while ""agnostic atheism" -wikipedia" returns only about 12 thousand hits. Third, the term is used inconsistently: in this article one of the doctrines of "agnostic atheism" is supposedly that "knowledge of the existence and nonexistence of deities is irrelevant or unimportant" while the article you quote says nothing of the sort. Finally, and most importantly, this article is completely unsourced. Where did they get these definitions? Beats me, because there isn't a single reference. As such, it violates
WP:NOR and should be deleted accordingly (though copying it to the "weak atheism" talk page before deletion is also acceptable). -- noosphere 02:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This is an established term which appeared in print at least 25 years ago and is widely used together with weak and strong atheism. As regards its Google standing, I note that
strong atheism returns 20,100; these aren't exactly Britney-levels of interest but that doesn't make them invalid. If the article is poor, the solution is to improve it, not delete it. Vashti 19:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I believe "weak atheism" and "strong atheism" are also neologisms, but let's take one neologism at a time. Anyway, whether or not this particular neologism has appeared in print "at least 25 years ago" (can you provide a reference for that, by the way?), the fact is that that says nothing about this article's violation of
WP:NOR. If at some point someone creates an article on this topic that does not violate Wikipedia policy then there'll be no reason to delete it. Until then... -- noosphere 00:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Sure. Sue Townsend had her character Adrian Mole describe himself as an "agnostic atheist" in 1982, in "The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole". The first Google groups hit for "agnostic atheism" is this alt.atheism post from 1991 - they've been discussing "agnostic atheism" for *fifteen years*. Now those are not valid sources in themselves, but combined with the detailed outside sources you dismissed above, which do use and define the term, it certainly starts to look less and less like a neologism. Vashti 19:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's still original research, as there are no cited source, and therefore should be deleted as per
WP:NOR. And there's still no consitent use of the term that the article reflects as I discussed above in my response to Jeandré. -- noosphere 01:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Referring you to Kotepho below. Vashti 08:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...We might as well define "agnostic" while we're at it, since there is a similar division of usage. I call a "soft agnostic" one who says: "I don't know whether there is a God or not." A "hard agnostic" is one who says: "The proposition `There is a God' is undecidable." Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899), the great 19th-century freethought orator, took the hard agnostic position when he said: "The Agnostic does not simply say, `I do not know.' He goes another step and says with great emphasis that you do not know." George H. Smith uses the term "agnostic atheist" for this position. He uses the term "agnostic theist" for a person who "believes in the existence of god, but maintains that the nature of god is unknowable."
Yet another position, taken by Alfred Jules Ayer (author of LANGUAGE, TRUTH AND LOGIC, copyright 1936) and many skeptics, is: "The statement `There is a God' doesn't make sense, since the term `God' is undefined or incoherent." Such people do not call themselves agnostics, since they clarify the definition of the hard agnostic given above by expanding it to "The proposition `There is a God' is significant and it is neither true nor false: it is undecidable."...

Title: Atheism 101 Source: Truth Seeker Author: William B. Lindley Publication Date: 1994 Page Number: 33-34 Database: SIRS Renaissance Service: SIRS Knowledge Source <http://www.sirs.com>
Atheism: A Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin
Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith
The Encyclopedia of Unbelief by Dr. Gordon Stein
Kotepho 02:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also A Short History of Freethought by J.M. Robertson, published in 1915, and quoting an earlier work on Buddhism: "Agnostic atheism ... is the characteristic of his [Buddha's] system of philosophy." So we have established prior use and published works more than ten years old that define the term in the same way the article does. There's no way this is a neologism. Vashti 08:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But since the article lacks references supporting its claims as to what agnostic atheism means it still qualifies for deletion under
WP:NOR. -- noosphere 20:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not OR, it's unsourced, like thousands of other articles. It certainly isn't unverifiable. Quoting
WP:V says: "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}.". Personally, I'd list it for (a lot of) cleanup. Vashti 21:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Answering this to your repeated comment below... -- noosphere 08:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps this might have been better as a {{
prod}} candidate. David | Talk 21:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Deleting this article would certainly set a dangerous precedent for the continuity of philosophical articles since all philosophy is original "research". Using the criterion at
religiopoiesis continues to exist despite having a measly 10 results in AltaVista whereas the article agnostic atheism is under fire with 1,800 results. Boolean searches were conducted to strip results that mentioned "Wikipedia". You cannot find some terms and subjects through any search engine or in any dictionary. Knowledge of these subjects and words would necessitate access to private libraries or subscriptions to extremely expensive academic journals. Esoteric subjects are inherently noteworthy for encyclopedic inclusion. The appearance of a deficiency of information about a subject should prompt further inquiry about the subject instead of blunt opposition to the subject's inclusion.
Encarta apparently has a premium article that mentions "agnostic atheism". The content is here
and was reportedly contributed by Dr. Michael Martin, Professor of Philosophy at Boston University.

I wonder how you would fare attempting to remove content from popular religious articles, such as
WP:NOR. That would be an interesting experiment, indeed. Adraeus 11:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
You're misunderstanding my objection. Wikipedia has clear clear policies and guidelines for what makes for original research (
WP:NOR clearly states "It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly." Yet there are no cited sources. There have been sources cited in this AfD, but they are not integrated in to the article, so the specific claims of the article are not sourced. As such, it constitutes original research. -- noosphere 18:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Is there a reason you're still pushing for this article to be deleted, rather than simply adding {{unsourced}} to it, as policy suggests, and leaving it to get the serious improvement that I think we can all agree it needs? Vashti 19:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy suggests adding the unsourced tag?
WP:GD says "text that does not conform to any one of the remaining three policies [including WP:NOR], however, is usually removed from Wikipedia" -- noosphere 19:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Repeating my earlier comment:
It's not OR, it's unsourced, like thousands of other articles. It certainly isn't unverifiable. Quoting
WP:V says: "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}.". Personally, I'd list it for (a lot of) cleanup. Vashti 21:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NOR considers as original research edits that (among other things) "define new terms" or "provides new definitions of pre-existing terms". We've established that this is, after all, not a new term. However, without sources the article looks like a new definition of an existing term to me. For all I know someone did make this whole thing up. As I asked earlier, where did whoever wrote that article get his definitions? It's impossible to tell without sources. And the article is unverifiable, since there are no sources cited to verify. As for your suggestion regarding the tags, I shall add them presently. -- noosphere 08:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Just because the article is unsourced doesn't make it a fabrication! If apple pie didn't quote its sources, nobody would say that it was actually describing peach pie, just because of that. Assuming that the things in the article *are* facts, it's possible to find supporting sources which support the article and add them in. If they aren't facts, then it can be rewritten based on sources, or based on the existing material. Regardless of any of this, if the topic is valid we should improve, not delete. Sourcing unsourced claims is certainly improvement. Vashti 15:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that one can not verify the source of the statements in that article if those sources are not cited. And, as you said, unverifiability makes this article subject to deletion.
WP:CITE says "any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." -- noosphere 23:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think unverifiability means what you think it means, and your original accusations of original research and neologism have been shown to be false. You're now arguing for no other reason than to argue. Please let it go and stop trolling. —Pengo 01:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AGF please. I am neither trolling nor arguing just to argue. If I wanted to troll I wouldn't address any of the points raised here, and yet I have, and at length. If I was arguing just to argue I'd still be arguing that agnostic atheism is a neologism, but I've conceded that there's a previous history of use of that term. It has not, however, been proven that this is more than original research. For that the claims in that article would have to have citations, but they don't. And if you disagree with my understanding of unverifiability I would appreciate it if you would tell me why. Also, it's curious that you link to a wiktionary definition of unverifiability, but it doesn't exist. -- noosphere 02:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

[crazy indenting, let's start over]
But your own quotes disprove what you're saying, noosphere. "If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic" doesn't mean that an article with no sources listed can be removed, it means that an article for which no sources can be found should be removed. It's not talking about the article, it's talking about the topic, the subject itself. Like saying "we all know Tony Blair is a reptile, but the reputable sources won't print it" - there are no reputable sources for that and it doesn't merit inclusion as fact. We've provided you with several reputable sources, but this is not enough. As for "material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor, I've never thought that was about deleting articles, but about removing material from articles. Read for context. I've already shown you the recommendation to add {{unsourced}} to unsourced articles from
WP:CITE
.

"You can add sources even for material you didn't write if you use a source to verify that material. Adding citations to an article is an excellent way to contribute to Wikipedia." - this directly contradicts your claim that nobody can prove what the original author was thinking; facts don't need telepathic verification.

"Disputed text can immediately be removed entirely or moved from the article to the talk page for discussion. If the disputed text is harmless, and you simply feel a citation is appropriate, place {{fact}} (or {{citation needed}}) after the text." - again, improve, don't delete.

Where I think you may have got mixed up a little: "Unsourced criticism or negative material in the biographies of living persons should be removed immediately, and not moved to talk. - this article is not a biography of a a living person.

You're insisting on using the AfD hammer where the discussion nail is more appropriate. Vashti 04:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mere pedantry. I recently added a bibliography to the article, which satisfies your criteria. Note that article was originally split from atheism due to editorial concerns that there existed sufficient information for separation. Note the bibliography there. Also, please do not presume other editors to be unaware of the workings of Wikipedia. I guarantee you that your assumptions are incredibly incorrect. Adraeus 21:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you tell me which of my assumptions you believe is incorrect and why you believe them to be incorrect perhaps you can help me avoid similar errors in the future. -- noosphere 21:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. I did not address your complaint. You assumed I misunderstood.
Your not addressing what I said is evidence of your having misunderstood me. Since there was evidence of a misunderstanding, then I did not make an assumption but an inference from the available evidence when I stated that I believed you misunderstood me. Now, if you'd come out and told me that you were intentionally ignoring what I'd said, I'd have no reason to think you'd misunderstood when you didn't address what I said. -- noosphere 22:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. :) Adraeus 23:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. I referenced
WP:NOR
twice. You presumed I was not aware, and thus wrote concerning the existence of Wikipedia policies.
I did not presume you were unaware of them. I just referenced those policies to support my statements. -- noosphere 22:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yet you've referenced those "policies" how many times in this discussion? Did you really see a need to link those pages again? You also wrote "clear clear" as though you were lecturing. Doubling words has a literary effect. Perhaps a typo? Or perhaps intended? Either way, doubling words can be interpreted as hot-headedness. Adraeus 23:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You took exception to my doubling a word? That was an obvious typo. And if you suspected it of being a typo you could have at least asked me if it was instead of assuming it meant I was lecturing or being "hotheaded". And as to me linking those policies again... Why not? In case you haven't noticed, I always link the policies I refer to in my discourse. It's just a habit. -- noosphere 00:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Habits can be unhealthy... gambling, Wikipedia, etc. ;) Adraeus 01:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While others can be healthy... exercise. What are we to take from this? Only that you didn't like it that I linked to policies and guidelines when I referred to them, while I see absolutely nothing wrong with doing so. In fact, it may be handy for people reading this discussion to click on the link and refresh their memory of what the policy says, or match what it says against what I quoted. -- noosphere 01:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. The article references atheism and agnosticism, which are obviously parent subjects. You claimed the article had no references.
Since you are so well versed with Wikipedia perhaps you've noted that
WP:CITE says, in bold, "Note: Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources." -- noosphere 22:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
And they weren't used as sources. I said they were references, not bibliographic sources. Semantics. Adraeus 23:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they weren't sources then this article is still in violation of
WP:NOR. The claims in that article need to be properly sourced. -- noosphere 00:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The references exist. The citation is simply incomplete. The article does not violate
WP:NOR. The article simply needs more complete citation. Adraeus 01:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
They're not citations at all. They're simply a list of books at the end of the article. You've already admitted they weren't sources. -- noosphere 01:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Sources are cited in atheism from which the article was split. You claimed there were no cited sources.
This is completely irrelevant. We're talking about the "Agnostic atheism" article, not its "parents". -- noosphere 22:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article was split from atheism. The parent topics are certainly relevant. Adraeus 23:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles may be relevant to the topic, but they irrelevant as far as meeting Wikipedia policies and guidelines for this article. Please show me a single policy or guideline that says a Wikipedia article which is linked to in a given article, or from which which an article "descended" can qualify as a valid source for the article in question. -- noosphere 00:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you spend more time browsing Wikipedia than attempting to delete articles. There are many, many articles that have branched into separate articles. Adraeus 01:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I suggest you propose a policy that grants articles derived from other articles an exemption from having to adhere to Wikipedia policies. Because until such a policy exists AfD is where articles violating Wikipedia policies belong. -- noosphere 01:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5.
WP:GD
contains a statement that should be considered policy.
Well, that seems like an assumption on your part. I never claimed or implied it was a policy. It is a guideline. And, absent of any evidence produced on your part to contradict that guideline, I see no reason to contradict it. -- noosphere 22:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy suggests adding the unsourced tag? WP:GD says ...
In context, you refer to
WP:GD as policy; otherwise, you would not have prefaced the statement from WP:GD with a question of policy. Adraeus 23:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh please. That is such a stretch. The meaning of my statement was "Which policy suggests adding the unsourced tag? This guideline says..." What's wrong with that? Do I need to specify that
WP:GD is a guideline? After all, you claim know Wikipedia so well you shouldn't need to be told. -- noosphere 00:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
That's not a stretch. That's pure and simple English composition. The context of your reply was that WP:GD is policy. You may have not intended that meaning, but intent does not always reflect reality. Adraeus 01:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. The context of my reply was that I'd asked you to substantiate your point, and then provided a guideline which substantiated mine. If you took that to mean something more than I said then you're reading in to it. Anyway, this is pointless. We're not getting anywhere with this bickering. So, if you'd like to bring up some new point which we haven't already discussed please do so. I'm tired of rehashing the same points over and over again. -- noosphere 01:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. Initiating this AfD was the wrong approach to ensuring that the article contains references. You assumed, and may continue to assume, that this AfD was more necessary than the {{unsourced}} tag.
Again, I did not make an assumption, but saw that the article clearly violated
WP:NOR, which is grounds for an AfD, something almost every commentor on this AfD has ignored. They have addressed my concern about this being a neologism, but overall (though not completely) ignored the fact that the article didn't have a single citation to any of its claims. -- noosphere 22:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
You assumed that the editors would not provide sources when asked. Remember that Wikipedia only recently started requiring references. This article was created before that requirement. You immediately proceeded to an AfD instead of kindly asking for sources. Are you a deletionist? Adraeus 23:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How would you know whether I thought the editors would or would not provide sources when asked? AGF please. It doesn't matter to me when this article was created. If it violates Wikipedia policies then it's subject to deletion. -- noosphere 01:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actions speak louder than words. Adraeus 01:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typical judgmental errors resulting from either a lack of information or an unwillingness to commit a situational analysis. Marking an article for death is a serious issue. I suggest that in the future you consider this a last resort. There are more civil and appropriate methods for encouraging citation, including using the associated Talk pages and contacting individual editors using the History feature. Adraeus 22:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now who's lecturing who? Nominating an article for deletion does not violate
WP:CIVIL nor any other Wikipedia policy. -- noosphere 01:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I suggest you spend more time browsing the policies. Several policies clearly dictate that editors should be more considerate before resorting to removing content. Like you said, AGF. ;) Adraeus 01:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let it be noted that I did not remove any content from that article. -- noosphere 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now please add references within the article so we know which information came from which source. As it stands now there's no indication that those books are of any relation to the text preceding their reference. Also can you or somebody please explain to me how
Weak atheism? GT 21:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
This is no longer my concern. This AfD is now invalid. Adraeus 22:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me? The AfD hasn't been closed yet. As the self-proclaimed article creator you need to justify its presence and as far as I'm concerned that hasn't happened yet. Also I will reiterate that as the article currently stands, there is no reason for me to believe that those sources you've listed are in any way connected to the information on the page (and indeed anything more than a random sampling of the sources listed at Atheism), which as self-proclaimed article creator should most certainly be your "concern". GT 23:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Not really. Adraeus 23:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to invoke
WP:DBAD here. GT 23:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not solely responsible, or even responsible, for the article. Read wiki and collaboration.

I'm not interested in religious or philosophical articles. These are not my areas of interest.

This AfD is now invalid for the following reason: sources are cited; however, their citation may be considered incomplete. Incomplete citation is not grounds for this AfD per the specific complaint of the initiator (i.e., "... there are no cited sources. There have been sources cited in this AfD, but they are not integrated in to the article, so the specific claims of the article are not sourced. As such, it constitutes original research.")

If you want to volunteer to verify the sources — after all, that's why bibliographies exist — go ahead. Adraeus 23:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether adding a list of sources to the end of the article without any sort of indication as to the information each source provided constitutes even the initial stages of acceptable citation is a decision to be made by whoever closes this AfD. My contention is that if you consider your work to be at some sort of intermediate stopping point, that you shouldn't have bothered starting. GT 00:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you are not interested in verifying the sources. Cool. Adraeus 01:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, and you're not either. Again, why bother adding them then? They're useless. GT 01:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The person who chooses to verify those sources will find the listing useful. Again, read collaboration. Adraeus 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~You've already admitted that they aren't sources: "And they weren't used as sources. I said they were references, not bibliographic sources"[23]~~ Oops. Never mind. You were talking about the "parent" articles, not the "references". This long thread is beginning to confuse me. -- noosphere 01:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously not a neologism. —Pengo 09:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite - The Case Against God (referenced somewhere further up this page) has been around long enough for it not to be original research. However, I'm familiar with this term as a subcategory of atheism, and in particular from the book as one of the two shards of agnosticism that stand alone. The article makes it sound more distinctly separate than that. --Ted 19:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. If the article doesn't grow in six months, merge and delete. —Viriditas | Talk 09:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica)  (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Medlock

Contested PROD. Original reason given was "term as councilor is over; no links to page; no immediate prospects for public office; ex-city councilors not normally found in Wikipedia". I tend to agree and suggest we delete this article.
talk • contribs) 21:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Subject is a flash in the pan that is already fading from collective memory. Nobody's gonna remember this guy in 50 days, let alone 50 years. Tijuana Brass 18:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A has-been city councilor rapidly going back into obscurity, like thousands of others every year. Tex 23:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep (aeropagitica)  (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De Lisle Roman Catholic High School

~~This page is mostly full of nonsense about cleaners pleasuring themselves and there seems to be very little actual encyclopedic information about the school. Thus I propose deletion. --~~
~~Darth Deskana (talk page) 16:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply~~
]

please note this page has been edited and this did actually happen and thus is relevant information thank you : ) khazudum.moira —The preceding comment was added by 81.110.66.59 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the admirable defence above Keep now Trebor 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to Revision as of 20:57, February 22, 2006; then add: "De Lisle Roman Catholic High School is a school in Loughborough, Leicestershire, England." After that we have something sufficiently passible that it can be kept. Lambiam ^Talk 22:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep and expand per Lambian Jcuk 23:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added more information and two links. Hawkestone 01:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has been cleaned up to be a typical stub for a High School. We keep High Schools. There is no nonsense in it now. --Bduke 01:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has been cleaned up - meets generous standard of WP:SCHOOL. Kuru ^talk 03:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 15:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Aether and general relativity

Yes, this article has many quotes, which I don't doubt. But this compilation and comments makes it Original Research and the article has to be deleted according to our
WP:NOR policy. --Pjacobi 21:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete — To me the content looks like mostly non-neutral, personal editorial "research" that employs technical jargon and quotations from Einstein to provide an aura of credibility. It is an awkward read that doesn't really clarify anything with respect to "aether" IMO. Note that this article is linked as a "main article" from the Aether theories page. — RJH 17:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It definitely reads like non-neutral original research. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 01:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd swear I've seen this stuff before in another article article. I've asked
Objections to general relativity
obviously suffers from similar problems, and upon closer reading also proves to be wandering, repetitive, and to entirely ignore a host of equally important objections to gtr.

Here is my alternative proposal: I propose we
move this and
Objections to general relativity to Erk's user space as User:ErkDemon/Aether and general relativity and User:ErkDemon/Objections to general relativity
respectively,

leave a polite message on his talk page encouraging him to develop his thinking in this sandbox,

demand that he seek some peer review before moving anything back to article space.

I propose this because I suspect Erk is struggling to organize his thoughts; I think he's put more work into these protoessays than may appear from their inchoate state. But he does need to recognize that they are still very much at a sandbox stage, far from ready to present to the world even as essays, much less as reasonably unbiased encyclopedia articles. Also, of course, essays should go on his personal web pages, or in his user space at the very most. I do think it should be possible to write genuine encyclopedia articles on each of these topics, but I don't know whether Erk should be trying to do that himself since he seems to have rather narrow and idiosyncratic views. I also wish he understood that you can't even write an essay by quotations out of context, much less an encyclopedia article.

If the rest of you think my proposal is impractical, I'll change my vote to delete at least Aether and general relativity since I certainly don't think we can permit "articles" in such a sorry state as these to hang around indefinitely without substantial improvement. ---CH 07:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No hard objections to userfy, even it means we have to face new round of discussions in the future. Hinting about the different policy of
Wikinfo has also been tried in similiar cases. --Pjacobi 13:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree that in its current state it doesn't seem very useful, at least for me. However in principle an article on this topic could be useful, as whether there is an ether in our world is a current topic of data-driven active debate (there's the blueshift of the
metric that transforms covariantly and whether you want to call this Mach's principle or an aether is a matter of semantics or philosophy. JarahE 18:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – This seems to be an odd situation: Aether theories are of historical interest, and historical comparisons of various types of aether model would seem to be legitimate: general relativity is of interest: discussions of relativity theory often say that aether theory(ies) are known to be disproved. And yet, we have an article by Einstein (currently in print, verifiable, in paperback), declaring general relativity as being effectively a special class of aether theory.

I would have thought that the existence of this Einstein article and its "gist" was worth documenting, if only because GR people seem to have a habit of insisting that Einstein said no such thing, until they are confronted with quotes. Provide a quote, and one tends to be told that it's been taken out of context. Provide a much larger quote to make it obvious that one isn’t quoting selectively, and other objections appear. Ask the critic if they have ever actually 'read' the article that they say is being misrepresented, and you tend not to get an answer.

The idea discussed in the article 'is' idiosyncratic to modern eyes, but the argument was Einstein's, not mine. As for the idea of getting the thing peer reviewed, well, thew wiki rules say that the criteria for inclusion are about verifiability rather than correctness, and even if you think that Einstein was off his rocker at the time, you can still buy the documentary evidence of what he said at your local university bookshop.

CH: re "quotations out of context", both quotations were Einstein's one was from "Aether and the theory of relativity" lecture (1920), and the other was from "Relativity and the problem of space: The concept of space in the general theory of relativity": Both Einstein quotes were VERY much in context: if you are claiming otherwise, I suggest that you find something to back up this assertion: I don’t think that you can. I've seen the "out of context" objection used a lot in the past, speciously, as a way of objecting to something that ios both factual and verifiable, presumably in the hope that other readers might take it on trust that it 'is' out of context, without actually checking. Perhaps a better article on Einstein's argument could be written, but complaining that it includes too much of Einstein's actual words seems to be an odd thing to do, since Einstein's writing is quite efficient, and putting words in his mouth doesn't seem efficient when the actual quotes are available.

As far as Wiki editors with "bees in their bonnets" about certain issues, well, I notice C.H., that you still seem to be managing to insist, in almost every article that you comment on, that it really ought to be rewritten to be more about Mach's Principle! If I sound like a stuck record on certain topics, then so do you! Please, don't keep telling everyone else to write articles the about Mach's Principle that you want to read – do some work, write it yourself and let the rest of us get some peace! :) I keep reading on Wiki that you could write better articles on some of these subjects yourself, but that your time is too valuable ... well, perhaps for the rest of us, our time is valuable too ... so I'd suggest that in these cases perhaps if you can write the article, do, if you can't, don't. The "Oh dear, this article is very bad, I could do much better, but unfortunately I'm very busy so the person ought to do more work to bring it up to my exacting standards" bit begins to wear a bit thin after a while.

You should also note that using the vfd page for one article to suggest and discuss the possible deletion of another by the same author is probably bad practice: discussions about whether an article should be deleted should be visible to users browsing that article, so that they have a chance to enter the debate, and discussions about deleting an article should properly only concern themselves with the article's contents, not the identity of the author.

Having said all that, I'm voting to delete my own article because by Dec 2005 I'd gotten sick of all the anonymous personal attacks on Wiki, and decided that this wasn't somewhere I wanted to hang out any more, so I don’t intend to expand or improve any of these articles any further, and as far as I'm concerned, you can delete all of them.

Cheerio, ErkDemon 22:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted (aeropagitica)  (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Underground UK Rap/HipHop Artists from UKHHF

All the article contains is vandalism and external links. Delete possibly speedy. Moe ε 21:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete --Ton e 21:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A3, only consists of links elsewhere. -- Mithent 03:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected. Flower party☀ 02:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Legislature election, 2006

This is an out of date copy of info on the main
Oregon election, 2006 page. Sheldrake 21:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect there. --Ton e 21:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do delete. I created the page, based on a misguided notion of how to organize the info about Oregon's 2006 election. I then moved all this ifo into
Oregon election, 2006 and attempted to delete this copy, but was foiled by a bot that thought I was trying to vandalize. (If you want to redirect, that's fine...I don't think it matters much.) -Pete 05:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirected. You can delete the link if you want. --Ton e 08:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. A consensus was already made before the sockpuppets came in and voted keep. (I watched all the sockpuppets create their accounts and voted)--Adam ^(talk) 23:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of stream of consciousness

A personal essay examining how stream of consciousness is employed in several literary works. Delete as per
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Court Jester 21:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I like the first sentence though. Can't we save that as a template: "Since the dawn of humanity, one of the most compelling conundrums that has baffled scientists and philosophers alike is '''{{1}}'''"? Lambiam ^Talk 22:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. They had scientists and philosophers at the dawn of humanity? So I guess this ain't the oldest profession... SigPig 03:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, they don't work at dawn. Septentrionalis 23:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:NOR. --Mithent 02:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete.
WP:NOR, as above. SigPig 03:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. ---hfc1102 68.48.32.65

Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to display your term paper. --Lockley 22:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Juliena 23:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (looking at timing, sockpuppets)[reply]

Keep -chocho12 23:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (looking at timing, sockpuppets)[reply]

Keep -Qwerty for life!!! 23:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (looking at timing, sockpuppets)[reply]

Keep -C.E.1959 23:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (looking at timing, sockpuppets)[reply]

Keep -What is life 23:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (looking at timing, sockpuppets)[reply]

Keep -Wikipedia lover ^o^ 23:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (looking at timing, sockpuppets)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (defaults to Keep). kingboyk 05:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CreationWiki

Delete. I don't find it as much more than a vanity article; it is a small community that has few active people and the article is short on information on them in my opinion because there is little if anything of note to say about them. The rest of the information on the page is more a candidate for merging with the 'Criticisms of Wikipedia' page than a seperate article. Wizardry Dragon 22:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The majority of those who have contribute to the page have no afiliation with Creationwiki. The article has been modified many times by veteran editors, so I don't think any vanity remains, if any was present. Other wiki article have much less content. Prometheus^-X303- 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of logical fallacy there - the presence of other articles with less content does not speak of the merits of an article in and of itself. Wizardry Dragon 23:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript: In any event, even if it were kept (I maintain that it is not of sufficient relevance to warrant an entry), I still suggest that 1/2 of the article be deleted or moved - as per the NPOV guidelines of Wikipedia. The NPOV guidelines apply to everything, including views on Wikipedia, and the article is quite unashamedly biased in that way. I will attempt to edit that out; but I suspect it'll be reverted Wizardry Dragon 23:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Though I like the effort the article author put into being objective. Haikupoet 03:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wish the creators of the CreationWiki the best in their endeavor (sorry about the pun) and perhaps someday they will be notable. Not today. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
changing opinion to Keep per JoshuaZ's argument that it will help to deflect confusion between CreationWiki and Wikipedia. CreationWiki may not be notable now, but Wikipedia surely is. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not today. as per KC
David D. (Talk) 20:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete; no evidence of notability outside its own community. — Matt Crypto 21:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Matt Crypto — ciphergoth 21:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep as it has potential notability. Besides I wouldn't want this held up as an example of systematic bias given EvoWiki; keeping it isn't a biggy and provides yet another article to edit war over. :"D Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful information. I created the original article BTW. FeloniousMonk 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I have contributed to this article, however I cannot justify keeping this article under policy grounds. In particular, I am not convinced that it meets
WP:N(I will attempt to see if it has been mentioned in any of the major creationist publications which would presumably push it to notability, but at present am not aware of any). However, as a matter of not appearing biased, we should probably not delete it. It will look very bad if we do. JoshuaZ 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment So far the only mentions I have found are various miscelaneous passing references, such as here: [24] which brings up another reason to possibly keep the article. Many people seem to be under the incorrect impression that CreationWiki is somehow associated with Wikipedia. Having an article on CreationWiki that says that that is false is helpful. JoshuaZ 05:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I sent an email to religioustolerance.org and they have corrected that page in regard to affiliation of CreationWiki, which leaves by my estimate at least another 5 websites which still have that mistake. JoshuaZ 15:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we need to avoid deleting articles in what might appear to be a partisan matter. I don't regard this article as a vanity article. The existence of this wiki is notable in the context of creationist propaganda. It's also interesting with regard to how censorship can fail on the web. Barnaby dawson 08:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After a more extensive search I am unable to find more than passing mention of CreationWiki in other creationist organizations. This brings up to my mind serious issues of notability in the creationist movement. JoshuaZ 14:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have just recently had a whole list of deletion request against several creationist articles in de.wikipedia, all claiming that whatever these creationists do is irrelevant. I do not like this approach. I also support JoshuaZ that it should be important to show that CreationWiki is not part of Wikipedia and keeping the article does not hurt. Heiko Evermann 10:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No one here is calling for the deletion of Answers in Genesis or anything like that. JoshuaZ 14:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I would likely never have heard of this web site if the Wikipedia article wasn't up for deletion. It's not a view I support at all, but it represents enough effort that I think it merits coverage. Tracking small-scale social phenomena like this is one of the valuable services Wikipedia performs.--agr 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per JoshuaZDarquis 18:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:WEB miserably. The reason we want multiple independent sources to write aobut something, is we need those sources, to have in-depth neutral article. This page can't say anything meaningful. It can just repeat what CreationWiki says, as that's about the only source of information available (obviously a non-neutral source). Notice please, that the "Criticisms of CreationWiki" section is *entirely* unsourced. It refers to "Critics of CreationWiki", but doesn't say who those critics are, or where those criticisms were published. I suggest those "critics" are the very Wikipedian(s) who wrote that section. This is such a minor web site, that almost no publisher of note, either knows or cares enough to write about this very minor site. Removing all unsourced stuff, will leave behind, a rather pathetic substub. -Rob 19:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: While i agree the article doesn't meet the WP:WEB guidelines, they are just that, guidelines. In this case we are dealing with a controversial topic that I think most of us do not take seriously, but has high political impact, at least in the U.S. Stretching things a bit to maintain neutrality may be appropriate here. I'd also call attention to footnote 2 of the guideline. I think a case can be made that the parent organization, Northwest Creation Network, is notable enough for an article and that, at worst, this page should be moved to that title.--agr 12:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We shouldn't keep articles on non-notable sites that don't meet any of the guildeines at
WP:WEB. That deleting an article will "look very bad" is not a reason to keep – we're here to write articles with encyclopedic merit, not to appease every point of view that comes through here. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 20:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP Deletion serves no purpose ,server memory is considerablly unlimited.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 20:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's hardly a reason to keep something. Wizardry Dragon 20:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a "rival" to WP's pages on the same topics, it seems sensible for WP to maintain an article on it. It does sound like there are notability issues, but I think it's too early to judge. As an aside, the lack of participation in it by creationists is somewhat noteworthy (and revealing) in itself. --Plumbago 12:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I am not convinced about it's notability at this time, a Google News search didn't show anything, but there is definitely a growing Internet community there, and I also feel we should be slow to remove an article about a site that is critical to Wikipedia. TH 07:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party☀ 03:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexoscope

This was previously PRODded, then removed. I'd like to see it properly put through Deletion process. Sorry Dangherous 21:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, 4,480 Google hits and some of those are referring to some kind of sex toy or a song from Santitos. Only 575 of the hits seem to be in English, weakening its status on the English Wikipedia further. It's teetering on the wrong side of neologism. -- Mithent 02:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Mithent. RexNL 16:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily Deleted as {{
db-attack}}. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Pissy snow boy

db-attack template removed by creator without comment, so I'm bringing it to AfD Heycos 22:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. The El Reyko 22:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, would be attack if it was even coherent. Users are not generally allowed to remove speedy delete notices, and specifically not the creators (they should use {{hangon}} to contest it, but this is prime speedy material). -- Mithent 02:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 15:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Fever (band)

WP:MUSIC. However, they have two albums; I think AfD should judge if the label is significant enough, and if the tourings make any difference. -Splash^talk 22:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Weak~~ delete. Listing a blog as an external link is a great indication of a vanity promotion and lack of credibility. None of the members of the band or albums produced assert any notability, and the bands they have toured with also lack importance; so I don't think who they've toured with in this case has any implications on the assertion of their notability. I favor deletion unless the article is immediately cleaned-up to show the band's credibility as an encyclopedic article of interest. (Я не имею—никакой жизни 16:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - Two albums, but on non-notable label (no link to label). It could just be an indie label. No major tours listed. No chart results. Doesn't assert importance of members or the band on the genre. NN. --Walter Görlitz 17:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted under a7

Dragon Door

non notable website. Rory0 96_(block) 23:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom.--blue520 06:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_16&oldid=1081093929"~~