Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 15

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 REDIRECTED. I'm closing this one early because the redirects will be useful and the prose has been merged. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor SSBM characters

I am nominating the following articles for deletion (ignore the top one, I forgot it was a redirect to the main SSBM article):

• Giga Bowser
• Fighting Wire Frames
• Crazy Hand
• Master Hand
• Sandbag (Smash Bros.)
• Female Wire Frames
• Fighting Polygons

All are extraordinarily short articles that have only appeared in one game. Giga Bowser hurts my eyes; it's as if someone copied it from a GameFAQs FAQ. I have merged all relevent information into List of Super Smash Bros. Melee characters but would still like to see the articles deleted and recreated as redirects, if recreated at all. - Hbdragon88 05:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all, optionally speedily, and discourage recreation. I've added Female Wire Frames to the list. Nifboy 05:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit: and
    Fighting Polygons, from SSB. Nifboy 05:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Merge and Redirect all of them. Since the Fighting Polygons only exist in SSB, maybe we should change the list to
  List of Super Smash Bros. characters? BryanG 06:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Self-fashioning. My British English would have the hyphen, so that's where I'll redirect to, but it's not important. The two articles are essentially identical, and it looks like someone just didn't know how to make a redirect. -Splash^talk 18:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self fashioning

Delete original research without references. No major edits in 11 months.--Porturology 00:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect with Self-fashioning on the basis that it appears to be an actual Renaissance-era practice.[1] There need to be more citations, however, but the term appears notable and historical. Aplomado - UTC 00:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (edit conflict) It needs work and references, but I find a number of references that seem to verify what the article says (one in King Lear even). – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 00:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the other article. They both need a major rewrite. This was apparently an actual practice, but I know little more about it after reading the article. Carlo 00:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The most obvious merge and redirect I've seen in a while. Alba 00:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was unaware of the other article. Both are poorly written but at least Self-fashioning is referenced. I think merge and redirect is the best solution.--Porturology 01:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Aplomado -
  Oscar Arias 01:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect since it is almost exactly the same article -- Astrokey44|talk 03:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect almost a duplicate. --
  e Ong 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and comment per above with merge, and just because there has been no major edits for 11 months isn't criteria for deletion Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 12:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Terence Ong. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge as above. ProhibitOnions 21:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. --AaronS 22:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect as above. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Pileon merge/redirect... but definitely do not count this as a straight delete, the article has sources and it's an encyclopedic concept. ++Lar: t/c 03:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE.

Iq content

• Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete this shoddy brochure. Aplomado - UTC 00:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, don't need to vote on this one... – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 00:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom, nn-company. Not sure what Speedy criteria it would fall under for speedy, since advertising isn't a CSD criteria, but delete nontheless. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 00:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Above Board

NN/Vanity Advertisement/press release for some schoolkids running a business. --Aim Here 00:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:CORP. Alba 00:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I thought my browser had redirected me to their website for a second or two. Per above.
  Colonel Tom 12:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom.
  Oscar Arias 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete this brochure. Aplomado - UTC 01:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. --CrypticBacon 04:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. --
  e Ong 05:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - but I wonder if some of the above analysis could be slightly more polite to obvious new starters - seems like a genuine attempt even if it is a vanity advertisement? VirtualSteve 08:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 12:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, uses first-person pronouns. JIP | Talk 15:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable school team.  (aeropagitica)  15:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What everyone's already said. dcandeto 17:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Mikker ^... 19:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. However, as it seems to be a good-faith newbie article (although it's vanity advertising), I've left a welcome message on the page of User:Adav, who created it. ProhibitOnions 21:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom but AGF Funky Monkey 22:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Good idea, Funky Monkey. --AaronS 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. James 21:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Cool3 19:12, 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 delizzle. DS 05:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foglerhymez

Appears to be an urban-music related hoax. No Google references could be found at all. OTOH, May be too "undaground" to verify! Hynca-Hooley 00:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Man says delete. Alba 00:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't establish its notability. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absurd article. Turns up no Google hits and there's no way to verify it assuming it is "undaground" like the author insists. It's probably a hoax. Aplomado - UTC 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - HoaxCruft -
  Oscar Arias 01:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Alba. Awesome.
  ^{vent here} 03:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep.

A computer utility. Article has been speedied and reposted a couple of times, looks like consensus might be needed. Hynca-Hooley 00:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "This is a significant utility due to the fact that it enabled previously ProDOS incompatible programs to be run under ProDOS." I'm blown away. Delete. Aplomado - UTC 00:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless people more versed in Apple II stuff chime in . -
  Oscar Arias 01:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This Google search gives only 109 results, and not all of those are even related to this program. Non-notable. -- Mithent 01:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ghesh guys, give me a chance to build this up. --PZ 01:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You guys sound like a bunch of deletionists. --Monton 02:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is the only thing ever posted by Monton -- Fan1967 02:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN software.
  ^{vent here} 03:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep GHits not relevant to something that was obsolete before the web was invented (when the card catalog was a file system and the search engine was your fingers). Based on the article, notable as part of computer history. Needs more encyclopedic style, maybe some comments and refs from old Apple magazines.
  Thatcher131 03:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Clarification If it can be expanded a bit more, keep as a separate article linked to the relevant

Thatcher131 04:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, per Thatcher.--ragesoss 04:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thatcher. Or, at the least, merge it into the
  Elkman - ^(talk) 05:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to
  WP:SOFTWARE is useful here, eve if it's not official yet, and nothing in the article or this discussion convinces me its criteria are met. Sandstein 05:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Thatcher or else merge with
  e Ong 05:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge into
  ProDOS, or weak keep; it's much more relevant to ProDOS than to Apple DOS. --moof 08:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge or Keep and update - in that order as per Thatcher and others of that view. VirtualSteve 08:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thatcher. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thatcher and Elkman. Seems significant in the context of the history of personal computing. Smerdis of Tlön 14:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, looks OK. JIP | Talk 15:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep —
  Wackymacs 17:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep.
  Mirror Vax 18:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. --Snargle 19:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as AIR it was important to the ][ community at the time. ProhibitOnions 21:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. --AaronS 22:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please important for apple computers Yuckfoo 04:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 11:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere nowhere land

DELETE This work is not notable or interesting in anyway, is not the work of any prolific author(s) and is not available generally

• weak keep - actual published material, a number of google hits, interesting is subjective. -
  Oscar Arias 01:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as non-notable publication. Aplomado - UTC 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No amazon book rank, no non wikipedia or mirror site hits, nn MadCow257 02:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn book. --
  e Ong 05:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - agree no hits and not-notable. VirtualSteve 08:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Oscar Arias. It has a number og google hits. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity press publishing, NN. ProhibitOnions 21:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Oscar Arias and Siva1979. --AaronS 22:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable, [2]. -- infinity0 15:49, 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 no consensus.

Vanity / advert. Originally prodded, but removed by another user because the owner of the company mentioned is of some notability. That may be true, but this page is pure advertisement, and after visiting the company website, I'm not convinced that this article should be kept. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of the industry could comment. Tijuana Brass 00:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ad.
  ^{vent here} 03:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• This is a keep folks. I note that AFD tag has either been removed or not placed (which may not be appropriate) - but article has been rewritten to remove advertising. 47 specific google hits (not including 2 wiki hits) VirtualSteve 08:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per *Keep. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per original prod reason: "Advertisement submitted by the inventor on a device that no sources has ever heard about. Fails
  Perfecto 15:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • PS. As per talk page, submitter/inventor denies he is the noted executive, so Georgewilliamherbert's unprodding turns out wrong as well.
• Keep per VirtualSteve. Moe Aboulkheir 15:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steve, Siva1979, Moe Aboulkheir, remove wikipedia mirrors and baykarmakina.com pages from the 47 hits -- guess how many are left? --
    Perfecto 15:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • By the way, while the rewrite did help it to appear more legit (which still doesn't address some of the problems), the second paragraph is a word for word copy from the company website. Tijuana Brass 16:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We should delete every other UAV description by the same token since all are advertisements!! take a look at [3] or all other UAV entries.Poor 00:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC) (NOTE: This newly-created user has no other edits.)[reply]
• Delete 47 google hits pretty much defines 'non-notable'.-
  AKMask 19:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Dear commentators, I have looked to the other uav examples [4] and changed the article content. I am trying to make the necessary changes according to the comments. --Haluk 19:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this uav [5] as well in which there is not any single reference. I did put references inside. --Haluk 20:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify a point here, you do not 'own' the article, you have released the text you contributed under the Gnu Free Documentation License, which gives everyone the expressed right to take, modify, use, distribute and even sell the text, so long as they also give those same rights to whoever ends up with it. -

AKMask 21:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, AKMask, wrong expression, i erased that part.--Haluk 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all :) Although it is considered good form not to delete things from these kinds of pages and strike them out instead. I know, I know, steep learning curve, but your adjusting remarkably well :) -

AKMask 21:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Aladin's existence is

Perfecto 03:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. I consider aircraft in production, even UAVs, to be inherently notable. moink 09:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per VirtualSteve/Poor/moink. Lambiam 13:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable, but probably could be merged into a "list of UAVs" article or something. -- infinity0 15:51, 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 keep.

The Southland (band)

Band at the boundaries of

• Extremely weak keep - Only if it can be proved that any of their music was on the TV show mentioned --
  Oscar Arias 01:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep more notable than alot of bands proposed here MadCow257 02:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have tidied the article up. Cnwb 02:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per above. I added a stub tag.
  ^{vent here} 03:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep looks better now. --
  e Ong 05:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, current version looks inclusion worthy. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - I cannot see any reason for the removal of this article, especially since their music is on regular rotation on public radio (Though I see where you could argue the "major radio network" statement). -Hoekenheef 21:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please it is a notable band Yuckfoo 04:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 21:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Alert: A Path Beyond

This is not a large article and can easily be merged into the

• Merge - pretty crufty though -
  Oscar Arias 01:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete CrUfT
  ^{vent here} 03:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, merge only if absolutely necessary. --CrypticBacon 04:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as gamecruft. --
  e Ong 05:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, minor inproduction mod. Night Gyr 09:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Oarias. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the main game article or the "list of battlefield mods" if there is such an article already. -- infinity0 15:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Don't merge, just get rid of it. -
  Hahnchen 06:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.

Adrian Sexton

Verbose, aggrandising article about a perhaps notable director of an entertainment company. Requires cleanup at the very least. Hynca-Hooley 01:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep - definately clean up needed --
  Oscar Arias 01:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• weak keep per Oscar. Bucketsofg 02:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Emphatic Delete. The man is not individually notable in any way. A mention of his name in the Lion's Gate article is more than enough. He's a VP and not the main man at his company. Note that we do not have any articles for his superiors, nor should we, unless they were individually notable for some reason. Oscar and Buckets, what is your rationale?
  (T) (C) (E) 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Honestly, mostly gut feeling. I've seen much less notable people in wikipedia articles. At least he's a VP in the entertainment industry. -

Oscar Arias 09:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Oscar, gut feeling is not a criterion, thank God, in

(T) (C) (E) 01:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, nontrivial industry figure, slash text heavily. Monicasdude 03:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and cleanup. --
  e Ong 05:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and cleanup. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Crzrussian. Moe Aboulkheir 15:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Crazy argues. ProhibitOnions 21:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Russian Funky Monkey 22:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Russian --Ardenn 03:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Russian. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Russian Cursive 22:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Russian. Reyk 19:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, merge/move discussion can be done on the article's talk page. --W.marsh 21:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intel processor confusion

This unfortunately-named article only causes confusion.

• Delete. I think this article falls under the "indiscriminate collection of information" category. Aplomado - UTC 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since it's poorly named and the individual processors have their own lists. (But, yes, Intel processor names are too confusing!) -- Mithent 01:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (to the appropriate pages). I don't see lists for individual Intel microprocessor families (
  Guy Harris 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If the information is useful, and its the name that is un-encyclopedic, perhaps a rename and cleanup will do. I am starting to doubt this AfD nomination. --Ezeu 01:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's more than just the name; I assume the "confusion" is that there's a metric crapload of processors with "Pentium" in the name that have different characteristics and, sometimes, different microarchitectures (

Pentium EE, and some Xeon processors; Pentium M in some other processors, including the Yonah Intel Core microprocessors). If the goal is to clear up confusion about processors with "Pentium" in the name, it could list any such processors - perhaps we could start by renaming the page "List of Intel Pentium processors", and allow classic Pentium, Pentium II, Pentium III, etc. to be added to it by those sufficiently anal-retentive to care. :-) It wouldn't list the current Intel Core processors, though, as they're not Pentiums, nor would it list Celeron or Xeon

processors - they'd have their own "list of" pages.

We might want to add a column for the microarchitecture, given that Intel's used the same marketing name for processors with different microarchitectures (more so than AMD, who've used

Guy Harris 02:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

BTW, if people think this page should simply be deleted (as opposed to renamed), would they say the same for the various "List of AMD XXX microprocessors" page? (I wouldn't argue if they said "yes", but if they said "no", I'd ask why a list of Pentiums is different from a list of Athlons.)

Guy Harris 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The

Guy Harris 09:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not ... well ... this. Bucketsofg 02:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Some kind of article that disambiguates the variety of different chips a customer might encounter in a "Pentium" PC might be useful, but not this. Maybe divide into groups by characteristics that actually affect the consumer.
  Thatcher131 03:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge. I like
  List of Intel microprocessors, but it's missing some info, that perhaps might not be of interest to the average consumer, but that will definitely interest the more advanced enthusiast. Thank you for reminding me how much I loathe Intel for naming four different processors "Celeron" and moving the Pentium 4 series to an all-digit nomenclature that doesn't mean a thing. ;) Usonophile 04:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge into appropriate processor family pages if not present. -- Mithent 12:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Rename to "List of Intel Pentium processors" per above and tag with for expansion. Seems a shame to just toss this info away. As for merging into various articles, that breaks up the information so completely is as to constitute (unlikes most merges) an effective deletion. The whole point of this article is to collect info from various articles into one easy-to-access table. I'm assuming that people exist who would find this info useful. Herostratus 14:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Herostratus. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into
  List of Intel microprocessors. There it may have chance to be maintained, which obviously didn;t happne with current text. Pavel Vozenilek 17:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge as above. Info is useful in the proper context. ProhibitOnions 22:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Pavel. Eivind^speak! 23:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep.

Louis Bernacchi

Delete no established notablity. Kiwidude 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He was a party member of a pretty notable expedition. Aplomado - UTC 01:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. JoshuaZ 02:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand as notable explorer. The Australian Dictionary of Biography has an article on him which I intend to use to expand this.Capitalistroadster 02:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has been duly expanded. Capitalistroadster 09:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per aplomado. Bucketsofg 02:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Newyorktimescrossword 02:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable. Cnwb 02:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. An important early explorer. -- Ian ≡ talk 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Look forward to Capitalistroadster's additions -- Samir (the scope) 04:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --CrypticBacon 04:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --
  e Ong 05:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as expanded by Capitalistroadster, looks good. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable Funky Monkey 22:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please imporant to australian history erasing makes no sense Yuckfoo 04:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable, why would anyone think otherwise? There are plenty of references to him. --Ishel99 07:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. recipients of the
  Légion d'honneur are inherently notable. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:10, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 21:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Texan Tavern

Delete no established notablity. possible advertising. vanity. Kiwidude 01:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Robert Trimbole.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Binguyen Bucketsofg 02:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Robert Trimbole. Its notability such as it is relates to him. Capitalistroadster 03:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Anything worth merging into Robert Trimbole is already there. --Bduke 03:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  e Ong 05:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Enough information about
  MaNeMeBasat 07:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. If anyone is interested enough they can include it the Robert Trimbole article. --Roisterer 08:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Binguyen. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- Ian ≡ talk 10:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE.

The Shondes

Band; does not appear to pass

• Delete. No discography, no notability asserted, no reason to keep this article. Aplomado - UTC 01:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Bucketsofg 02:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as article does not assert notability. Capitalistroadster 03:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• And is now tagged as such. Speedy Delete
  ^{vent here} 03:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete as nn. --
  e Ong 05:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Kids Eat Free

Prod removed. This is supposed to warrant its own encyclopedia article??? Delete! Hynca-Hooley 01:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The speediest of speedy deletes for this absurd article. Aplomado - UTC 01:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please read the guideline Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Fg2 02:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Montco 02:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Delete, don't even put it on wikitionary. Explains itself MadCow257 02:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Unlikely to grow past substub status. — TKD::Talk 02:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. Bucketsofg 02:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't imagine how anyone would find this useful. Cnwb 02:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --
  e Ong 05:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete -- I'm sure someone somewhere could write a well-sourced dissertation on the business use of this concept. This will not help them, however.
  Grandmasterka 06:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Can't we find something --
  Restauraunt, maybe -- to merge this to? It feels like a minor section of an article, not an article itself. Alba 12:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete quite obviously. Mustafa Bevi 18:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Funky Monkey 22:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, and note that its definition is absurd: "Kids Eat Free is a common term for a type of restaurant special that allows children to eat for free" (obviously, this is circular). However: "Kids Eat Free is a common term for a type of restaurant special that allows children to eat [...] at a reduced price, or to receive some other special item." Um, that would be Kids Don't Eat Free, otherwise better known as false advertising.
  Esquizombi 23:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nearly everything about this is discernable from the phrase itself. ---Dana 02:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just not needed. Nigelthefish 20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Alexis Stodghill

Not listed on the IMDB. Very unpromising Google results.[6] Article says she appeared on two shows, but those credits would've been on the IMDB if true.

• Delete per nomination
  JackO'Lantern 01:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. She was probably an extra in the shows which is why she gets no credit. 51 Google hits and half of those were a different Alexis Stodghill. Montco 02:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. A 10-year-old extra does not qualify as notable. Fan1967 02:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless having the world's most injudicious stage parents qualifies you as notable. Family is already notorious for self-promotion in theater/TV community. Monicasdude 03:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn and per nom. --
  e Ong 05:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. Moe Aboulkheir 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• First 1. Fact is is that television actors are not put onto IMDB unless they have appeared in a movie as well. Read IMDB's acrticle on submission, MANY television actors are not on IMDB.

Second2. "Very Unpromising Google results" has nothing to do with the validity of the actress in question. Having peoples opinions written about you on websites has no validity if you were or were not appearing on a television show. I can say Ashton Kutcher is the worst actor in the world, it doesn't mean he hasn't been on tv.

Third 3. "A 10-year-old extra does not qualify as notable." So I guess Dakota Fanning shouldnt be on here either right?

Fourth 4. "Family is already notorious for self-promotion in theater/TV community. " Unless you know the family personally, or are their agent, then you really don't know, and you base your opinion on other people's opinions.

The point of Wikki is to list FACTS, not OPINIONS. If you cannot PROOVE she has NOT been on television then you cannot say that she hasn't, opinions matter little.

I actually am a CD that found this link typing her name into a search engine. She will be appearing with Alyssa Milano in a Humane Society Commercial in June. I know for a FACT because I am the one that cast her.

Vanity that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.17.216 (talk • contribs)

• • For the record, if you wrote that Ahston Kutcher was the worst actor in the world, it would turn up on a google search.... Oh, and Dakota Fanning is not exactly an extra....
    JackO'Lantern 16:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Regarding your opinion: "If you cannot PROOVE she has NOT been on television then you cannot say that she hasn't, opinions matter little." Wikipedia has a clearly stated policy (
    WP:V) that is exactly the opposite. If you cannot prove (or PROOVE) notability, there's no reason to assume it's true. All sorts of wannabe musicians, models, actors want articles here to promote themselves. An actor not listed in IMDB is suspect to say the least. Fan1967 20:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The opinion (Yours) is, She's not good enough to list on Wikki because you don't think her being 10 years old and being in commercials counts as being on tv.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justadding (talk • contribs)

• I offer no opinion except that the person I've nominated for deletion has no IMDB entry and next to no Google results. It's standard practice to delete an entry if we can't establish notability (or in this case, the existence of the subject). Of course, at some point in time, Dakota Fanning would not have been notable enough to list. But that changed circa 2000.
  JackO'Lantern 16:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That's a damn realistic mannequin that they're using. It looks just like a little girl. My guess is the cameras are fake too. /end sarcasm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.17.216 (talk • contribs)

• I would like to remind
  Thatcher131 20:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per nom. Luvcraft 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not yet notable. Even if notable, not
  Thatcher131 20:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom Vanity Funky Monkey 22:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per funky monkey --

• Delete per nom Vanity User:Birdflu2006 User 65.184.17.216 claims to be both the CD that cast Alexis Stodghill AND her father, per comments above.
• Delete per nom, vanity. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was what? Don't change shit around on this page to make it look like I'm saying stuff I'm not. That's just plain bullshit.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.

Julie Scardina

Another one of these CV/resumé-tinged

• Keep - I removed the prod, but I agree that the article could use some NPOV work and she does scrape notability. IMDB lists eight appearances on the Tonight Show and three on Rosie O'Donnell, plus one more appearance elsewhere. (And that may not be a complete list, of course.) Google has 786 hits with her name in quotes. JRP 01:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep. Appears over and over on California-based TV talk shows, particularly Tonight/Leno as ringmaster for animal acts. Monicasdude 03:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone on Tonight Show is notable, so if I appear on a guest show, then am I notable?? --

e Ong 05:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

A single appearance on a guest show, perhaps not, but this person has many appearances and on different shows, which seems to me indicates notability, so keep.Bondegezou 14:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. Also, Wikipedia is not a search engine for occasional TV personalties. Brian G. Crawford 03:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete she was on the tv shows because of the animals rather than her being notable herself (im assuming) -- Astrokey44|talk 04:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Shes notable, appears on many TV shows as a special guest. Mike _{(T C)} 04:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone that appears on guest shows, then we will have more articles. They must assert some notability. --

e Ong 05:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as nn-bio. --
  e Ong 05:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep borderline notability, but not vanity. Moe Aboulkheir 15:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appearing on talk shows implies being interesting, not notable. Kuzaar 15:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Those appearances put her in the public eye. -- JJay 02:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; not vanity, certainly notable per her Leno appearances (after all, they don't just have anyone on The Tonight Show); perhaps not as well known as Jack Hanna but definitely in the same vein. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 733 Google hits is not notable. -- infinity0 15:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep She has been on a number of shows. However Astrokey44 makes a good point. Nigelthefish 20:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As an aside, from a random sampling, I'm noting that a majority of the delete votes are coming from non-American editors, and the keeps are likewise coming from American editors. Just an observation, and I'm not sure of the pervasiveness or popularity of The Tonight Show in other countries, but systemic bias might need to be taken into account here, as it might be akin to me voting to delete someone who appears on a UK talk show that I don't watch regularly, about whose notability I might not have a full grasp. (Not an accusation toward anyone, of course, but simply an observation.) --Kinu ^t/_c 21:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Zukak

Suspected hoax. "Zukak" gives 800 google hits, mainly to Arab related material. "Noobquest" of "Noob Quest" of "Noob quest" all give less than 3000, which don't appear related.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 02:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Either unnotable or a hoax. Carlo 02:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN. At the very least, don't add stubs for characters in a game if we don't even have an article for the game, and this looks like a nn game. Fan1967 02:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No assertion of notability. This should be a CSD criterion for all types of articles, not just the people and bands covered under A7.
  ^{vent here} 03:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as nn. --
  e Ong 05:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete nn Funky Monkey 22:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, nn. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Project Duvessa

nn company. appears to be something which hasn't even started yet.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:
  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball! —ERcheck @ 02:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: per above. Palnu 02:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 02:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Crystal ball. I predict it will never amount to anything. Fan1967 02:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nuke immediately. A very poorly written ad that hurts my eyes.
  Grandmasterka 06:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, company hasn't yet started, uses first-person pronouns. JIP | Talk 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Funky Monkey 22:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom,
  WP:NOT. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:25, 16 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 (CSD A7). kingboyk 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obidike

I put this up for speedy, but have copped some flak from the author, and some other editor, who has only about 10 edits, but has been around for one month. "Obidike" has 453 google hits, mostly to people in America, while "Obidike" has only 10. The article also says dubious stuff like the last sentence, which smells of unverifiability.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BL Nguyen, I'd just like to say that it's local folk lore. I don't know what a person living in australia would know about local folk lore. The story is most often spread by word of mouth, that's how I heard it and apparently someone else has too. The lots of edits are because I'm not a very good typer and i have a tendancy to post and reedit. I know it's a bad habit. Also i missed a couple of things off and added later. I'm a long time reader here, but Until recently I've only read, not contributed. Please don't judge me because of that. I ask you is it the case that you only dislike the article because of the slight mention of "yellow fever" since you are quite obviously asian from your vietnamese name. I'm not being racist here, its not my fault the fabled society was called that. As with all folk lore and legend, it is indeed mostly unverifyable, as are many things in life. I understand that technically it should be verifyable to be on wikipedia, but how is any mythology to be posted if there is no gray area. KX36 02:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I can assure you that my ethnicity has nothing to do with my nomination. I did not even notice anything from "yellow fever", and I can assure you that I am not in any way offended by the posting of the article. I check the Newpages for articles which are not encyclopedic as per
  WP:BIO. I do this regularly, and use AfD a lot, please see User:Blnguyen/AfD, which is a log of my activity on AfD. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete with extreme prejudice. A story about some local character who read a lot of comic books and is really good with a playstation controller? Oh, please. If it's "one of the least well known folk legends of recent history" I think it can stay that way. Fan1967 02:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Phantasm's End

A film that was never made - didn't even make it through pre-production. Prod tag removed by User:Mr. Popadopalis25. - Cnwb 02:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 02:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete so non-notable, my notes are in danger of spontaneous combustion. Alba 12:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Proposed film already mentioned in Phantasm page. Doesn't merit a seperate page. --Ricaud 16:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Funky Monkey 22:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

[email protected]

Advertisement. Does not look notable to me. Delete DMG413 02:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new web2.0 project involving webcomics. Could be the start of new ways publishing comics online. With the coming of new portable devices, particulary with pen, touch screen and wireless connection. This could be a great solutions for amateurs with devices unable to load painter, paint shop pro or other paintng applications. As each and every on of those devices will have a browser, they will be able to draw a comic strip directly online whenever the want. Seems very relevant to me as in a medium term timeline.keep it Tiago.Cardoso 02:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Crystal Ball. WP is not to promote start-ups that haven't done anything yet. Fan1967 02:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a start-up. It was merly a project to test some technologies. Open Laszlo intereacting with Ruby On Rails. And instead of doing something meanless. I decided to create something nice, that could give some new contribute. It was done with good intentions, not to make money. And don't think that every web2.0 has to be from a startup. People do enjoy doing things their are paissoned about. keep it Tiago.Cardoso 03:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Call it a start-up or new project, doesn't matter. Neither does your passion or your intentions. It is not a judgement on the value of your project. The point is (a) you're new (b) basically nobody's ever heard of you. Wikipedia is not to promote unknowns, it is to document people or things that have already established notability. Fan1967 03:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you should go and check

List of webcomics, every single webcomics there as a dedicated article and I can assure you that there are some webcomics there that aren't in the scope of "things that have already established notability.". Think of this as another webcomics on that list. But with an innovation added. Tiago.Cardoso 03:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

hmmm, check Alexa ranking to Arbit_Choudhury and check Alexa ranking to [email protected]. It far to distante. And i'm about 800% better now then 1 month ago. It's growing. So, don't tell me Arbit_Choudhury has notability. Tiago.Cardoso

Response Feel free to nominate Arbit_Choudhury for deletion. Still won't make your site notable. Fan1967 04:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one last comment, I do think you are not being very open to this. I do think this project, this webcomics deserves a article here in WP. If you ask, i'll make an honest effourd to improve it with your help, but saying that you want to delete it because I'm not knowen it a bit far fetched!.. It gives a bad sense of anti-democracy to the project and the user-coorperation. What do you think, want to help me or just want to take privelige of being more senior users ? Tiago.Cardoso

• Delete as nn. -- King of Hearts ^talk 04:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed on
  Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC) [reply
  ]
• Delete This isn't comics, this is Oekaki. NN either way, though. Nifboy 01:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nifboy. -- Dragonfiend 05:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nifboy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nifboy. Tiago, instead of arguing about things that are irrelevant to this discussion, please acquaint yourself with
  WP:WEB, which is what we go by here. Even if the site were notable enough to have an article, this article would need a complete rewrite, as it is blatant advertisement. -- Zaron 21:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• PS- Zaron, you are right and some of your comments were the most accurate. I real do thing that the article isn't good as it is. I see some problems with it. My intention wasn't to make an AD, but I come like one.. Probably because I copy-paste some of the info in the site.. and that info is supposed to be not that impartial ;) I just didn't like the initial comments. Too much of pretentious and non-constructive comments. But that's just my opinion. I offered myself to re-write the article with help, like that link you shown. I'll take care of that later. This isn't that much of an important thing for now. Thanks anyway and sorry some more hard comments. :) Tiago.Cardoso

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.

INpax

INPAX and "rapper" turn up exactly this at Google.[7] Clearly non-notable, vanity, etc. you name it, this article does it.

• Delete per nom.
  JackO'Lantern 02:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as totally nn. An 11-year-old wannabe rapper. Fan1967 02:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as utterly nn, borderline BJAODN material. dbtfz^talk 03:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This probably should have been speedy deleted as a non-notable band. I put a db-band template up for his brother, Sloarhandler. Brian G. Crawford 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, vanity. Bucketsofg 03:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn, vanity. --
  e Ong 05:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete, article is about a real person but does not assert importance or significance of the subject. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity nn Funky Monkey 22:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Has supposedly made two tapes.
  our music notability guidelines. Capitalistroadster 00:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Poorly written vanity Nigelthefish 19:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 11:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borderlands rpg

A non-notable fan group of Star Trek. Listed along with authorised retail Star Trek games.--PatCheng 03:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as spamming. They even put their banner in, so it's obviously an ad. Brian G. Crawford 03:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blatant ad for nn RPG. Fan1967 03:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, adv. Bucketsofg 03:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn, ad. --
  e Ong 05:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Wait a second. I went online and found a group that split off from us in the same category, called "Quadrant Delta" So I thought, oh, we'll that's cool, if they have a home here, then we should too..... Now why the heck are they okay, and we're not? There are also sites like UCIP up under Star Trek role-playing games that have been there for years. —This
  unsigned comment is by Truemper (talk • contribs
  ) .

You'd get a much better reception if the page wasn't blatant advertising, I expect, and made notability clearer (eg, noting the number of users, noting any media attention, more history, etc). --Fuzzie (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's a Star Trek -related article. No, wait, I meant to say delete, advertisement for an RPG group. JIP | Talk 15:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadrant Delta MLA 16:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well it's going back up if you delete it. I'll change the content to be more wiki-friendly, but there is no reason at all why we shouldn't have a place here. If you look at categories like: Star Trek games | Star Trek role-playing games | Science fiction role-playing games | Fan fiction | Star Trek fan fiction, they are ALL personal games. If there is something wrong with posting these kind of sites up then you may as well delete those entire categories, because that's exactly what they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truemper (talk • contribs)
• Delete nn Percy Snoodle 12:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, blatant advertising/spam. --Fuzzie (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been warned now that I had better not re-add my article, because admin can delete it on sight... but I will be re-adding it........ I'll fix up the content so that it doesn't seem like an advertisement, and instead gives more of a historical look at Trek based Role playing on the Internet, but I KNOW that Borderlands has a place here. If you look at the debate around Bravo-Fleet being on the Wiki, then that's all you need to hear to know that Borderlands belongs also. Bravo-Fleet is unique because of it's size, but Borderlands is more notable because of age. We started in 1993 - a full 5 years before Bravo Fleet, and well before any other documented Trek RPG out there. We have a history that is more relevant to gaming than Bravo Fleet, and if I get deleted after highlighting that history then I'm going to demand that every other RPG documented on Wikipedia be removed as well. I admit that the current article content isn't anything special, it was a cut and paste job from our homepage just to have something up, but we do have relevance, and I will be putting Borderlands back up again when I compile that information, despite threats......... Would it kill you to offer suggestions to FIX content? - Rather than just acting like freaking Wiki-Nazis. —This
  unsigned comment was added by Truemper (talk • contribs
  ) .
  • Comment. The problem isn't that the article is bad. The problem is that the fan club isn't notable enough as yet to have an article on Wikipedia. --Rory096 01:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So tell me, what makes the fan club notable?... Are you telling me that being the longest standing game on the Internet isn't notable enough?........ What is it about Bravo Fleet that makes it more notable, other than size? We intentionally chose a different niche than Bravo Fleet, we want quality, not quantity, so that disqualifies us? How about games like UCIP that have NO notability, but didn't get hammered by this crap?... Like I said before, the categories: Star Trek games | Star Trek role-playing games | Science fiction role-playing games | Fan fiction | Star Trek fan fiction are all full of less notable clubs than Borderlands..... That's all those categories have at all! I know I'm not supposed to be offended by the delete request, but how can I *not* be when so much clearly non-notable crap is all over the place, and a club that built itself off of our history in gaming gets put up for deletion, but isn't deleted because of popular support. We are the ancestry of these categories, we deserve a place here, but somehow we're the ones that get singled out for deletion and threatened not to try posting up better information.

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, even discounting all unsigned comments (of which there were plenty), I still count 7 people wanting to keep, merge or redirect, and 10 people wanting to delete. That's still not a consensus to delete. A consensus about what to do with this information (keep as is, merge somewhere, redirect) can be reached on the article's talk page, as consensus for that specific decision is not evident from this AfD. W.marsh 22:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

27 Club

This article was already deleted once at Articles_for_deletion/27_Club. It is (still) only a neologism with no widespread outside use. --CrypticBacon 03:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP very intriguing and good idea, funny list, well done - actually it is rather a candidate for "featured articles". Kurt.
• KEEP it - as a fan of music I've always been strangely intrigued by the fact that so many of my favorite musicians died at 27. The fact that many other groups of people share this intrigue is reason enough to keep it. Obviously, not everyone will care, or find this article interesting, but that is not a reason to delete it.
• Keep as it is a popular concept. page bottom lists it as a "curse" and for the MTV generations it has just as much historical significance as
  Superman Curse
  . If 27 Club is deleted, then the aforementioned should be deleted as well.
• KEEP -- 27 Club is a well-known phenomenon in American pop culture. The fact that the 'Big 4' 27 club members weren't just famous ... they were huuuuge; at the peak of their success. And now each is a rock icon. Heck, Wikipedia has an article about the myth of eating Pop Rocks while drinking soda pop as well as articles on Coprophilia (sexual arousal through feces) and Anal bleaching. KEEP THE 27 CLUB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• Delete as it's a pointless list of musicians who died at age 27. Totally unnecessary. Aplomado - UTC 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually I think a list of musicians who died young (whatever that is) would be quite interesting. We have
  Thatcher131 03:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Well, to be fair, shortly after Cobain killed himself his mother was quoted as saying "I told him not to join that stupid club"[8], referring to (we presume) other notable musicians who died at 27, so the term does have somewhat of a historical basis, though weak. Through a Google search on "27 club"; I was able to find the term used in one reputable source, and then only as the title to the story. --CrypticBacon 03:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a recreated article that has already been deleted once. Brian G. Crawford 03:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 03:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. the BBC article where they mentioned "27 club" was just a catchy title rather than saying that such a club existed. not many relevant google hits [9]. Plus its already mentioned at 27 (number) -- Astrokey44|talk 04:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's actually a popular concept. Not many popular musicians die under 30, and the fact that most of their deaths happened at the same age is notable. Forever 27 is another known name for this. Manmonk 04:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • I should point out that Forever 27 gets around 85,000 hits through google. Manmonk 06:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I change my vote to Delete upon discovery of Category:Entertainers who died in their 20s. Manmonk 05:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Manmonk, your recent change of heart still does not negate the fact that (according to you) "Forever 27" receives 85,000 Google hits. I would be open to rename the article Forever 27 Club, but most definitely not a delete.
    • It would be better off as Category:Musicians who died at 27. There's no reason for us to have an article that gives us no information other than that they died at 27. Manmonk 21:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn neologism. --
  e Ong 05:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. 50,700 hits for "27 club" [10] indicates some interest and the BBC article is a verifiable source. There is also an Asahi article [11]. Capitalistroadster 06:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Only 511 Google hits for ("27 club" (hendrix | joplin | cobain | morrison)) [12] which eliminates many of the unrelated hits. --Metropolitan90 06:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, merging if necessary to 27 (number). It's mentioned there already and doesn't need another article. Night Gyr 10:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Night Gyr. Alba 12:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the entire article into a seperate section of 27 (number) and redirect. Herostratus 15:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As noted above, it's a popular concept. I had heard it discussed several times before stumbling upon the wikipedia page. —thames 03:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a rather fascinating phenomenon, in my opinion, I've always been aware of the strange fact that these artists all died at 27 before wikipedia came along. It's nice to have an entry for it for those who aren't already aware.
• Keep or Merge It's not pointless. I believe one of Wiki's goals is to become the most comprehensive encyclopedia around. Thus, we should all want it to contain as much information as possible, no matter how insignificant it might be to some. A small amount of google hits shouldn't be reason for deletion. Wikipedia would be that much more popular having something that isn't found on a major search engine. Most importantly, it does have a following within the music community, and anyone looking for it won't go to 27 (number) as their first thought. So, per Herostratus' comment, at the very least give it it's own section on 27 (number) with a redirect. --Wilhelm Screamer 15:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonsense. incog 15:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Terrance, Brian and nom. Cursive 22:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A merge into 27 (number), seems a bit odd as this article isn't really about the number 27. it is after all not math but music and most music fans wouldn't look at 27. The information in the article is certainly interesting trivia, the above mentioned articles do indicate a certain degree of use. Perhaps the term itself is somewhat obscure, so I propose recreating this article at Musicians who died at age 27 with redirects from 27 Club, Forever 27, etc. Then mention those as names for the "phenomenon" in the new article. So, I guess that constitutes a keep and rename vote. Cool3 00:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - cannot find notable examples of usage in this manner. -- infinity0 15:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a concept of the fact that 3 (Kurt Cobain not included) of the most popular musical icons died in a timeframe so close together and at the same age. If you are going to delete this becuase it's "nonsense", go ahead and delete the articles for Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, and UFOs.
• Delete Pointless list. Nigelthefish 15:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ... The BBC, Salon.com [13] and Yahoo Music [14] have all used this terminology, in addition to Kurt Cobains own mother (and by some accounts, Cobain himself).
  • This is another vote from User:206.208.110.32 Manmonk 21:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Just the fact that there is so much discussion about this topic warrants it as valid. I am endlessly baffled, fascinated and shocked that all of these important icons died at age 27. It seems more than a coincidence sometimes and I am working on a reasearch project to investigate this more. PLEASE KEEP THIS ENTRY!

This vote is User:Hilarie5000's only edit. --CrypticBacon 01:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's 4 more votes at the very top of the page by possible
  not a democracy and majority rule is not the deciding factor. Manmonk 02:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment on Comment -- Wikipedia may not be a "majority rule" or "democracy." But Wikipedia is most definitely a microcosm of pure socialism much like an Amish community (not to be confused with Communism, Fascism or totalitarianism). People contribute their thoughts and ideas for public consumption, but just because someone may not care for the ideas of another that does not warrant the article as meaningless. For example, right now you probably have about 55% of the people that 'don't care for' George W. Bush, but does that mean his article on Wikipedia should be deleted? Should articles about God and Jesus be deleted because someone is an atheist, or Muslim, or Hindu? Wikipedia is a marketplace of ideas, but this article deletion policy is just a mere step away from censorship and book burning. Every article with a purpose -- no matter how ridiculous (Ape Escape 3 anyone?) -- deserves to be part of that free market exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.208.110.32 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I still don't see how this article could go past anything other than the paragraph that states they died at 27. Manmonk 15:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• I've already voted, but I feel that if this poster is available at Art.com [15] and is being mass produced, that indicates sufficient interest in the topic. 206.208.110.32

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.

Ian Abrahams

Asserts insufficient notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. "
  TalkSPORT
  is national commercial sports radio station based in London broadcasting to the United Kingdom." Article subject is one of only 35 presenters for the station. 17 March 2006
• Delete per nom. dbtfz^talk 03:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 03:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. "
  TalkSPORT is national commercial sports radio station based in London broadcasting to the United Kingdom." Article subject is one of only 35 presenters for the station. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete 1 in 35 is hardly notable. JoshuaZ 05:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. --
  e Ong 05:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Non-notable biography,
  WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  06:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Non-notable biography. Politepunk 08:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, appears to meet minimal notability criteria. Monicasdude 20:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Funky Monkey 22:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Fuhghettaboutit. Jcuk 01:08, 16 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 that the article was deleted after five days on WP:PROD with tag still on page and no followup to talk page protest. —This

Scot Young Research

PRODded on March 10, as failing WP:CORP. The article's creator did not remove the tag, but did protest on the discussion page. Referring to AfD. Abstain. Joyous | Talk 03:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn. Bucketsofg 03:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Ace hardware has two products. Wesclean has one. Campus facility maintenance has one. That's not much. Non notable. There's no use crying over spilt milk, mop this article up. delete ++Lar: t/c

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted content. Capitalistroadster 06:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traveling Ham Agency

Previously deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 31#Traveling Ham Agency and Norwegian Barry; vanity by User:Travelinghamagency. -- TomPreuss 03:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted material. Why was our time wasted with this tripe again? Fan1967 03:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete -- Astrokey44|talk 05:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete --
  e Ong 05:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep.

Cannot be considered an encyclopedic entry. Looks more like a wikiquote page than an wikipedia page. Sharpdust 03:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete not encyclopedic Bucketsofg 03:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep with cleanup tags, maybe delete all the examples unless they are referenced. surely pickup lines are notable, it even gets 79 google scholar and 589 google book search results -- Astrokey44|talk 05:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and clean up per Astrokey. JoshuaZ 05:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopaedic. --
  e Ong 06:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. A culturally very notable phenomenon.
  Grandmasterka 06:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. We definitely should have an article on this topic, but the long list of examples was not very useful—so I
  boldly removed it. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 09:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, move to
  WP:NAME. David Sneek 10:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and move to
  Pick up line, well known phenomenon, looks like an article now that the long list of examples is gone (bound to be a never-ending fight to keep it gone too). Weregerbil 12:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Astrokey. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, move to "Pick up line", and tag for cleanup. Cultural phenomena, albeit minor. Herostratus 13:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a part of culture, and should definitely be considered a definition if other words like "google" can be called definitions.
• Keep. It's as legitimate as many other things that get entries. Carlo 16:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unencyclopedic Funky Monkey 22:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Astrokey. Don't understand how it would not be considered notable. --SecondSight 02:39, 18 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-ly delete. -

Helga Wanglie

nn, borderline original reseaurch Delete --

• Speedy delete a7 and tagged as such. --Rory096 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn-bio. — Mar. 15, '06 [03:39] <
  freakofnur_xture|talk
  >
• Speedy Delete non-notable bio AdamJacobMuller 03:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The whole thing is copied word-for-word from the Bioethics article on Wikiversity: [16] Fan1967 03:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete A7. --
  e Ong 06:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

K.A. Maroufi-Collé

Non-notable biography, does not appear to meet the criteria of

• Delete NN, created by her 14-year-old son, Arthur Collé Necrypsys, who also created one on Dad, Ronald Collé. Sheeesh. Fan1967 04:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In checking his user page, I find he had also put up an autobigraphy of himself, mostly nonsense, which was userfied. Dad, originally User:Colle1, had also created an autobigraphy, which was userfied. When Arthur recreated that biography, Dad, now User:Profcolle helped out. Modest family. Fan1967 04:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obvious vanity, but I do think it's nice that a 14 year old took the time to write this about his mother. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity. --
  e Ong 06:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Vanity Funky Monkey 22:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, vanoty,
  WP:BIO. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

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
  Elkman - ^(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.

• 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 USERFY. JIP | Talk 11:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Abalos

Delete.Seems to be about a non-notable musician. Also clearly a vanity page (check the history). ConDem^Talk 03:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy, just not notable enough yet, would work better as a user page -- Samir (the scope) 04:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I hadn't realised that was an option. If the user agrees to do this, then maybe that would be a good idea. I'll leave a message on his talk page. ConDem^Talk 04:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment User:Marlon Abalos redirects to this page, so userfication would seem quite appropriate. dbtfz^talk 04:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI've noticed that too now, and have left a message saying this on his userpage. ConDem^Talk 04:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy, benefit of the doubt.Bjones 04:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity. --
  e Ong 06:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Wolf530 18:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy—nn, vanity. —GrantNeufeld 16:40, 17 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

WikiSonnet

No evidence of notability. "WikiSonnet" gets 0 Google hits. dbtfz^talk 04:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps it should be moved to the Wikipedia namespace or a subpage of User:HiveMind: this is the WikiSonnet, not an article about the WikiSonnet. TimBentley 04:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedied, not an article. FreplySpang (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

ASP Examples

Basically the same reasons given for Active Server Pages/Hints: This page has no point being in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a usage guide.[17] Wikipedia is not an instruction manual.[18] The article is full of original research. If that's not enough, this article is nothing more than a messy, poorly organized hodgepodge of random thoughts that are available in better form in many other places. Nova SS 04:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it violates a plethora of Wikipedia rules. The article does not explain itself in any way. Aplomado - UTC 04:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to WikiSource or WikiBooks. If the author has some helpful hints, then one of those projects would be more appropriate than Wikipedia. --
  Elkman - ^(talk) 05:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• It's pretty crappy even so, but transwiki to wikibooks and see if they can make heads or tails of it. Alba 12:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content at ASP Examples is such garbage that "transwiki"-ing is of minimal value. Just skimming through it, I found a few outright incorrect statements and blatant original research. I strongly encourage votes to delete. Nova SS 15:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  WP:NOT and instruction manual. And do not Transwiki, the amount of material here is such the overhead cost of doing that is not worth it. Herostratus 15:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. As above. --Ricaud 16:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Funky Monkey 22:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not transwiki. There isn't enough worthwhile content for Wikibooks to do much with, and Wikibooks already has too many false starts like this one. Zetawoof 22:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. incog 16:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, could become worthy of a transwiki but is not as currently written. Cool3 02:20, 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 delete.

Aderack

Non notable bio of a writer for http://www.insertcredit.com/ Manmonk 04:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable. Sandstein 09:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. --Ricaud 16:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Funky Monkey 22:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete probably could have been speedied under A1 or A7. Basically just a link to someone's personal website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom,
  WP:BIO. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Deep Stealth

either a neologism or dicdef; googling "deep stealth" vaginoplasty gets only 79 hits the second of which seems to contradict the article; "deep stealth" is used to refer to keeping many secrets other than transgender status ➥the Epopt 04:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If this article has any validity, the content belongs in Transgender, but as the Epopt says, it doesn't look that way. Fan1967 04:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism. --
  e Ong 06:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. It's use as a term doesn't seem important at all, much less the material that is in the article. - Taxman ^Talk 07:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unverified and lack of citations or references that are required to show that this phrase is in common usage and not a neologism.  (aeropagitica)  07:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Belongs as a sentence in another article, and inaccurate anyway (contrary to the above comments, however, it is a term in wide usage within the TS community (Google shows this to an extent), although I'm not going to bother trying to source it). --Fuzzie (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The

Transsexuality article contains an entire section labeled "Stealth" which includes a discussion of "deep stealth." It looks like that section is better written and clearer in meaning than this article. Maybe a redirect? Fan1967 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. kingboyk 17:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beatle Barkers

This is

• Delete per nom, unencyclopedic.
  crashfan 01:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I hate to disagree with my esteemed colleague from the UK but I think this nom is at best a few days early. We slapped some tags on this one in hopes someone would turn up... also a google search turns up a fair number of references to this (most not very complimentary to be sure) from diverse places. I think it needs to be merged to some parody album collection point, with a redirect left, rather than deleted outright. ++Lar: t/c 02:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep if the album exists in real life, i think it should stay; just because it is bad or not linked is no reason to delete it. Perle 02:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: User's 8th edit to Wikipedia, has 0 edits to mainspace. --kingboyk 02:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The mere existance of an album or CD (since it is relatively easy to do low copy count production runs for not a lot of money, I could produce an album of my musings on the stylistic failings of dog music for 400 USD or so I think...) is not sufficient to demonstrate notability per
  WP:MUSIC. There has to be some evidence of sales through established outlets, or evidence of impact on others, or evidence via reviews, etc... In this case I think some of that evidence does exist (but is enough to make it barely notable, at best) which is why I suggested a merge. Colin's point that there is no article to merge TO is valid... so maybe this should be moved and other dog music articles then merged with this one? ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment: isn't the point of this item more that it is Beatles-related rather than dog-music related? --SilverWings 13:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• MERGE per
  Oarias 03:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Real album, prominent novelty record, pretty strong web presence for a bunch of dogs, and you can still buy their music (on compilations) at Barnes and Noble[19] and Amazon [20] and such. I'd go for a merge to an article about recorded animal performances, but I couldn't find one after a bit of looking, and it's not really helpful to suggest a merge without a destination in mind. It may not strictly meet WP:MUSIC, but I think this is one of those letter-of-the-law/spirit-of-the-law things. -Colin Kimbrell 15:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a genuine item with a real connection to The Beatles' music, and therefore of potential interest to anyone researching The Beatles. Comment: This is what I don't understand about deletionists - they frequently advocate removal of material which is potentially of genuine interest to researchers on a topic, which is based on real and genuine sources, but may be a little obscure. Is there some merit in keeping Wikipedia to the bare minimum? If so, why are these huge bloated articles tolerated which deal with all sorts of subjects of fan-dom of little interest to anyone but the most obsessive fans of various print and electronic media? --SilverWings 13:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's so interesting, why is nobody linking to it?! 0 links. This has nothing to do with being a "deletionist" or not, it was an article that was found in Category:The Beatles as part of our cleanup drive and which, with zero links and no context, didn't seem to belong there. I felt it didn't belong at all, but that seems to be a minority opinion at the moment, which is cool. Removing excessive fandom is one thing we are trying to do, but if you look at our project you'll see it's quite a task. --kingboyk 02:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of interesting things here are orphaned, largely because we're a work in progress. -Colin Kimbrell 03:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is SO much fandom stuff in Wikipedia, especially in things like Japanese manga and suchlike. No-one seems to do much about it, but if complaints about some much more encyclopedic articles are upheld, I guess I support moves to reduce clear fandom as being not NPOV... though I have to be careful - I am an inclusionist by inclination, heh heh! --SilverWings 13:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Beatles-related deletions. -- kingboyk 02:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. It's real, and reasonably notable (around 250 unique Google hits). dbtfz^talk 05:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Beatles. Herostratus 13:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Of interest Funky Monkey 22:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- valid music release. I have the item on cassette myself (somewhere, it was a long time ago). - Longhair 22:55, 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 keep. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 05:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Collé

Husband of K.A. Maroufi-Collé, appears to be non-notable. Son has been adding biographies of the family. Fan1967 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With all due respect, Terence Ong, the fact as to whether or not "spouse" was marked was irrelevent. There are multiple papers published by R Colle over the internet, all having sources. Go look, eh? Laura Bush? Ahhh, yes, notable for murder, no?--Necrypsys
• Delete, spouses are non-notable unless they are
  e Ong 06:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Characterization as "spouse" was facetious action by nominator, choosing to list the one more likely to be considered non-notable first. We need to give scientists a fair shake with respect to Pokemon fictional characters, Bangladeshi cricketers, and Japanese actresses. It doesn't matter who listed, numerous publications in professional journals evident from Google search even without bio removed as copyvio, plus editor of scientific journal,
  NIST Journal of Research. Gene Nygaard 06:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep per the professor test. Most of his papers have citation counts in the single digits to mid-teens, which is very respectable but not evidence that he is more highly regarded than the average professor in his field; however a couple of his articles have very high citation counts (unless there is more than one R Colle in the field of physics). Also journal editor. There should be enough to allow somone to do a better job of explaining importance.
  Thatcher131 11:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Question Is there any way you can test for citation in standards published by standards organizations? Google obviously gave a hit on a citation in an IEEE standard, but the website is a members site. Gene Nygaard 23:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. Can you post the search url or explain more (on the article's talk page I guess).

Thatcher131 03:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, appears to meet notability criteria for published work by significant margin. Monicasdude 20:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable, but needs a lot of help. Moe ε 02:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete:This is true, do your research. --Hawkeye216 19:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person who writes an article should write it in such a way that makes it clear why the subject should be in an article. Although sometimes people commenting on AfD do independent research to try and help problem articles, this is not a responsibility, it is a gift of our time and energy to the author and the project.

Thatcher131 05:23, 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 delete.

Hypocritical paradox

This page does not describe a notable class of statements; it also has no sources that previous described such statements and is therefore

• Comment: It is not a paradox, not does it have any connection with philosophy. It's just an incongruity. I think it's fine if it's included in Wikipedia, but I'd want to verify whether 'hypocritical paradox' is actually the name comedians use for it. Peter Grey 05:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete'. Looks to be original research. Herostratus 13:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Googling didn't shed any light. I too think it's original research. --Ricaud 16:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above Nigelthefish 19:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.

List of ...For Dummies books

This list is better maintained by IDG Press.

• Delete, per nom- So long as to be infeasible, and not of much value in any case.--
  ^(talk) 04:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:05Z
• Keep Well known books. --Masssiveego 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - this is not a proposal to delete
  ...For Dummies, the summary article about this series of books. FreplySpang (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom Eivind 05:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Verifiable, notable. -- Andy Saunders 05:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list is notable? News to me. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we need to have Wikipedia for Dummies before it will be notable enough for you? -- Andy Saunders 15:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a publisher's list: let them maintain it. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful and well known Ozone 06:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list is well known? News to me. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  Шизомби 06:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nom & Sean Black. Lambiam 07:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The main article can link to the publisher's list; WP lists are useful when the information isn't more reliably collected elsewhere on the open web. Deborah-jl _Talk 08:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No real reason to remove, save a dislike for lists. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean other than it's duplicative of an external link, and that
    Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, no, I guess not. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. The For Dummies series is pretty famous, and I can see that this list can be useful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list is pretty famous? News to me. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't what the comment directly above says MLA 18:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have list pages for many things that also have summary articles. Why not this, unarguably notable, book series? Darcyj 12:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list is unarguably notable? News to me. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I don't see any good reason for being listcruft. --
  e Ong 15:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The notability of
  ...For Dummies doesn't directly translate to notability for a list of their products. This list is over-long and contains no encyclopedic content—unless you consider it encyclopedic to merely know that a book exists and has a title. If these books were notable in their own right, I might consider keeping it, but I can't really see the notability of Quicken 2000 for Windows For Dummies, etc. - Rynne 16:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment. I've become aware of
    The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Koran stub, if anyone wants to use that as a specific rebuttal to me. That being said, I think that stub is pretty NN in itself, and I refer to the lack of a List of The Complete Idiot's Guide to... books. - Rynne 16:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete per nom.--Isotope23 17:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful list MLA 18:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Useful in wat way exactly? This is a partial list of unknown currency and unproven accuracy, a mirror of a list fomr the publisher's website, it contains no links and no additional information. Linking to the identical list on the publisher's website gives links to synopses. We do not have articles on more than a handful of these books, so that won't happen here. It's functionally indistinguishable form the Yellow Pages, which
  WP:ISNOT. Just zis Guy you know? 11:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep this is not an indescriminate collection of information. It's an index to some popular books. Someone should linkify every entry. --Snargle 21:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Linkifying every entry will result in 1390 redlinks and 2 blue links to one-line stubs (
    Java 2 for Dummies. - Rynne 22:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment: Snargle said linkify, not wikify. -- Andy Saunders 23:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. D'oh! Apologies, my mistake. A linkified list already exists on dummies.com, where this list was
        cut-and-pasted from. - Rynne 23:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]

• A linkified list would be speedily delinkified per
  WP:EL, I reckon. Just zis Guy you know? 00:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. Seems like encyclopedic info to me, so we should have it even if it is a duplicate of the publisher's list. --Allen 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unencyclopedic. We're not Amazon.com. --kingboyk 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There has to be some lower limit of notability. · rodii · 23:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete of course! Wikipedia is not a mirror of the publisher's catalogue, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Also,
  WP:NPOVUW - few if any other publishers or series have an entire cataloigue mirrored on Wikipedia, nor should they. There are new titles coming out all the time, and no more than a tiny fraction of those listed have articles. Anybody who wants the list of Dummies books can get it trivially easily from dummies.com or Wiley's website, authoritative and up-to-date sources, with no more effort and with considerably more useful results since they will be able to click through and read a synopsis. Honestly, there is no encyclopaedic content here at all! Just zis Guy you know? 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per JzG. Arbusto 00:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename
  The Complete Idiot's Guide to.... The series is noteworthy and the lists are encyclopedic. They provide valuable references for people who want information. Fg2 01:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Hey, we could have the "complete idiot's guide to Wikipedia" - it could start with "copy and paste the content of your favourite web page into an article on Wikipedia!" Oh, wait , that must already exist, judging by the existence this article ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 11:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see no reason for signalling which O'Reilly insert variable here books do not have articles. Dlyons493 Talk 01:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• O'Reilly is down the hall, it's For Dummies in here. · rodii · 02:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd just come from there and it was late! Dlyons493 Talk 07:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is just an inferior copy of the entire dummies.com website. It's hopelessly unmaintainable, and honestly, not really that useful. Dummies is a huge organization and I think they can keep tabs on their books better than we ever could. I think a simple link to the book catalog from the main Dummies article would be good enough. Cyde Weys 04:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cyde. Melchoir 05:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Would it be helpful if this became a list of topics covered by ...For Dummies books, as opposed to a list of the books? Andy Saunders 06:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting idea, but I don't think so. Such a list would really be an inferior version of
    Wikipedia:Browse, while still being unmaintainable and an advertisement. Melchoir 06:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete Advercruftlistspam. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Useless list that links to nothing. --Hetar 06:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Equivalent of List of books that have XYZ in their name. No encyclopedical value. Pavel Vozenilek 14:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not at all equivalent to "List of books that have XYZ in their name". This is a well-known series. StarryEyes 14:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On which we
    have an article. Melchoir 23:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete as lists should contain significant and substantive information that would not otherwise be held in a category. It is a slightly more useful list than "List of books that have XYZ in their name" but not by much and not nearly enough to be Wikipedia material. Deizio 15:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm down with the notion that "
  ...For Dummies books" is an important and notable publishing concept worthy of an article, and it has one, but a list like this is inherently unmaintainable. Delete per Freply, Sean, JzG, Kingboyk, Schizombie, Calton... and the usual cast of deletionist scum.... who happen to be right in this case! ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Muah ha ha. FreplySpang (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was pointed out to me that "Deletionist scum" may be a bit too much of an inside joke... it's used in good fun, not pejoratively, and is about people I respect and like very much, but probably nevertheless isn't appropriate here since it gives the appearance of
      incivility and even, of an inner circle. Redacted. No change in my comment though. ++Lar: t/c 01:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• Damn those rouge admins! Just zis Guy you know? 21:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a mirror of John Wiley & Sons website. A category is more than sufficient for this. Stifle 00:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or trim and merge, as it is now because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If this could be made a more encyclopedic list or a category, that would be much better. --Christopherlin 01:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP Or else delete every single article on wikipedia and close the site down. EVERYTHING we have on wikipedia is SOMEWHERE on the internet (or else why would we bother about how many google hits something has), so to say this is just a copy of xyz is ridiculous. This is a list of well known and verifiable books which are in and of themselves useful. Jcuk 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROFLMAO! I have a list of all the sizes of spanners, I'll create that article right away - every spanner is, after all, useful! Just zis Guy you know? 18:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll need two spanner lists, actually, one for English and one for metric, plus redirects from the "list of wrenches" articles. Please get on this. · rodii · 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spammers come in more than one size? What sizes do they span? ouch! Stop kicking me. Oh, you said spanners! Never mind. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two lists? You jest! Metric, imperial a/f (SAE?), British Standard Whitworth, British Standard Pipe, British Standard Fine, BA, then there's six-point, twelve-point, open ended, ring, combi, surface drive. And that's just the cantilever toolbox, I have four more toolboxes... :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Keep. Excellent! All well known and verifiable tools which are in and of themselves useful! · rodii · 23:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [[21]] Nothing is lost by keeping it, and it's kind of an interesting overview of the many different subjects covered by the series. I skimmed through it after reading the

• Delete per JzG and most others. Sandstein 05:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per JzG and others. Wikipedia is not an inventory list for a publisher. (I wouldn't object to a category however). JoshuaZ 05:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pointless list. No Guru 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is yet another pointless list. --BWD ^(talk) 05:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JzG and all others, obviously listcruft. --
  e Ong 06:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  ...For Dummies, where readers will find a link to the publisher's web site and thus be able to find the equivalent of this article. --Metropolitan90 06:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. No reason to keep this list; the
  ...For Dummies article and the company's own website do a much better job, and we'll never have articles (I hope!) for all of these. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as copyvio (the categorization and order of books is identical to that of the publisher and as listcruft (as eloquently described by JzG. --Karnesky 07:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agathoclea 08:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm convinced by Users: Rynne and JzG and I'm keen to strike a minor blow against listcruft. Politepunk 09:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a smaller list showing the more notable ones at
  ...For Dummies might be useful, but this is just a catalogue -- Astrokey44|talk 09:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, the list is already maintained by the publishers. It's not a copyright violation, but it's not encyclopaedic;
  type 12:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Why don't you think it is copyvio? If organized lists are copyrightable (there is some debate that they are), this is DEFINITELY (and verifiably) copy vio. --Karnesky 00:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as slightly not indiscriminate, strong categorize if deleted. youngamerican (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per listcruft/copyvio arguments stated by so many users above. IMHO does not add encyclopedic value to Wikipedia. Zunaid 13:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a list of notable books. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Delete If there's an official list by the publisher or from verifiable sources and is kept up-to-date, then delete and make a link in the For Dummies main article.--Janarius 14:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP is not replacement for company website. Pavel Vozenilek 17:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Keep Keep only if Wikified. This series of books is notable, and just as commercial as the List of Ford vehicles --PZ 18:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Category: ...For Dummies books would be a more user-friendly way to find individual books' articles than a list of over 1300 redlinks. - Rynne 22:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we have more inane lists that this; it's certainly verifiable and could be useful for some dummies, I suppose. Carlossuarez46 20:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the books are notable and the list is useful. Carioca 20:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's pretty useful to know what "for dummy" books have been published, especially as the series is a bit of a cultural phenomenon. On a side note, I don't see why this was extended. No consensus= no consensus. It does not equal: keep voting for eternity until a pseudo consensus emerges. -- JJay 20:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]