Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 17 March 19 >

Purge server cache

March 18

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Brazilian bikini

Delete or merge into bikini with heavy rewrite. Currently pretty nn advertising, IMO. Definetly not worded encyclopedically. Google test gets a lot of hits, but I don't think it's anywhere near notable or different enough to warrant a seperate article. The merge suggestion was reverted by the article's sole writer without discussion. Staxringold 15:59, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Kate's Playground

Website for a Cam whore with an allegedly deformed right foot. I contend that it's not encyclopedic, but debate will probably concern whether her appearance in a Playboy Newstand Special makes her notable or not. Brian G. Crawford 00:24, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Sweet Amy Lee

Not notable. No entries on any major filmography database. Other than links to pages that review her website, she hardly has any mention anywhere else. Thus Delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Fill it in more. -- Masssiveego 07:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep At least for a few months, to see if the lady does any more work of note. If she doesn't do anything to keep her fan base, she will soon be out of wikipedia. -- User:noi_aventurer 0:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, Delete, at least for a few months. If she actually does something notable, she can be put back. Currently, I don't see anything that distinguishes her. Non-notable, dime-a-dozen webmodel. Fan1967 00:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN Nigelthefish 16:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep She's worth noting and being present here on wikipedia, I was searching for more information on this actress and was hopeing that I would find it here. I will promptly try to update this entry if i can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.41.214 ( talk • contribs)
  • For what it's worth, a quick check of her website indicates that her name should be spelled Amylee rather than Amy Lee, and the one-word spelling does increase her Google hit count significantly. I'm not generally convinced that porn stars really deserve Wikipedia articles, but there's enough interest in them out there. And given that I'm a gay man, I'm not about to pretend I could assess a het-porn actor's notability on the basis of whether I've heard of her or not. Strictly a point for discussion; I don't really care whether this is kept or not and accordingly won't vote. Bearcat 20:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

452nd Engineer Detachment

Delete - Unit is a detachment, can't find anything about it on the internet at all. No reason given for notability, unit size, mission history, etc not given. Since I can't find anything about this unit at all, I don't think it can be expanded. Detachments are usually about platoon size, not a large formation Nobunaga24 01:12, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Sunshine Nee

Less than thirty movies. No official website. No citations/awards in field. Nothing notable or newsworthy about this person. Thus delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:15, 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 redirect. -- King of Hearts talk 01:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Qadianism

Completely unencyclopedic, and fork article, also WP:V no sources mentioned Kuulman 01:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep Other cultures is an important part of Wikipedia -- Masssiveego 08:00, 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. Flower party■ 02:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Vuela

Delete - article created by owner of label. A google search reveals few relevant results. Wickethewok 01:40, 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 keep. Flower party■ 02:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

American Idol controversy

Superfluous. Delete or Merge with American Idol -- Zpb52 01:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I am changing my initial suggestion. The information is relevant, but does it deserve its own article? I don't think so. -- Zpb52 03:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep. Looks like a perfectly legitimate fork of American Idol. Grandmasterka File:Blend Flag.jpg Impart wisdom 01:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep. Come on! it doesnt get any more relevant than this! ZornArmand 03:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)zornarmand reply

Keep Reasonable fork of a long AI article. However as it stands the article is POV and OR, cites few sources, and largely ignores notable controversies from prior years. Needs expansion, cleanup and NPOV. Thatcher131 06:14, 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 KEEP. JIP | Talk 18:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Juan Pablo Rojas Paúl

Empty article, should be a part of list Kuulman 01:46, 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 merge with American Idol. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

American Idol trivia

Superfluous. No need for a separate article for this information. Merge with American Idol. -- Zpb52 01:47, 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 KEEP. JIP | Talk 18:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Andrés Navarte

Empty article, should only be part of a list. -- Kuulman 01:54, 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 delete. Flower party■ 02:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Schmarmy

Contested prod. Looks like an ad for amateur fiction masquerading as a dictionary definition. It doesn't seem encyclopedic to me, with or without the tripod link. Delete. NickelShoe ( Talk) 02:10, 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 keep. Flower party■ 02:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Strategic essentialism

Delete. The article is practically intelligible, and doesn't explain what is Strategic Essentialism. Also, it seems to be copied entirely. Lidless Eye 02:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Change to keep as a stub, or merge with a relevant article.-- Lidless Eye 23:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
OK, now it makes sense. Keep. Sandstein 14:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Merging is maybe not such a good idea, because it seems the concept also comes up sometimes in queer theory and feminist theory. David Sneek 15:22, 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. Flower party■ 02:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Urville (fictional city)

This is an article about a city someone dreamed up; after it was first nominated for CSD but no criteria applied, I proposed deletion. This was challenged by User:Skysmith. Original research, no notability, WP:NOT for original inventions or personal essays. Harr o 5 02:13, 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 delete. Flower party■ 02:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Kurt shotko

del nonnotable politician. Only 65 unique google hits mikka (t) 02:18, 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 no consensus to do anything except not keep it in its current form, so I'm being bold and redirecting it to Affix. Angr ( talk • contribs) 13:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Ending

This article is about word endings. It is written very amateurishly, it contains inaccurate information, a lot of irrelevant information too, and most importantly, it doesn't have any content that isn't present already, and better explained, in other articles ( suffix, inflection, declension, clitic, etc.). Besides that, "ending" is a very common, general word, unsuitable for an article title, and it's not a linguistics term but at most a shortcut or an elementary college grammar term. I thought about turning it into a disambiguation, but there's nothing to disambiguate to. Given all that, I say delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 03:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete changing my vote per Brian Crawford MadCow257 15:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Word ending and keep. Looks like a perfectly valid article to me. GeorgeStepanek\ talk 06:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Disamb to suffix, inflection, declension, clitic, etc. Ending is not an acceptable term for an encyclopidic article about grammar. Eivind t @ c 10:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Poor writing can be fixed, but this is completely wrong. Renaming and disambiguating as above might work, though. I'll propose something in the talk page. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment/questions - These questions are for Pablo or any others who have expertise/knowledge in linguistics (I have none): 1.) According to Morpheme and Affix, the bound inflectional "-s" clitic for the english plural is a morpheme, and thus carries semantic meaning - does that mean that this article is wrong to assert that the "-s" carries no semantic meaning, or is it debatable, or what? 2.) According to Inflection, things like "-ed" to indicate past tense are inflectional morphemes (and thus, according to Morpheme, carry semantic meaning) - is the article wrong to assert that inflectional changes to the end of a word carry no additional semantic meaning, or what? 3.) To what extent is the idea of an inflectional morpheme added to the end of the word (as opposed to a derivational morpheme, which appears to be classed as an affix [?]) covered by the term "desinence"? I mean, is "desinence" synonymous with "ending" as used in this article? 4.) Should "desinence" perhaps have its own article, to which "ending" or "word ending" should redirect? 5.) Should a page be created at "ending or "word ending" that simply offers wikilinks to both "desinence" and "suffix", or something like that? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 13:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
      • 3.) "Desinence", "declension"/"decline" and "conjugation" are basically obsolete terms, but they at least have a more-or-less specific meaning. An affix is (put simply) something you tack onto/into a word, be it a prefix, a suffix, an infix, or a circumfix. Inflectional and derivational morphemes can be affixes of any of those kinds, or not affixes (for example, vowel changes, as in sing - sang - sung, are inflection). If "desinence" has an article, it should redirect to "suffix". "Word ending" should maybe exist because the expression is so common, but it should also redirect to "suffix", or be a disambiguation. "Ending" should not exist; it's too common and misleads editors (too many things have "endings" of some sort). -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Delete per Flores. Thanks for the answers. The "word ending" disambig page could be pretty useful - could include wikilinks to the various linguistic concepts touched on by the subject of word endings, and would be easy to create. "Ending" is indeed pretty useless even as a disambig, unless there are a bunch of pages on various types of ending (in drama, literature, music, etc.) that I'm just unaware of. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I have two degrees in classics, and I can tell you that this is not just useless, but wrong. Brian G. Crawford 14:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rename as Word ending and take out that last paragraph, which is factually incorrect. ProhibitOnions 20:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete the problem with this page is that it is original research. The idea of an "ending" in linguistics being any kind of declension or conjugation is perfectly valid, but is not a widely accepted terminology. the more accepted terminologies (i.e. declensions, conjugations) already have pages explaining their significance. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as original research (i.e. not matching standard terminology in linguistics). Henning Makholm 04:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • No vote: I can't decide between deleting content and Redirect to Inflection, or Rename Grammatical ending. It's not scientific and certainly not proper linguistics by any stretch, but it is about grammatical inflection in some languages and it's a notable (albeit simplistic) concept in second language acquisition, and a lot of students learning second language would probably use this terminology. Peter Grey
  • Redirect to inflection, and merge any useful information there. Inflection by varying endings is a significant feature of Indo-European languages, so that in popular speech, people speak of "word endings" to mean inflections. Suffixing rather than prefixing or vowel gradation or ablaut seems to be somewhat more common among most languages. Smerdis of Tlön 06:21, 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. Mailer Diablo 04:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Ghislain Barbe

A contested speedy CSD A7 candidate, this article about an illustrator doesn't seem to make him particularly notable. Other than "creating" Carmen Sandiego (no hint of verification) this guy hasn't done much that is special. Harr o 5 03:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. ( A rundhati Bakshi ( talk • contribs))`
  • Comment I don't know how notable he is or not, but you could at least google him. Google gets >500 hits on his name in quotes and the first hit is his own page with a CV and list of works. apparently he was the lead artist on Heavy Gear and a bunch of video games. Not sure if that makes him notable, but at least there's some verification. The carmen sandiego thing seems to be one of his (recent) video games. Night Gyr 04:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Seems like a notable behind-the-scenes figure in the industry. Not a celebrity, but a guy whose work has been seen by many people. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 13:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable commercial artist/animator/designer whose published work would undeniably meet notability requirements if it were prose. Monicasdude 14:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep This guy is surely no Elvis, but his profile fits minimal notability requirement, on that basis alone, I dont see why he should be dismissed. The RPG world is an important subculture with a lot of following. You cant get more mainstream than videogames and TV in which he also worked. I agree with Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. that he remains a behind-the-scenes figure but there can be some interest in knowing things like who designed the cat Sagwa or that-or-that second stringer popculture character. Night Gyr said his name had 500 hits on Google (I tried too and got 511). Heavy Gear alone has 652 000 hits, that gives still a lot of people potentially interested in some of this article's infos. As seen on Dream Pod 9's site (Heavy Gear's publisher), although the state of the RPG industry, they are still releasing new miniatures based the Heavy Gear mechas, so I guess there is still an active fandom. As for the verifiabilty of his working on Carmen Sandiego, in his portfolio ( http://www.qosmiq.com/cdiadrone/ghis/), we can see a version of the Carmen Sandiego and the secret of the Stolen Drums cover without any company logos, titles and such of the cover. I dont know how deep we must go into verifiabilty, but, in all good faith, it seems genuine: http://www.qosmiq.com/cdiadrone/ghis/pfolio/comix/pages/01cover.htm Also the list of pulbications on which he worked on is quite long: http://www.qosmiq.com/cdiadrone/ghis/pfolio/pube.htm These have to be seen by a good number of peoples.
  • Some explanations: I am the author of the Ghislain Barbe and relatively new to Wikipedia. Therefore, I aknowledge not being the best person to judge of its pertinence. It seems to be causing quite a debate and I do apologize for this, as this was clearly not my intent. Before writing this article, as I noted in the Discussion section of the article, I checked some guidelines and the artist seemed to meet the requirements for living people as defined in Wikipedia, : Notability (for people) in the "People still alive" section, states: Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more. I take it that artists are authors, as otherwise, no comicbook artist, and basically not commercial artist whatsoever would find its place in the Wikipedia. The same should apply to toy designers, animators and other similar behind-the-scene people. As Barbe has illustrated around a hundred published books and collaborated to several mainstream electronic media contents, either television or videogames, and that there is a reasonnable fandom for Heavy Gear and other franchises he worked on I do think the article is justified. Of course,take this entry here only as a justification of me writing this article. It would be, well, biased, to want to vote on the matter. Cosmicdiadrone 19:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Notable games industry figure. -- Fuzzie ( talk) 19:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Hardly famous, but someone whose body of work meets notability requirements. ProhibitOnions 20:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable enough -- Masssiveego 08:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seems notable. Nigelthefish 17:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Ghislain Barbe indeed has a great body of work and is a known name in the RPG illustration field. This warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. The article should stay. Vulture99 17:17, 20 March 2006 (ETC)
  • Keep I say we keep him. He actually is famous, but only in his industry. Jovian Chronicles is a very popular game, and as for the 5000 rule, theres at least a hundred thousand Jovian Chronicles players in the world. Diablo-D3 20:38, 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 was Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Meredith Jung-En Woo

i am re-nominating this page for deletion and have received permission to do so from wiki admin. it was nominated for deletion once before and i have read the debate on keep or delete. i found the reasons for keeping it to be weak and unconvincing. thus, i submit it for deletion.

dr. meredith jung-en woo is a very good scholar and has authored some very good works, but nothing about her record makes her exceptional in the field of korean studies. her research, while important in its own way, is not commonly thought of as being central to the field. her books are a very fine accomplishment, but among scholars, it is not exceptional. i know of other scholars whose records would warrent a page before her, the late james palais being among them.

specifically, dr. meredith jung-en woo is not, by the academic standards of her field, a prolific writer or a central thinker. as an example, the koreanist bruce cumings (to whom she is married) has over 20 books. his contributions to the field of korean studies reshaped its issues and assumptions, particularly those surrounding the korean civil war. today, NO SCHOLAR wishing to research the korean civil war would be taken seriously unless they first addressed the arguments raised by bruce cumings. THAT is noteworthy among academics.

next, her accomplishments such as advising the US government and appearing in the new york times are neither exceptionally noteworthy or overly numerous.

i argue that for an academician to appear in wikipedia that person needs to be truely exceptional and to achievements that place him or her far above their peers and colleagues. wikipedia needs to have high standards in this area.

in short, this seems more of a "vanity" page than a page dedicated to an exceptional scholar whose ideas have reworked or reshaped scholarship in their field. as such, i ask that you reopen the debate to delete the page. Hongkyongnae 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. As a non-paper encyclopedia, Wikipedia can afford to have broader standards for notability than traditional encyclopedias. This author has several reputably published books and is clearly regarded by several mainstream media outlets as a person to call on for views in her field. Regardless of her relative position within her field, her accomplishments considered alone are notable enough for Wikipedia. I see no evidence that the authorship of this article is motivated by vanity. By the way, James Palais does have his own article. Rohirok 01:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Firstly, the most important question one must ask per WP:PROF is this: Is this article on her verifiable? Yes, it is. Secondly, in 1996 she was appointed by President Bill Clinton to serve on the Presidential Commission on U.S.-Pacific Trade and Investment Policy. Isn't that a noteworthy job-scope? After looking through the proposed guideline of WP:PROF, I agree that the subject in question has not quite fulfilled the seven criterias. However, her dissertation was awarded the Columbia University's highest distinction. Thus she meets point number 8. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 02:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per above. The fact that Hongkyongnae has written such a huge and involved deletion-reason summary that is very long on criticism of the article's subject but very light on actual Wikipedia policy citations, I have to wonder if this is not a bad-faith nomination. wikipediatrix 03:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable professor. Bradcis 04:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I get the impression one could easily find this level of notability in any university professor's profile, but there are a few things that stand out. However, I notice that much of the bio is a copy of her University of Michigan faculty profile. That seems like a problem, although I'm not knowledgeable enough in copyright law to know for sure. -- tariqabjotu 03:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Regarding First Nomination The content from the first nomination has been moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meredith Jung-En Woo (first nomination). -- tariqabjotu 06:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per User:Siva1979 --- Hong Qi Gong 06:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Siva 1979. I don't care if this was nominated in bad faith or not, the subject is well within the bounds of our notability guidelines and no real reason for deletion has been presented. RFerreira 08:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep—In this case the nominator for deletion sets a higher standard for Notability (people), than Wikipedia as a whole does (one need only participate in AfD discussions for a few weeks to recognize that). This is not a nomination for a Nobel Prize, where the standard is best in class. This is a Wikipedia article where a recognized test of notability is whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources. Although Dr. Meredith Jung-en Woo may not be, by the academic standards of her field, a prolific writer or a central thinker, she has accumulated a sufficient body of work and a sufficient recognition to warrant inclusion. If Wikipedia required the same standards of notability as the Encyclopædia Britannica, then we’d be the Encyclopædia Britannica; we’re a much wider body of knowledge and data; some of us think that is valuable. Williamborg (Bill) 14:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Further comment—I appreciated Tariqabjotu linking the original debate. I note that although the nominator found "the reasons for keeping it to be weak and unconvincing", they were actually about as unanimous and strong as it gets for these AfD debates. I'd encourage the nominator not to proceed with this nomination again (and administrators to avoid wasting our Wikiresources by keeping this debate alive). If there are more worthy candidates for mention, so be it; please write articles about them! Williamborg (Bill) 14:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, meets WP:PROF, potential bad faith nomination. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seems good faith to me, checked with an admin and everything WP:AGF. Michael Billington ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am the original creator of this page. I did so to complete a dead link at her husband's, Bruce Cumings, Wikipedia page. I do not accept the argument put forward by Hongkyongnae that the page must be deleted because the subject has not made an important contribution in the area of Korean politics. Meredith Jung-En Woo's work extends beyond that narrow definition. Hongkyongnae also oddly conflates the work of a historian (Bruce Cumings) with that of a political scientist. Yes, the original page, now somewhat edited, did borrow heavily on the U Michigan political science page mentioned above. Fair-use and non-commercial use priciples seem to apply sufficiently well here and the authors there do not object to the use here. She is a prominent member of a prominent department whose visibility continues to grow. For all these reasons, this page should remain. Yosemitemac 23:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Tom Filsinger

He created Legends of Wrestling Card Game, but is he notable enough? He only gets 592 Google hits. -- Khoikhoi 03:37, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 04:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Dave Rudy

Non-notable character from a comic strip that the creator of the article admits is virtually unknown. A google search on "Dave Rudy" with Afterparty as search terms gets just 4 unique hits. Francs 2000 03:50, 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 keep due to withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 09:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Golochino

possibly a real place, but (excluding Wiki mirrors) Google has never heard of it. Hard to work out much about it from the article's broken English, either. Should be kept iff it can be shown to be a real place and considerably tidied. If not, bye-bye. Grutness... wha? 03:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC) see below. reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Metis as plausible misspelling. DS 14:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Mettis

Would be difficult to find something less notable - though looking at the latest influx of stubs, I may well be proved wrong with that. Grutness... wha? 04:04, 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 DELETE. JIP | Talk 18:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Mordanna

Lots of google hits, so may be notable enough, but I'd like the opinion of those who know the online community more than I do. Del or keep? Grutness... wha? 04:14, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Motola

Borderline notability here - an injured elephant with 320 google hits (Motola + Elephant). Personally I'd say below borderline, but it's close. Delete. Grutness... wha? 04:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a unique situation, unlike a car wreck. That's what makes it notable - that and the fact that it's been covered by established and major news organizations Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: I would suggest that Mr. Crawford find another way to express his ideas. Motola's story has been told by most major English-language newspapers since 1999. The Newsbank database gives 340 article hits for Motola. Her crippling ties in with important issues such as landmine accidents, the Burmese insurgency and advances in prosthetic devices. Those are all topics that can and should be addressed here and do not deserve condescending dismissal from you as "crap". -- JJay 15:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
You gotta admit that as elephants go, this one's pretty notable. Bet you $5 you can't name 5 more famous elephants off the top of your head. This is one of the world's most notable elephants. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
[5] Dlyons493 Talk 09:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Okay, you win, but, let's face it, most of those are just pets owned by famous people. This is one of the rare elephants to actually be famous in its own right Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 15:39, 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. Harr o 5 07:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Diohny

Non-notable person - this content belongs on a userpage, not an article Fabricationary 04:32, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 22:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Staten Island Academy

delete - slander Mela23 04:33, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

List of FieldTurf installations

This seems more like an ad than an article JeffW 04:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep but prune, the field material used in major sports stadiums is significant, since it's a big deal to athletes and those who follow pro sports closely. The usage of this material on the high school level, not so much. That stuff should be pruned and only the pros and college stadiums kept. Night Gyr 04:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as listcruft or merge it into the FieldTurf article -- TBC ??? ??? ??? 05:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this page was created because the installation section of the Field Turf page was getting long and those that contributed to it comprimised on a sub page for just installations as the way to go. Everyone prefered this solution so returning all this content to the main page would be counter productive. Basiclly this discusion is re-inventing the wheel. Coz
  • Keep but restrict to professional stadiums (and NCAA division 1 in the U.S.) Bhoeble 15:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - makes sense in the context of the main article discussion, and probably useful as it affects play in certain sports, but follow Bhoeble's advice. ProhibitOnions 01:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep possibly used for some references -- Masssiveego 08:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the first comment says that it's not a big deal regarding the high school level. However, as an avid follower of high school football, it IS a big deal to me and other followers. In fact, I think it should be expanded to include more high school installations. Sam 15:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 22:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Phone Losers of America

Vanity, non-notable. Previous vote IMHO was to delete. Delete Ardenn 04:44, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 04:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

UBC SCI Team

Unencyclopedic, vanity. Delete Ardenn 04:47, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 04:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Hyperwave

advertisement Wh e re (talk) 04:52, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 04:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Nubient

Little used neologism. Not Wikipedia material. 320 wikihits for nubient, quite a number of them relating to factors in water-treatment systems. Grutness... wha? 04:54, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 05:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Good day

Misshapen article about a song which won't be available on someone's upcoming album and speculation about when it might be released. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Daniel Case 04:59, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 05:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Owen Cafe

One of those I mentioned in an earlier nomination that was vying for the title of least notable subject for a Wikipedia article. A food court at a university is hardly encyclopedic. Delete. Grutness... wha? 05:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment. The Spanjo of University of Michigan (UofM) fame is native to Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Owen Cafe is part of Michigan State University (MSU) located in Lansing. For your info :) Isopropyl 20:38, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 05:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Page 23

Delete. nn, unencyclopaedic, and generated a "huh?" from me when I first read it. Grutness... wha? 05:03, 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 no consensus. I'll leave it to you guys to do the rename. :) Mailer Diablo 22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Veer Hakikat Rai

Hi - out of context bio-stub which is unsourced, POV and lacks many specific details. Rama's Arrow

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 05:16, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 22:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

DHPOS

Article seems like an advertisement through and through, does not state notability of software and probably would fail WP:SOFTWARE. Daniel Case 05:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, non-notable software -- TBC ??? ??? ??? 05:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep this is not non-notable software, it is used by a lot of businesses every day. I will rewrite to sound less like advertisement 60.229.101.26 07:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, whilst it may not be "notable" by the standards here, DHPOS has become a very important part of many businesses and has an active volunteer community, used by small businesses in approximately 50 countries. The software is not offered for profitable gain and as such - I don't see how the article could be classifed as an "advertisment". I would encourage those who recommend deletion to actually visit the website, and visit the forum to get an actual feel for the software and it's community. Andrew 10:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep not 100% convinced it needs rewriting - just expanding. I mean, this isn't an informercial-style testimonial, it's a statement from the guy who made it about why he made it, which is notable, especially since it's apparently a free product and no one's trying to hawk it. This isn't really Ron Popeil territory. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, but I expect that a Wikipedia article will include information about what the software does, for one thing. There is nothing to that effect in this article yet, and despite the promise above to make it sound less like an advertisement, which would take about five minutes, it still has the two big pull-quote testimonials, a screenshot infobox and a link plus an exhortation to go to the site and learn more. That walks and quacks like the proverbial duck to me.
Googling returns 2,120 hits ... enough to pass the Google test. I am willing to concede it's notable and withdraw the nomination if the article is properly cleaned up and rewritten to our standards (I would do it myself, but I am not familiar with the software). Daniel Case 13:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I'll start on that, but I can't finish the job Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Just did what I could Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I'd say: kill the exhortation, cut the testimonials down to a briefer explanation of why the creator did the creating, add a bit about what the software is, do some other bits like removing "completely" from "completely free", fix the link to Point of Sale to Point of sale so as to better integrate this thing into wikipedia, and so on. I'll do some of this right now. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Just did what I could Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Computer programs come and go. Let this one go. Brian G. Crawford 15:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • DHPOS Has Been Around for about 5 years now and has helped lots of people with their stores. It would be nice if the moderators here appriciated the hard work put in by Dale, who strictly doesn't charges for any part of this software. People have, out of their love for this software, donated $5 to Dale to help him test out his software. -Chris
  • Weak delete - The text makes it clear it's NN: "His POS system is now used by more than a dozen small businesses and other private users." ProhibitOnions 01:11, 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. Mailer Diablo 22:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Candice Forword

Prod noticed placed by User:Doug Bell with reason "Non-notable athlete, possible vanity." My experience tells me international sportspeople typically get kept; I'm bringing it here for wider discussion. No recommendation from me, though given the creator's wide involvement in the area of sport, I'm doubting this is vanity. Jonel | Speak 05:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles.
Of course, "most members of its squad already have articles" is a weak criteria since it doesn't seem to take into consideration that somebody could create articles for every member of a non-notable team and then argue that each bio is justified because everyone else on the team has one. — Doug Bell talk• contrib 10:00, 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. Harr o 5 07:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Domenicas tuckus

Google turned up nothing on this. Also, I'm not really sure what its point is. Delete tv316 05:33, 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 delete all. Angr ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The Forgotten Onez

Delete - I don't see why they are notable. Also clearly vanity. Wickethewok 05:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Also nominating:

Wickethewok 05:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, a non-notable hiphop group that owns a non-notable media corporation -- TBC ??? ??? ??? 05:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as clearly nn. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete According to articles, they are working on their debut album. At such time as the album is released, the article can be remade. -- Xyzzyplugh 16:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - sure looks like vanity. If their album is somewhat successful, put them back. Till then they're NN. ProhibitOnions 01:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable -- Masssiveego 08:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - massiveego, why are they notable? Wickethewok 08:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Inserting nominations dumped on the top of the page here. -- Saberwyn 10:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • DO NOT DELETE I did a story on The Forgotten Onez last year and I have been a die hard fan ever since. They were also part of a research paper I did on the impact of young black men in the music industry (I am a media management major). I didn't even know they had a wikipedia page until like five minutes ago when I was called and told that people wanted to delete it. I will just tell you now, they are really loved in and around Chicago and if you delete it someone will always start another one. You can't suppress knowledge and if people want to know about The Forgotten Onez, and they do, then they will always find a way! It is also worth noting that TBC has commented on a musical knowledge when his personal page says he doesnt even listen to music. So tell me, how is he qualified to even be in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandyGirl21 ( talk • contribs)
    • Do not Delete I represent the said parties and they are prominent underground hip hop figures in the United States Midwest. At the young ages of 19 they have moved an impressive number of mixtapes and have done writing and production work on mainstream projects. The artists themselves did not create this entry and before you continue to paint them as unnotable I think it would be to your benefit to tell us all your qualifications to judge what is noteworthy and what isnt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Forgotten Onez ( talk • contribs)
  • Comment, I forgot what I was going to say... Anyway, I will vote keep if the group makes notability as per WP:MUSIC, which I am not sure they do. Roodog2k 15:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC at this time. Also without the album being released this artical is crystalballism. Nigelthefish 17:04, 21 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. JIP | Talk 10:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Josh mcroberts

Not notable (enough) college basketball player. Article's previous prod was removed. At the very least needs to be moved to capitalize the last name properly. Gwernol 05:49, 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 DELETE. JIP | Talk 10:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Thomas Wilfred Mulryne OBE

DELETE. Vanity page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Effeminacy. Angr ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Fauxmosexual

prodded and deprodded twice. reason was dicdef, already in wiktionary Thatcher131 06:07, 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 no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 22:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine DVDs

Wikipedia is NOT a place to list a bunch of DVDs. Any alternatives, such as merging it into a Star Trek episode guide will be kept in mind, otherwise I'll be voting Delete -- Arnzy ( Talk) 06:12, 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 keep. Angr ( talk • contribs) 13:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Desert Combat Extended

I prodded this article as non-notable for being about a game mod that "appealed to a small niche of Desert Combat players". The anonymous user who challenged the PROD simply changed "small niche" to "large group". But I still find no convincing indications of notability, or sources. Anyone care to comment? No vote from me. Sandstein 06:23, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 22:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Imad Latheef

Delete - does not seem to be notable. Google search returns 2 results. Wickethewok 06:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep - Google search returns 2 results, because he is from Maldives a small country, where most of the articles are published in local language so Google may not return with so many pages. And those 2 pages also says he is Foreign News Editor. imad@haveeru.com.mv - Haveeru is a notable newspaper and the most leading newspaper in the Maldives. deviathancy 06:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

That would be a good idea. The news paper is notable in the Maldives. -- Oblivious 12:28, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 22:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Xtrnl

This is a "a web series developed by 5Films to be released in late 2006 - early 2007". In other words, non-notable crystal-ballistic vanity. PROD contested by the author. Sandstein 06:26, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 22:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Planet Battlefield

Gaming website of no apparent notability ( WP:WEB); Alexa rank 3,089,099. Sandstein 06:30, 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 DELETE. Harr o 5 07:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Akhilesh Pillalamarri

Vanity bio of non-notable student ( WP:BIO); his "religion" is also up for deletion. PRODded twice, so to AfD it goes. Sandstein 06:33, 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 DELETE. Harr o 5 07:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Jeremiah Winans

Delete nn bio nonsense - author deleted speedy tag Wickethewok 06:33, 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 delete Harr o 5 07:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Mike Andersen

Speedy delete - nn nonsense bio - listed here as speedy tag deleted. Wickethewok 06:40, 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 keep party service; redirect all others thither. Angr ( talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Party Services

Delete - this article has been created in three different places. Not sure why (noobishness? advertising?). Maybe just keep one. Wickethewok 06:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC) The related articles are: reply

Wickethewok 06:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The accompanying image is still an ad, but since it doesn't carry a company name and the external link has been removed, it's basically neutralized. The spelling error makes it rather unencyclopedic, however. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 15:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
What about the party service industry, though? Shouldn't we have an article about it? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Good idea. This is a bad-faith user who is repeatedly violating policy for (rather pathetic) personal gain. I hate that. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
His IP edits are done as 69.124.140.106 - has been blocked for a day as well. He's doing a lot of inline linking which is really annoying to clean up after other people have made edits to the rest of the page. Kuru talk 04:34, 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, nomination withdrawn. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Marc Davis (disambiguation)

Delete. Disambiguation page containing only a link to the main Marc Davis article and two redlinks to Berkeley professors of dubious notability. BryanG 07:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Nomination Withdrawn as the articles have been created and appear to be somewhat notable after all. BryanG 02:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

...And created by a UC Berkeley student. Unless both the redlinks get keepable articles I say delete. Grandmasterka File:Blend Flag.jpg Impart wisdom 07:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep given stated intention of author to create those articles. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:52, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

NorthPoint

*Speedy Delete, no notability asserted. Grandmasterka File:Blend Flag.jpg Impart wisdom 07:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Not true anymore. No vote. Grandmasterka File:Blend Flag.jpg Impart wisdom 07:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Please retain, added notability. Acrouch 08:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Question - Who released their albums? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the helpful comments. The albums (self-titled, and just-released "Wildwood Trail" which is available on cdbaby.com next week) are independent, recorded and produced in Portland OR. In terms of search results, the band is listed on cdbaby.com, pdxbands.com, rockband.com, and magic bus (mbus.com). The CD "Wildwood Trail" is actually being solid internationally, in Asia, Europe, and the US. Acrouch 20:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - Imo, being on rockband.com and those other sites (a search on cdbaby.com yielded no results btw), does not mean notability. My vote is still for delete for nn band and vanity. Wickethewok 23:54, 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 merge. Since there's some disagreement on where to merge (Arny makes good points), I've slapped three different merge tags on the article page. You guys can work out a consensus on what to do privately. Johnleemk | Talk 15:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Cacofiend

An article about a move ("spell") in a video game. No hint of notability, unlikely to expand. Harr o 5 07:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Merge into Baldur's Gate 2 -- TBC ??? ??? ??? 07:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I've created this article not primarily for the spell itself, but for the creature the spell calls, and which is named exactly the same, and inspired by the Cacodemon article. I can simply rearrange the sentences to reflect that if you wish, and Keep the article. BTW, I'm not sure if it should be merged with BG2 article, because there may be other games based on the D&D ruleset which may also use the same spell, but I am unaware of that. If the consensus would be to merge, I'd suggest to Merge it to Cacodemon or Fiend (Dungeons & Dragons) whichever seems more appropriate. There are other "fiends" described there, so this one could fit too. Instead of jumping to delete this article, the more constuctive thing would be to give some help with it, wouldn't it? (See also Talk:Cacofiend) I made this a stub because I wasn't sure where to put it. I sure was hoping someone would eventually put that info where it belongs if it doesn't deserve its own article, not erase it completely! Not very nice... -- Arny 07:44, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 23:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Funkysexycool

Ad page for a minor hotornot.com clone site


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as hoaxes, creator now blocked, enough time wasted already. Just zis Guy you know? 13:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Clan Haruson, Haruson, Praedicatum, The Haruson Gazette, Duke of Britain

Delete user appears to have created a series of hoax pages. Google doesn't turn up anything to support the claims in the article or linked articles. Appears to be borderline nonsense unless someone can supply better evidence? User has removed previous prod on this page Gwernol 07:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

In response to the above adverse notice that was posted on the Clan Haruson page on the 18th of March 2006, the attention of those who would freely edit that page or consider deleting it is drawn to the matter that only the Earl Marshal has the "power to order, judge, and determine all matters touching arms, ensigns of nobility, honour, and chivalry; to make laws, ordinances, and statutes for the good government of the Officers of Arms; to nominate Officers to fill vacancies in the College of Arms; to punish and correct Officers of Arms for misbehaviour in the execution of their places".

As The Prince Haruson is forever sacred and inviolable in law, who makes his assertions under the device of his Coat of Arms (hence these matters 'touch arms') and has exercised his right of direct access to Her Majesty, those who would contest the right of the existence of Clan Haruson under both Scottish Law and English Law should first consult with the Court of the Lord Lyon, and the Royal College of Arms, before considering making adverse comments, or prejudicing The Prince Haruson by making the public suggestion that it could be a hoax

The Prince Haruson considers that anyone who makes adverse judgements against his sacred, heritable rights, without first getting verification of The Prince Haruson's identity and ancient rights, are prejudicial by their very act of acting against the Earl Marshall's own vested right to judge matters that 'touch' Arms of England, which in the jurisdiction of the United Kindom is criminal in its prospect, which in other jurisdiction prejudices native rights

Accordingly, The Prince Haruson holds the Directors and Management of Wikipedia accountable for any prejudice that would be forced against The Prince haruson, such as the deletion of this article prior to Wikipedia approaching The Earl Marshall and seeking the Earl Marshall's judgement.

Wikipedia staff should contact The Prince Haruson via haruson@haruson.com, or telephone him directly on +61424013804 prior to making any deletions.

Furthermore, that unless H.R.G. The Prince Haruson recieves an apology from user: Gwernol for making judgements of English Coats of Arms that in England come under the authority of The Earl Marshall, that The Prince will be applying for a Court Order to require that user: Gwernol's identity is surrendered so that The Prince can press criminal charges.

And Furthermore, that Wikipedia would have a policy that allows anyone to recommend for deletion matters that come under The Earl Marshall's authority (hence Wikipedia is not protracted a right to make judgements without first approaching the Earl Marshall's Office), then Wikipedia itself becomes publically liable for any offence that is commited against those who rightfully bear their arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haruson ( talk • contribs)

  • Delete - I suggest blocking this user from Wikipedia if this continues or until his edits/article creations are cleaned up. He has created a series of hoax articles as well as made a mess of several others. I am in the process of listing all other pages this user has created for group deletion Wickethewok 08:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as hoax, seems to be vanity too as the user who started the articles calls himself Haruson -- TBC ??? ??? ??? 08:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I am nominating the following articles in conjunction with this one:

I really have no idea what to make of them. Clearly vanity, but perplexing vanity. Also note, much of this user's vandalism to other articles must be undone as well. Wickethewok 08:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Agree with deletion of all articles mentioned here - probably contravene "original research" policy as well as other reasons given. Much of the material would be impossible to substantiate. Possibly part of a personal vision, and not hoax in the usual sense. -- HJMG 09:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The Prince Haruson raised to Wikepedia staff the issue of being ethnicly abused by user Wickethewok.

The following is the email that he just sent to Wikipedia staff:

This document is presented under the device of the author's Coat of Arms and the assertion that the author is forever sacred and inviolable in law (binding the recipient over to the jurisdiction of The Earl Marshall in all matters that 'touch arms' under The Law of Arms) which device is available to be viewed at http://www.haruson.com/images/coa.jpg

From H.R.G. The Prince Haruson

To the Director, Directors, and Shareholders of Wikipedia,

I have today been subject to ethnic (racial) abuse by Wikipedia User Wickethewok, and shall be submitting my report to you next week, as time permits.

Please find below a copy of the email that I have just sent to user Wickethewok, who if not making an apology and withdrawing his claims, I shall be approaching Wikipedia in connection to the prospect of me laying criminal charges against the user.

May I in the first instance request your confirmation of receiving my prelimminary complaint against User Wickethewok, the nature of my complaint being that which is is expounded in the attached email that I sent to that user.

Sincerely,

H.R.G. The Prince Haruson

Body of Email sent to User Wickethewok----------------------------------------

I draw your attention to the matter that you have made assertions, both that my contributions are nonsense, and that they are an act of vandalism.

You shall observe on Wikipedia's entry for Earl Marshall that the prerogative to judge matters that 'touch' arms (of England) is vested with The Earl Marshall and not with you, and that by making judgements of matters that 'touch' (English) arms without first seeking the counsel of The Earl Marshall, that you prejudice both the Earl Marshall (in the matter that the right to judge matters that 'touch' English Arms is vested with he), and you prejudice me in the matter that I assert such (native) rights under the matter that the right to judge them is not vested with you but with the Earl Marshall.

If you take the time to read some of the documents at www.haruson.com you will notice that I am presently engaged in asserting criminal charges against the Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia, and that the case proceeds to Court next week, that my open strategy in those documents is to hold the Federal Magistrates Court to its obligation of approaching the Earl Marshall so that the Earl Marshall can indeed verify that I am as who I have asserted.

If your assertions are not immediately withdrawn and an aplogy made, you will understand that it is already my prerogative to assert that you have pierced the veil of my forever sacred and inviolable honour, which upon them not being withdrawn I shall be able to raise criminal charges against you that at the minimum, will prevent you from ever travelling freely in the British Commonwealth without criminal charges first being heard against you.

As you have both abused and violated my native ethnicity, I shall in any case be presenting my case to the Wikipedia abuse department.

Sincerely,

His Royal Grace The Prince Haruson

He's also made nonsense or suspicious additions to various Britain-related articles; I think I have cleaned them all up. Some of the stuff may even have been true, but that will be for the editors of these articles to decide. Sandstein 10:56, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 23:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Tubcat

This article could never be expanded upon beyond the tiny stub that it is. Completely un-noteworthy Matt 08:10, 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 DELETE as copyvio from [15]. Harr o 5 00:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Elibrary

Contested PROD. Blatant spam. Site itself is non-notable per WP:WEB. Can't see a way to speedy this, but do so if possible. Delete. -- Kinu t/ c 08:14, 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 delete. If/when they become notable, then we include them. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Engineers_with_a_Mission

Delete This is a charity/group of missionaries at Baylor university. All google references to them are on the baylor.edu website. Non-notable, perhaps could be merged with Baylor_University. Xyzzyplugh 08:45, 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 that both this one and Natural 1 have been merged with Role-playing game terms so I'll redirect them now. (Yeah, yeah, I voted here and should probably have recused myself but... Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Natural_20

Delete This is a well known term amongst dungeons and dragons gamers, but seems to me to be nothing more than a dictionary definition. Note that I'm also nominating Natural_1 Xyzzyplugh 09:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge per Sjakkalle Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 11:54, 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 that both this one and Natural 20 have been merged with Role-playing game terms so I'll redirect them now. (Yeah, yeah, I voted here and should probably have recused myself but...

Natural_1

Delete Dungeons and dragons related dictionary definition. Note that I also nominated Natural_20. Xyzzyplugh 09:13, 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Dishanker_Rajakulendren

Just delete this. Dishankr 09:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Dishankr, it's good practice to give a reason for deletion (see WP:NOT for a reference). That said, delete as non-notable ( WP:BIO) and possible vanity ( WP:VAIN); no Google hits indicating any notability; the article is not about the person but about the name and veers into speculative linguistics (so it's WP:OR too). Sandstein 10:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think that if we can verify this (looks unlikely), it can be reduced to a stub and renamed "Dishankr" or "Dishankar" or something. But, per google, it looks impossible to verify. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 11:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete. It looks like the principal author of a vanity article is asking for deletion. I don't see the problem. Brian G. Crawford 00:26, 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. Mailer Diablo 23:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Shakespeare's Sonnets Remixed

Advertisement for non-notable book with no Amazon rank. Sandstein 10:02, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 23:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Faciliation

As per the PROD, which the author deleted: Useless nonsense, redundant with memory. Also original research. Sandstein 10:05, 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 merge. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Lost_on_PSP

Seems rather pointless to have a whole article on a release in some specific format. And all the info here is simply a repeat. Tejastheory 10:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge -- Masssiveego 08:35, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Nigel Tomm

Vanity article on a non-notable person ( WP:BIO); see also the AfD on his book. Contested PROD, what else. Sandstein 10:18, 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 DELETE. JIP | Talk 10:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Ben Harvey

Promotion for a NN radio host. Google hits for "Ben Harvey" +radio -Wikipedia are 1790, but most seem unrelated. Punkmorten 10:52, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Tony Whelan

Even for a club as famous as MAnchester United, I don't feel that being a under-12s coach is sufficiently notable. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:10, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Jonah Birir

This article was deleted through prod, but I reckon it meets our benchmark for athletes. So I decided to recreate it, expand it and bring it here. My opinion is to keep the article. Punkmorten 11:50, 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 redirected to Don't ask, don't tell. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

DADT

Delete , this article is vague and inimportant. It is confused with the US military policy. Waste of space. Poorly written. Tinyboy21 21:54, 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Re-Romanization of English

This is one Bulgarian academic's suggestion for a simplified spelling of English. The article cites its source (singular), but I still don't consider the proposal notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Delete. Angr/ talk 12:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

This deletion proposal is unsubstantiated; the original allegation that the article was a "nonnotable spelling reform suggestion" is now reduced to "I don't consider the proposal notable". The latter apparently derives from Angr's assessment of the system itself which however should not be a consideration. Far from proposing reforms, the article presents in Wikipedia a comprehensive, self-contained system of Roman spelling of the English language, reviewed and published by a respectable scientific journal. This surely makes it notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Whether one likes the system or not is quite irrelevant -- as is the presumed Bulgarian nationality mentioned above, one hopes. Apcbg 13:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The fact that the person who proposed the system is Bulgarian is indeed irrelevant. This system would be equally nonnotable if it had been made by a person of any other nationality. Angr/ talk 13:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
English spelling reform is a wider term, and far more widely publicized. This is someone's individual idea that may have appeared in one publication. Grand master ka 16:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Oh, I see what you're saying. Never mind. I still say delete. Grand master ka 16:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Jimbo Wales - 'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV. [...] Consider an obscure scientific concept, ' Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion.

Although this was about the use of the criterion "fame and importance", I feel this equally applies to notability. This was not thought up by some student in two days, and it is not about your next-door neighbour's dog. The article is not original research, it is verifiable, it gives a reasonably neutral point of view, what else do we need? David Deutsch himself may be famous (at least I'd heard of him) and L.L. Ivanov is not (at least I'd never heard of him), but I don't see how that would be an argument one way or another. I must add that I question the rationales given for some votes, which sound to me like "I don't like this spelling (or, I like another one more), so let's not include this." Lambiam Talk 17:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Notability in linguistics is based on use, not on sketchy proposals. No matter how much people discuss a particular scheme, it's not 'real' until it's featured in some body of sample text. Peter Grey 19:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
My problem is not the merit of the orthographic scheme, but the lack of context. (For starters, we don't actually know that Ivanov didn't write the paper as a student, or in a rush, but it was published, so we can assume it has some merit.)
However, what of the transliteration scheme: was it presented in the paper as a proposed reform? Was this scheme even the topic of an article entitled "On the Romanization of Bulgarian and English", or simply an example to illustrate some linguistics principle? This WP article fails to mention its importance and intent; without finding the paper in a library, or having someone even quote from it, we have no way to judge its purpose or notability. Since it does not seem to be cited or mentioned anywhere else, there seems no reason to judge it as notable. We can't write a WP article about every entity mentioned in in an academic paper. — Michael  Z. 2006-03-20 19:57 Z


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Bozunov formulas

The article does not make sense to me, and I think with my background I should be able to understand it. I could not find a reference to Bozunov via the usual search tools. So I think the article is not verifiable. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 13:14, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

KEVI Cam

Non-notable; possibly a decent newsletter, but still nothing of particular note. (This is regardless of the article quality which could do with some tidying). Fourohfour 13:54, 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 delete both. Mailer Diablo 22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Neil Gittings and his band, the Naked Apes of Reason

No-name person and his band, both failing WP:BIO and WP:BAND, respectively. At least, Google doesn't indicate otherwise. Sandstein 14:55, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Andrea Morgante

NN person, article fails to establish notability. Dismas| (talk) 15:05, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Dwana Pusser

I'm sure she is a nice young lady, but she simply isn't notable, despite her (apparently) famous father. Sandstein 15:28, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 22:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

WarCry (website)

I don't feel this establishes notability. Seems like just another fan website. Talrias ( t | e | c) 15:40, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 22:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Stratics

I don't feel this establishes notability. Seems like just another fan website. Talrias ( t | e | c) 15:40, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/talk:Meade Skelton

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

The result of the debate was keep and de-POV. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Atul Chitnis

This was up for Speedy deletion, but I'm not entirely convinced, although parts of the article are totally irrelevant, some parts hint toward some notability, so I'm letting AFD decide on this matter. - O bli ( Talk) ? 16:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and de-POV - guy seems notable in his country. There've been a number of AfD's lately that involve the Indian tech sector, and I've been consistently voting "keep" - it's a growing area of particular interest to the class of Indians who might use English-language wikipedia. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, apparently notable for the sum of his activities. But I disagree with the apparent notion of Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. that we ought to have "affirmative action" for certain types of articles. Let's hold everybody to the same standard of notability, please. Sandstein 18:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep and clean-up -- I agree with Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr.. I think it is important that this article stays, but gets cleaned up to meet Wikipedia standards. I have tried helping cleaning up, but am getting harassed in exchange by Atul Chitnis, something I ought to have anticipated ... Therefore, this is the last edit/comment I'm making on this article. Cheers. Zaatar 18:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and de-POV - As Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. says, the man is notable. He's been around for years in the BBS and linux communities in India. But the controversies mentioned are also very much there, and large parts of the original article, about his exit from the linux-india mailing lists, the winding down of the bangalore linux user group and the background of the bang!linux and foss.in conferences, were presented with a strong skew towards the person's PoV. The edits you see are the other side of the controversy. De-PoV'ing may not be easy - the various debates, email threads etc that have been linked to are spread over a period of several years.
  • Keep and de-POV/Rewrite - The Person is notable, but the fact that some of the content has been taken from his website may make it difficult to de-POV it. I suggest a rewrite from scratch or at least remove the POV items as a start. Sid Carter 04:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above -- Masssiveego 08:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If no de-POV/Rewrite, delete -- a simple reading shows entire sentences which are simply POV. Thenothing 13:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • There is additional discussion in the Cleanup Task Force page for this article. Please refer to it too. Jace 18:48, 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 keep -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Blue Screen of Death

Non-notable. We have not a article about Microsoft Windows start-menu or control panel - so why should Wikipedia have a article about blue screen of death? This is a obvious attack page. A alternative is merging into Microsoft Windows, but i propose deletion. —This unsigned comment was added by 1() ( talk • contribs) .

Just wandered on to here - why would an encyclopaedia not have an article about the way Windows computers crash? Windows computers crashing have a great impact on the economy. The Golux 16:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Notable characteristic of Windows, and explains the difference between the various blue screenas. It's been specifically mocked/referenced in many places. The article could possibly be trimmed a bit, but there's probably too much useful information here for a straight merge into Microsoft Windows. —  TKD:: Talk 16:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Relevent information about the Winodws OS. Could be renamed to remove the possible attack on Windows, however the current name needs to be mentioned somewhere. -- Scohoust 16:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The BSOD is well-established in computing circles, and certainly not an unimportant, esoteric phenomenon. Besides, the article is "ecumenical" enough to list similar error screens for other operating systems. -- Tachikoma 16:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Didn't see that. Excellent. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:57, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Craig Anderson

Biography of a nobody, with questionable claims, i.e. PHd (sic) in comedy. This was initially PRODed, but was removed by User:Monicasdude with an editing summary asking if it would "kill" me to look at the Internet Movie Database link. I looked, and no, it didn't kill me. I'm just not impressed, and I don't think Wikipedia needs an article for every very minor personality in the IMdb. He doesn't meet the guidelines in WP:BIO. Besides, he's number 5 of 12 Craig Andersons on IMDb. Who is this guy? Brian G. Crawford 16:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. A search of Australian newspaper database for Craig Anderson did not come up with much. There was more information about a member of the Australian baseball team who was selected for the World Baseball Classic. I will abstain for now and would vote keep if JJay's claim of an AFI award could be confirmed. Capitalistroadster 00:47, 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; merge is technically invalid as GFDL requires us to maintain the article history. Johnleemk | Talk 15:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

MMSA

Non notable student organization. Delete and merge with University of Malta. waffle iron 16:57, 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 delete. Flower party■ 05:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

MADS

Non notable student organization. Delete and merge with University of Malta. waffle iron 16:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete and merge per nom. Sandstein 18:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as campus-cruft. — Mar. 18, '06 [18:37] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
  • Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 22:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Henning Makholm 05:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable. Maltesedog 07:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no merge - Student associations belong in an article of their own, linked to in the main article. There are multiple associations per faculty which would make the whole article out of point with say 200 lines on associations and 20 on the university. In addition, incorporating them in the UoM article risks political disputes, especially for parties running for KSU elections. 195.158.70.226 has already provided for having the MADS in the UoM article -- please express an opinion on both deletion and merging - will keep edits till the discussion is finished. └ VodkaJazz/ talk┐ 21:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Thats exactly what i thought, if every student association had to write a paragraph on the UOM listing it would be a really long listing, but well the MADS listing (which shouldnt have been causing any disturbance to anyone) was nominated, more than once, for deletion. The recommendation was to merge with UOM and that is exactly what i have done i also cut down on details and went straight to the point. If my page will be removed from the deletion category and the general consensus with be to simply provide a link from UOM to the MADS listing then that is exactly what i would do.
Please sign your comments with ~~~~. There is no need for you to take care of everything my friend :) When it is decided what to do, it will be done by whoever feels like it. The deletion request has grounds since being a non-notable organization, there are no prospects of ever having a fully-pledged article in place of the current stub. └ VodkaJazz/ talk┐ 22:25, 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. Flower party■ 05:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Advanced Day Dreaming

No sources provided, and very few Google hits none of which seem to refer to what's being described here. Seems either original research, or possibly just a made up article. Mdwh 17:45, 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 REDIRECT. Henning Makholm 07:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Schadenfreuden

This topic already exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneill ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 March 2006

Which is why I redirected it as a common variant spelling of the existing article. I don't understand why you decided to remove the redirect, place an afd template on it, and create this page. -- Francs 2000 18:11, 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 userfy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Hyena (artist)

Apparent vanity page (by User:Hyena666) about a musician who does not appear to be notable per WP:BAND. PROD contested by author. Sandstein 18:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

  • I'm Ignorant. the hyena (artist) line was inserted in the list of breakcore artist by someone, i found it and then created the page just to not let the name points to nowhere...no vanity, if u think its not appropriated you should delete it and i'll point the name on the list to my website.good morning. Hyena666


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Contextual framework

advertisement Wh e re (talk) 18:14, 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 redirect to chimney. Redirects are cheap. Mailer Diablo 22:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Stack (power plant)

This is an overly-specific synonym for chimney — Michael  Z. 2006-03-18 18:47 Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Shanel 05:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Cake and Goodies

This is a textbook case of something made up in school one day, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. E lkman - (talk) 18:48, 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 delete. Shanel 05:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Thunder-D

Non-notable, per WP:Bio Ckessler 18:56, 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 delete all. Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

British Wrestling Alliance

Non-notable. 212 Google hits, first is Wikipedia, many are mirrors. Then appears their own website and myspace.com. Ifnord 19:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are two liners about persons non-notable, only being involved with the wrestling club above:
Note: This is the proper way to bundle articles together under an AfD. It saves time rather than voting on them all piece by piece. Ifnord 19:46, 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 delete. Shanel 04:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

76777

Limited value, anyone could guess that it comes before 76778 and after 76776. Unnecessary. haz ( user talk) e 19:24, 18 March 2006


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

The result of the debate was baleeted. — Mar. 18, '06 [19:29] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>

"the oldham bros"

Deals with the "film company" of two teenagers and a demolition company in the UK. Both are non-notable. Boys, read WP:BAI. Sandstein 19:28, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 22:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Chandler Lindauer

One credit, as "young Butch" in Pulp Fiction. Looks like a big stretch to say he is notable.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. JIP | Talk 10:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Ron Magers

Moving from speedy-delete here to AfD. As (apparently) a prominant newsreader in a major city, no way is this guy a speedy. Does he meet WP:BIO as a "Widely recognized entertainment personality"? He's a pretty face who reads the news, I suppose. I dunno, he's probably on the bubble. I'm sending this to AfD out of respect for the original speedier, but I'm not gonna vote. Herostratus 20:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Neutral as nominator. Herostratus 20:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As speedier. Article was one of a group of about 10-12 completely non-notable tv anchors. Original articles didn't make any effort to explain who they were, what station (and location) they were from, or why they were in any way significant to the project. The entries were all 1-2 sentences, with one that topped out at about 4. Get rid of it, when they ahve something useful to add they can come back and re-write it ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Point taken, but still, articles shouldn't be speedy deleted if they assert a notability that is reasonably believable, see WP:CSD. Speedy delete of bio articles is for "Joe Smith is the coolest kid at XYZ High" or "Joe Smith is King of the Universe" or whatever. Herostratus
  • Keep stubhood(?) is not a reason to delete, tv personality from major tv market. good google count [24]. Eivind t @ c 21:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep We keep much less well known people. Osomec 22:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • weak keep he's on a major network in the #3 Nielsen market. I think he's notable. Roodog2k 14:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep He's the main anchor on the ABC station in Chicago. That's probably worth more than channel 57 in Wichita Falls. Sounds reasonably notable. Fan1967 00:24, 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. – Rob ert 00:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The Yanis Theory of Influence

Delete. There is no such thing as the Yanis theory of influence and the author of the article is probably himself Eric Yanis. Mostafa Hussein 20:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

(merged from the other entry on this) Sorry Mostafa, I accidentaly voted on this before you finished creating the AFD, and it made two sectons. Merging that one into here.

Delete Non-notable, hoax (comes up with 0 google hits related to the subject). ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:59, 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 delete. Shanel 04:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

List of religions that accept homosexuality

Prod removed by author. This article appears to have no prospects but remaining a short and subjective list, and a breeding ground for controversy. I can't see any encyclopedic function it could ever serve.-- Fuhghettaboutit 20:15, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 22:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Objective Ministries

Redirect to a deleted page. SirNuke 20:19, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 22:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

List of alternative hip hop musicians

This was on prod, but it seems to me to be controversial. User:Urthogie's prod said: "An alternative hip hop musician cannot be defined. Who is alternative? Mainstream rappers often have a live band. Mainstream rappers have talked about politics and personal issues. It's impossible to define alternative." But we have an article on alternative hip hop and a Category:Hip hop musicians. And the article has a decently long history with various contributors and some incoming links. No vote from me as yet. NickelShoe ( Talk) 20:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The article on Alternative hip hop is completely inaccurate in its current state(hence the {{ totallydisputed}}). An accurate article would admit that it can't be defined. I defy anyone to give a concrete rule so as to tell if someone is an alternative hip hop musician-- Urthogie 22:33, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 22:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Yoav Krayn

Non-notable Krav Maga instructor. Delete. DMG413 21:01, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 22:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Rick Blitstein

Non-notable Krav Maga instructor. Delete. DMG413 21:02, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 22:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Ohad Gidon

Non-notable Krav Maga instructor. Delete. DMG413 21:03, 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 Speedily deleted.  (aeropagitica)  23:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Leo Humphries

Hello? What? Absolutely useless nn-bio of a newgrounds Flash animator. Awesome! - Hahnchen 21:05, 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 DELETE. JIP | Talk 10:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Boaz Aviram

Non-notable Krav Maga instructor. Delete. DMG413 21:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, per nom. Ckessler

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 10:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Haim Gidon

Non-notable Krav Maga instructor. Delete. DMG413 21:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete. Non-notable. Ckessler

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; default to keep. If it is really felt that this article must be merged, AfD is not the place for it. We have this thing called a talk page, you know... Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

A list of references to the band Rush in sundry movies and TV shows, often limited to single appearances of a Rush t-shirt or something. I'm a big Rush fan myself, but despite Wikipedia's systematic bias towards Rush fandom, I think we can all agree this is pure fancruft. — Phil Welch ( t) ( c) 21:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Merge back into Rush. This is a well-meaning spinoff in support of its current FA nomination. However, I think it's too short to merit a separate article. Daniel Case 21:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Definitely do not agree with nom. This was just spun-out of main article because of length. The material is vital because it demonstrates this band's impact on popular culture. It shows that Rush was more than some hack band that had a few moments of glory back in the 70s. -- JJay 21:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Please explain how it's "vital" to have a list of times a Rush t-shirt appears on TV. — Phil Welch ( t) ( c) 23:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
      • The material is vital because it demonstrates this band's impact on popular culture. It shows that Rush was more than some hack band that had a few moments of glory back in the 70s. Seems pretty clear to me and I think if Rush has had even more of an impact the info should be added to the article -- JJay 01:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I think Rush (band) makes it perfectly clear that Rush was more than some hack band that had a few moments of glory back in the 70's. And I quote: "Rush's three decades of continued success under their current lineup of Lee, Lifeson, and Peart has earned the band the respect of their musical peers, and their supporters are often cited as one of the most intensely loyal fanbases in the history of rock. Rush have also had a profound musical influence on such artists as Dream Theater, Symphony X, Shadow Gallery, Primus, Metallica, Smashing Pumpkins, and fellow Canadian rockers The Barenaked Ladies.", ""Rush has been awarded the Juno Award[1] several times and were inducted into the Canadian Music Hall of Fame in 1994[2] (For a complete awards list see the "see also" section below). Additionally, Lee, Lifeson, and Peart are all Officers of the Order of Canada.", "As a whole, the band boasts 23 gold records and 14 platinum (3 multi-platinum) records making them one of the best selling rock artists in history." In contrast, "Rush in popular culture" includes such enlightening information as: "A Nightmare on Elm Street, Nov. 1984. In the bedroom of one of the teenage characters (played by Johnny Depp), a Grace Under Pressure album cover poster can be seen on the wall above his bed." If you consider *that* vital information about Rush, I don't know what I can say. — Phil Welch ( t) ( c) 02:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Firstly, this article gives cold, hard facts about what TV shows and movies have used their music. Secondly, much of what you quote is unsourced such as the lines regarding their influence. I don't see why the info is not complementary. If they truly had the reach you claim, this article can probably be greatly expanded.-- JJay 02:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, merge, merge! Let's preserve this encyclopedia's credibility by not letting it become bloated with unnecessary articles that would be laughed at if they showed up in a print encyclopedia! Proving that a person or group or whatever is relevant to popular culture does not require an exhaustive list of every time they show up - some noteworthy examples that prove the point are sufficient.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Shanel 04:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Order of the Boy who Kissed the Sun

No Google hits. Website linked to is under construction; this secret society is apparently so successful at being secret it isn't even verfiable, much less notable. Daniel Case 21:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The Order of the Boy who Kissed the Sun is a young secret society in Slovakia, some members live in Czechia (Chzech Republic) maybe. Do not delete this page. The Order is really secret. This community do not present the Order and Tarsus, their teaching. I think that this little information about the Order is very important and verification... only time please!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.103.194 ( talk • contribs)

It is up to you, then, if you want to see this article kept, to offer not only verification but verification that this organization is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. You have the requisite week here, but given that the page the article links to is "under construction," I'm not optimistic that we will see this proof. Daniel Case 21:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Ok, I am a student of religionistics only and also new in the Wikipedia. I will try more relevant information about the Order of the Boy who Kissed the Sun and about its Conception called Tarsus. And I study terms for writing articles to the Wikipedia more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.103.194 ( talk • contribs)

Please do not remove the unsigned tags. It is not a demonstration of good faith. Remember to sign your posts. Daniel Case 05:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply


The Order is a local secret organization. Please do not joke about it. Freemansonry is also secret organization and we kknow about it, also another religious societies. What degree you have that you speak about it? Oh, absolutely dilletantism!!!!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.103.194 ( talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; editorial decision taken to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Ommelebommelestien

I intended to put the cleanup-tag on this, but it is more or less nonsense. Not notable and googlesearch returns nothing Franglais or Spanglish, in the least. I also hope it goes to BJAODN; unlike most of this stuff, it's actually funny, although nonencylo'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4836.03 ( talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 04:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Jordans Law

Nothing on Google for this aphorism, which sounds awfully similar to Godwin's Law in any event. Article is unlikely to grow beyond its present size anyway. Daniel Case 21:26, 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 delete; where could we possibly transwiki this?. Johnleemk | Talk 15:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I love you in various languages

The latest completion of the popular phrase " Wikipedia is not ..." ... a phrasebook. Just because some variant of this has been floating around the Internet for years does not make this encylopedic. Daniel Case 21:38, 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 delete. Shanel 04:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Ainsley Brooks

This has been speedied four times as utterly unverifiable. No IMDB entry for him or the alleged upcoming films, no evidence to support the sundry speculations. Complete bollocks, frankly. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 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 delete. Shanel 04:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Economisation

Apparently original research, nothing like the usual definition. User has some history of promoting protologisms. Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

68k Macintosh Liberation Army

Non-notable webforum. Non-encyclopediodic. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Against Deletion (Vote #1 - Do Not Delete)

  • I recommend not deleting this entry. I googled for sites pertaining to old macintosh hardware and software and this is about the only site that is updated regularly and has an active community. Just because a site doesn't have x amount of users doesn't mean it isn't noteworthy. Notability is a highly subjective term. Also, there is a similar entry for a group calling themselves Fairlight which has been up for about a year now and no one has deleted it. The Lightning Stalker 07:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Do not delete Caso 24:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, first "per nom" means based on the reasoning of the nominator, which was for deletion. Second of all, these edits were made by 162.40.139.40 (if I am reading the history correctly). So what exactly is going on here? JoshuaZ 06:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. For those who are voting to Delete, please note: Google has 46,100 results for '68k Macintosh Liberation Army'. It is certainly notable and worthy. — Wackymacs 09:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Do not delete, allow for modifications to structure first. / IMac600 03:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Honestly, i've seen worse articles here. You documented Uncyclopedia, doesn't that say something? And, before you give us the Google chat, that organisation has more base system than this place does, so if it's not valid then this place 'aint either. I know I placed my Wikipedia membership at risk here, but if it's to uphold the dignity of the 68kMLA then I would put my entire career on the line.

Another thing to note is that a standard click of your provided link (to Google) turned up many links, all of them are different, each from one of the 30 system servers, past and present, of the 68k Macintosh Liberation Army.

Oh, but my response, don't take it personally, as stated by your rules. / IMac600 13:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

For Deletion (Vote #1 - Delete Per Nom)

Comment above is incorrect Actually, it only has two pages worth. See " [28]", which only shows 2 pages, and the rest "results omitted". And the majority of those two pages are forum posts. In fact there are only 20 links to it on google, the remaining slew of them are links to individual posts on the forums. Nice try though. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 09:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Inappropriate use of abbreviation MLA MLA 11:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • MLA has been the abbreviation for Macintosh Liberation Army for many years now, well over 6-7 years. Generally the base of your argument would require the 68k Macintosh Liberation Army forums would also modify its system, and i've said it plenty of times, it 'aint gonna' happen. iMac600
      • Commentt You may want to look at humor. Also, who the heck modified this deletion entry wtih del and don't del sections? A) We have a standard format without these B) votes against deletions are generally labeled keep, not "do not delete". JoshuaZ 14:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Notability and usefulness aren't the same. I voted to delete a page that I had in my bookmarks. Useful for me; but non-notable in general. -- Mmx1 22:17, 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. Shanel 04:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The Afterparty

"A virtually unknown comic strip" by "an equally obscure animator" says not notable to me. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\ talk 22:15, 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 delete. Shanel 04:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Joseph Mantebury

Uncited; I suspect this is a hoax. Tom Harrison Talk 22:22, 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 delete. Flower party■ 05:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Beyond the Prism

Uncited; I suspect this is a hoax. Tom Harrison Talk 22:23, 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 delete. Shanel 04:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

V ammo

This is a contested PROD entry. The article goes into great detail, but basically explains how to use a rubber band to flick a piece of paper at someone. This is not encyclopedic. Joyous | Talk 22:23, 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 delete. Shanel 04:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Kyle Cohen

Completely non-notable. Very, very, very minor role in Dragonheart and that's it.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party■ 05:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Luca DiCorso

non notable. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete! Worst article I have ever seen on wikipedia. This isn't even homophobia talking. It's biased, has poor spelling, and was obviously written by a fan. Usually I try to clean up grammatical mistakes and lack of neutrality, but this is so ugly I'm not even foing to bother. -- Pal5017 00:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Ugh, I couldn't handle the temptation. I just could not let this article embarass us wikipedians anymore. -- Pal5017 00:22, 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. Shanel 03:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Lombby

non-notable. What is special about this artist? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:32, 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 Speedily deleted.  (aeropagitica)  23:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Baines

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, hoax. — Mar. 18, '06 [22:48] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>

Freaksaw

Non-notable, nonsense, created by same user who created Ainsley Brooks, Melissa Brooks. Ton y St 22:32, 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 delete. Shanel 04:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Melissa Brooks

Non-notable, created by same user who created Ainsley Brooks, Freaksaw. Ton y St 22:35, 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 merge. Shanel 06:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Oprah Effect

nn unsourced neologism. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 22:48, 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 delete. Shanel 02:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Shaun McKernan

I think somebody's been lying to us - Google only reveals this [30] - looks like a fake.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

John Robert

Delete. This stub appears to be non-noteable. Hyphen5 22:58, 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 DELETE. JIP | Talk 10:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Rise of the drones

Gamecruft (Command & Conquer mod). Well written, but still a non-notable unofficial mod. Hynca-Hooley 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Perhaps pages like this could be transwikied to a wikibook on unofficial mods? Seems like a shame to just delete it. — RJH 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Is there a place for unofficial Zero Hour mods? If so ill post it there instead. — IHM 22:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
King of Hearts talk 23:07, 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 delete. Shanel 02:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Shizuka Hata

Non-notable person. Not categorized under anything. Moe ε 23:14, 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 delete. Shanel 02:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The grassy knoll project

delete. deprod without reason by person who is subject of article. Radio program on university station - no evidence audience was > 5000. Google search "the grassy knoll project" and radio gives 1 hit.-- Porturology 23:27, 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 delete. Shanel 01:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Rob Vening

Non-notable. Only 5 Google hits, none of which are related to the topic of the article. Delete. -- Tantalum T e lluride 23:35, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Rick Perales

Non-notable vanity article, very poorly formatted and not categorized. Engineer Bob 23:47, 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 delete. Shanel 01:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Nadine Valintine

Similar hoax page to that of the already deleted Freaksaw, Melissa Brooks and Ainsley Brooks. Other AfDs already under way for those. Delete tv316 23:51, 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Escape 2 Earth

Vanity page, not notable. Cannot find this book on Google or Amazon. Seems likely the author has created this page, looking at the username.. suggest speedy delete? Sammysam 00:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I wrote the article. I did not write the book. I was given a chance to read the book before it was published to the masses and I thought it would be a good idea to put on wikipedia. If people still think it's a useless article because the book is not out yet. Is there a possiblity that I can come back in April when the book will be avaliable to everyone? I just thought it was a good enough book in case people wanted to know more about it. If people still want the book to be erased, I'll take it down. I didn't think it would be a big issue.-- LovelyLJ 02:17, 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_18&oldid=1116878711"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE