Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 11

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number 53 (webcomic)

The first of 4 webcomics I bring to you today is Number 53, found here. If you have a look at Talk:Number 53 (webcomic), you'll see the article author noting why he believes the article to be notable, being that it is linked from The Webcomic List, however, I disagree. Being that the Webcomic list is merely a webcomic link site which hosts entries for thousands of webcomics. This is not a notable website, having been established just over 3 months ago, a look on Google for "number 53" webcomic only finds 30 links, all of them trivial. - Hahnchen 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 00:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as author's name is "Creamer," which fails WP:LOL_CREAMER. Or as non-notable. Aplomado - UTC 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete another nn webcomic.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete. what's with all the webcomics? delete as per nom.--Strothra 02:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Pureblade | ^Θ 03:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and I have no idea what you're talking about Aplomado. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 04:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing more than cruft. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. It doesn't even have its own domain. --David.Mestel 07:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 08:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Metamagician3000 09:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Marketleap.com results (limited presence; realize that isn't the standard, also due to other tests), and per nom. MikeBriggs 17:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC).
• Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 18:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If it's so great why does he have to host it on Blogspot?
• Transwiki to Comixpedia, then Delete. -Colin Kimbrell 19:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 02:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Rusty Life

Are UTurn Creative Studios a notable artistic entity? What about the webcomic they produce, found here? You can take a look at their forums here, where you'll find the webcomic author (who also wrote this article) mostly talking to himself. A google search for "a rusty life" brings back 49 unique hits whilst Alexa ranks it at over 2 million. Wikipedia is not the place for these nn webcomic entries. - Hahnchen 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 00:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• LOL!! He took the trash out to a Chinese restaurant. What a comical situation! Delete as non-notable. Aplomado - UTC 00:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "As of this writing, ARL has won no awards." It's only a matter of time. Aplomado - UTC 00:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sure it'll get an award soon. Games N Stuff and Cool Black Sheep are more creative names than some of the other crap in some webcomics. --Optichan 16:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 01:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete. per nom--Strothra 01:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Pureblade | ^Θ 03:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 04:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --David.Mestel 07:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 08:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Marketleap.com unofficial test (average presence; and double-checking other tests - first of the 25 hits I got from Metacrawler is for the actual website, 2nd is a sponsered link and 3rd is Wiki (rest look like Rusty or UTurn links). MikeBriggs 17:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. Optichan 16:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Comixpedia, then Delete. It's redlinked from a couple of their pages, so it should work well for everybody. -Colin Kimbrell 19:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Final Zone

A website hosted on Freewebs, this webcomic can be seen here. Is this website notable? Do these Sega inspired gif animations warrant an encyclopedia article? If you do a search of "The Final Zone" finalbeyond (finalbeyond being the author) you get back 13 unique links. - Hahnchen 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Hosted on Freewebs does it for me. Royboycrashfan 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds like this one could have some copyright issues as well. Aplomado - UTC 00:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per royboy - pm_shef 00:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pretty much any sprite comic is going to have copyright issues, but that's a concern for the spriter, not us. However, this webcomic clearly doesn't meet WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn webcomic.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. as per blnguyen. --Strothra 01:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Pureblade | ^Θ 03:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete another nn comic ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ardenn 06:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 08:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Abe Dashiell (and Marketleap, and Google test, and etc.). MikeBriggs 17:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• I knew what to do with this one as soon as I clicked the link. Delete. --Optichan 16:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Comixpedia, then Delete. -Colin Kimbrell 19:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Comixpedia, Why should it matter that it's on Freewebs? Where you host a comic does not affect how reputable it is. The comic does not violate any copyright laws because it is a parody, and no profit is being made from it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ash Loomis (talk • contribs) .
• Delete nn webcomic.--Jersey Devil 02:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Adventures of Kharana

This is a Sonic the Hedgehog fan fiction webcomic (related to the nomination above), hosted on a forum thread. Yes, it doesn't even bother with a free web host, you can see it here on the Friday the 13th Forum. Now the forum has about 1500 members, which might make it barely notable enough for an article about the forum itself, but a singular webcomic thread?! And it's not even popular on that forum, about 10 different people have ever replied to that thread. Also note that you'll see Wikipedia linked prominently in original webcomic post, they're using a Wikipedia page as a handy free "About Us" page, which also generates a handy little promotional tool by appearing in the List of webcomics. I would prod this, being so unnotable, but being hosted on a forum, I decided not to take the chance. - Hahnchen 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, wholly non-notable. Royboycrashfan 00:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as so non-notable it's almost notable for it's non-notability. Aplomado - UTC 00:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to almost be a fancomic of The Final Zone, which itself isn't sufficiently notable for an article. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not pass any notability tests : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 01:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. not notable--Strothra 01:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and 1500 isn't enough for a forum to get an article ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Sheehan (Talk) 04:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability. --Terence Ong 08:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 10:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I like the comparison to another non-notable webcomic though. "It is a lot different to the old version, and is nearly enirely separate from Sonic the Hedgehog and The Final Zone". --Optichan 16:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Too obscure for even Comixpedia. -Colin Kimbrell 19:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Blink484 22:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ad for nn webcomic.--Jersey Devil 02:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hardy Jackson

Already been up for deletion twice before, but both times consensus was hard to reach because of the post-Katrina immediacy of the article. To quote one user from the previous votes, "Millions of people lose loved ones in tragic circumstances every day. The fact that a TV crew happen to stumble upon Mr. Jackson does not make him notable... If Jackson gains notability, then we can add an article." Eight months later, with the benefit of hindsight, I'm not sure how Jackson is any different than the hundreds of other victims interviewed by the media. Unless he's done something of note that hasn't been covered, this is more memorial than article. Delete. Tijuana Brass 00:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dang, I meant to prod this, but forgot that we've implemented the feature by now. Withdraw nomination (for now). Tijuana Brass 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Back to delete and merge. Tijuana Brass 03:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I'll second the prod. Royboycrashfan 00:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I really don't think the prod will succeed, given the 2 previous AFDs. It's clearly going to be a contentious point. - Hahnchen 00:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I considered that, but if you review the AfD's, most of the votes in support of keeping it tended to either be with the expectation that he would remain notable (in a historical sense), or ignored the concept of Wikipedia not being used for memorials. We'll see where it goes. Tijuana Brass 00:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Just too many other people have been interviewed for him to be notable enough. Aplomado - UTC 00:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. individual is not notable. being a the subject of a story for a couple of media outlets does not make an individual notable. --Strothra 01:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Mr. Jackson was the human face of the Katrina tragedy for millions of people worldwide. His CNN interview was raw, haunting and heartbreaking. The story was picked up by news services throughout the world as shown by google [1]. He belongs here as one of the notable victims of a historic event, like the Titanic survivors. -- JJay 02:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

comment. You still do not establish notability. His story was very briefly broadcast worldwide, yes, but only through media outlets which use emotional stories to raise their ratings. What happened to him is unfortunate but that does not establish his notability. The media exploited his bad fortune. He is nothing more than a passing and media figure with nothing to show for it. Wikipedia is not a place for articles on victims of tragedies. --Strothra 02:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your opinion. -- JJay 02:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Strothra meant any disrespect by that, he was just trying to make a point. Saying that Jackson was "the human face of the Katrina tragedy for millions of people" is, well, hardcore POV. Speaking out of personal experience, I don't remember the guy at all outside of Wikipedia, and I was glued to a television for weeks after the hurricane, keeping up with it. He's one of the thousands of faces of victims of the storms, but not particularly notable. Memorials are good and well, but Wikipedia isn't for that. Tijuana Brass 03:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your opinion too. There is no need to repeat the same arguments as I had already read the previous comments. Also please spare me the personal attacks. -- JJay 03:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if you thought I was attacking you. That was not my intention. I was simply attempting to point out that the media exploit many individuals for their tragedies and they have nothing to show for it. This individual is no different than the many who have come before him. The mass public forgets these individuals easily and grow tired of seeing these tragedies on TV and so the cameras move on to the next big story and the money stops flowing into these disaster areas when they no longer recieve widespread attention. It's an unfortunate truth about society and there are quite a few studies on this trend. --Strothra 05:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and I don't see anyone personally attacking you JJay ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I guess that's just your hardcore POV speaking... -- JJay 04:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete if he's only notable for being covered on a TV news report. JIP | Talk 05:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Human face of Katrina Tragedy doesn't impress me either. There are a lot too many people interviewed, but that doesn't make him notable. If he fought the odds in way a normal human won't and can be demonstrated by evidence, I will surely reconsider my view. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak-ish Keep: While being the subject of media sympathy articles doesn't normally make someone notable, "Hardy Jackson" Googles 25,000 hits, and "Harvey Jackson", a common mispelling, another 26,000. --David.Mestel 07:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: While I respect your views on the article, please discuss on the basis of merits and not in terms of google results. Also note that a large majority of google results for "Hardy Jackson" aren't about the man being discussed here. The relevant results are even lower for Harvey Jackson, who infact is Busher Jackson. I would be happy if you can help improve the article enough to make it notable by all norms using relevant information by google, which will definitely lead it to surviving this AfD. From what your views look like, you have made your decision totally on basis of google results. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's just that the real issue here is whether the man is notable or not, and the large number of Google hits for his name indicates that he is. --David.Mestel 10:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to observations by RGTraynor below. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 08:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough. Loom91 09:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable enough, but rework article on how his story was used as a focus by the media. That is what he is notable for. Metamagician3000 10:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a memorial. Just zis Guy you know? 12:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I fail to see how WP:Not applies since, as I'm sure you realize, Mr. Jackson is still alive. I also doubt that you are suggesting we delete articles like Leon Klinghoffer. -- JJay 12:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The only reason the Klinghoffer article avoids being deleted is because of the opera which was written about Klinghoffer. Otherwise he is not notable. --Strothra 14:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I completely disagree with that statement and I wonder to what extent you are familiar with the case. Klinghoffer's notoriety has nothing at all to do with the opera. He has been a symbol of the inhumanity of terrorism for over 20 years. Newsbank gives over 4,400 hits for Klinghoffer up to the present and very few discuss the opera. -- JJay 15:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Kinghoffer was merely one victim of "terrorism" and is not different from any other victim. His story was simply exploited by others as is the case here. This fact in itself does not make him or this guy especially notable. And I would argue that your usage of individuals serving as "symbols" is POV. Symbols for who exactly? How are they a symbol? What does it mean that they are a symbol? Does the fact that they are a symbol change anything? It's a loaded term. --Strothra 15:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• My usage??? What exactly are you talking about? If Klinghoffer is no different from any other victim, why don't we have articles on every victim of the WTC?

We did once, and it was very, very hard, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, to convince people that the horrific manner of their deaths didn't make them worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Eventually a comprimise was reached http://sep11.wikipedia.org/ . Just an FYI from an old-timer. -- GWO

Where you see "exploitation" (another "loaded" term), I see a symbol of bigger issues. I am not alone in this. It is why we have articles on Ahmed al-Khatib, Leo Frank, Emmet Till, Michael Donald, Nick Berg, Matthew Shepard, Rachel Corrie, Kitty Genovese, Tank Man, Satar Jabar, Laci Peterson, Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, etc. None of these people won Nobel prizes, or wrote bestselling books, or were about to cure cancer. The media turns people into symbols. If you want answers to your questions, start here: Marshall McLuhan. -- JJay 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You make decent points but I do not hold them as wholly valid as establishing the notability of this alleged symbol. I simply do not believe that he is a "symbol." My deletion vote stands. I do not believe that media sensationalism should be a reason to establish notability for an individual rather than the work of individuals themselves. --Strothra 18:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• That's fine. Note that I never tried to get you or anyone else to change votes. I merely made a comment with my initial Keep vote. When you boil it down, my personal view is that Mr. Jackson for reasons completely out of his control is a sort of symbol of all the victims of Katrina, almost none of whom will ever get an article here. I guess I agree with CNN, which featured Hardy Jackson prominently in their "quarter century of newsmakers" round-up [2]. If people want to see him as just some guy who watched his wife get swept away by the flood waters from the roof of his house, that's fine with me too. -- JJay 18:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• For which many of those people retain enduring fame. Kitty Genovese is a by-word for urban violence, and has been for forty years. Leo Frank and Emmett Till have had more books written about them than this Jackson fellow has Google hits. Laci Peterson remains in the tabloids today, and will no doubt do so for quite some time to come ... and so on and so forth. Mr. Jackson's 15 minutes is up and he hasn't done anything since. RGTraynor 18:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not necessarily supposed to be an encyclopedic reflection of popular culture. And, to be fair, much of the dust is still settling from Katrina, so the events and people that are best remembered about Katrina are still being established. Tijuana Brass 21:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Some do, some don't. What has Tank Man done recently? Or Ahmed al-Khatib and Satar Jabar? The fact is that the media creates or "exploits" victims and heros, sinners and saints. The reflection turning them all into symbols of one kind or another. I see Jackson as part of this group and my conception of this encyclopedia allows his inclusion. -- JJay 18:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see any reasons for notability in the article, or in this discussion. Henning Makholm 13:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The fact that he's been covered in multiple interviews, including updates indicates that he's rather more important than an average passing interviewee. Mangojuice 13:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, he's a minor player in a major story- just one victim out of thousands. Merge whatever is desired into one of the various Katrina-related articles. This article exists only due to Wikipedia's tendancy toward recentism and over-coverage of anything and everything that's ever been on TV. Friday (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I entirely agree; for one thing, has this guy been interviewed lately? And who cares if he was interviewed a thousand times, about what exactly is he notable? Did he ever do anything? Was his plight distinctive as compared to other Katrina victims? Beyond that, check this out ... when you do a directed Google search (removing the hockey connection and adding "Katrina") you don't get 26,000 G-hits. You get one hundred and five unique hits; that's only three times as many as 'I' get. That is nowhere remotely close to notable. RGTraynor 15:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: expanding on RGTraynor's analysis, including Jackson's residence, "Hardy Jackson" + Biloxi gives 160 Ghits; including his famous wife "Hardy Jackson" + Tonette gives <50. - Rynne 18:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I think 19,000 is a more reasonable number see below. --MrFizyx 19:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He was indeed the most famous victim of Katrina. (I'd settle for a redirect to the Hurricane Katrina article, but I think he is important enough to merit a mention there if this page is removed.) ProhibitOnions 15:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

How are you judging the fame of the hurricane victims? The victims as a group are famous. There were famous actors and senators who held property that was destroyed and thus they are victims. This individual is hardly "famous". Still, the vote is about notability and not fame. This individual has not even met the standards of notability. He did not impact the tragedy in any way and is not unique from the other thousands of victims. --Strothra 15:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for re-stating your opinion. However, I had already taken your similar comments above into account before deciding to vote Keep. ProhibitOnions 16:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Keep or merge with Hurricane Katrina article in the Media involvement section. MikeBriggs 17:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Updated. Looked more into the issue. Change my vote to Keep or merge due to comments made and research conducted. MikeBriggs 20:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, or merge. It is part of the history of Katrina that the media was able to cover the human face of the tragedy. The millions who saw this interview won't forget it soon. While the external links in the article have gone stale, wikipedia can and should preserve this bit of the history. --MrFizyx 18:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. He may have been a "face of the tragedy" but I don't think that makes him personally valuable to Wikipedia. As RGTraynor and I have shown, directed googling doesn't collect more than 200 Ghits (see RGTraynor's delete vote and my reply above). If Hardy had fleeting notablity at the time, it's certainly dissipated. In fact, it appears that he fell out of the public eye within a couple weeks of Katrina; there are only scant stories about him with a dateline later than mid-September. - Rynne 18:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• comment1 I think your analysis is too restrictive. Google “Hardy Jackson” Katrina –hockey and you get 19,300. I jumped to 9 and 15 pages and don’t see any false positives.

Nice try. That 15th page (unique hit 140) is the last one.

• comment2 It is a reasonably good point to say that individually he has not been very notable beyond the days of the tragedy. He was, however, the subject of international news stories for several days. Glancing through the Hurricane Katrina article I don't see much discussion of the victims (beyond the count of the dead). The “media involvement” section is more about Fox News and Geraldo Rivera than the victims. In the context of the disaster and people’s reactions to it, who is more notable? Rivera or Jackson? A decade from now when someone is wondering whether or not the story of someone’s wife saying “take care of the kids” and floating away, is really an urban myth, where will they find this content? --MrFizyx 19:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply to comment 1: Even with your suggested search, I'm still seeing <140 unique hits. Again, it seems that most of those 19k+ hits are repeated archives of BBS, CNN, or other news sites. - Rynne 20:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, your right. I missed the emphasis on "unique." --128.146.33.164 21:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)aka--MrFizyx 21:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There are some problems with both of our methods here for this case. If you use the settings suggested in WP:GT#On "unique" results It's Jackson 278[3], Geraldo 771(or more)[4]. OK, OK, Geraldo wins on Google! MrFizyx 22:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Looks like this AfD will end in No Consensus. What bothers me is that a large majority of people are mistaking popularity for notability. Not all things notable are popular and not all things popular are notable. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete His 15 minutes expired some time ago. Fishhead64 20:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mangojuice. Melchoir 04:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ephemeral news story, one among many victims who were interviewed in the mass media. MCB 05:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but merge/save partial info into Hurricane Katrina, or Hurricane Katrina survivors or Effects of Hurricane Katrina or similar article. -Visorstuff 18:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Widespread media coverage, widely regarded as symbolic of important natural disaster. At worst, this should be merged back into some larger article. -Colin Kimbrell 19:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No longer encyclopedic. Martinp 15:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

*Weak keep per David Mestel. JoshuaZ 04:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Delete After more thinking about it, he isn't notable enough for his own article even if he is notable. At best he should be merged to the Katrina article (possibly have a section of that article about media coverage in general?). JoshuaZ 04:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep' Verifiable, extensive news coverage means he meets WP:BIO as far as I'm concerned. --W.marsh 04:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheists of Silicon Valley (2nd nomination)

Delete Seems pretty clearly to be a vanity article. I can't see how this is at all encyclopedic or how it meets any of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Looks like pretty clear Vanispamcruftisement pm_shef 00:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:VSCA and WP:NN club. Royboycrashfan 00:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. But break out the laundry hampers, because the socks will be here REAL soon, just like the last nomination. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• STrong Delete - obvious reasons - I'll keep an eye out for irregularities.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Deletionists of Silicon Valley ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, vanity. Sheehan (Talk) 04:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The "claims to fame" section of the article provides enough notability. Kirbytime 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've appeared on radio shows and in newspapers, probably more than ASV. Does that make me noteable enough for an article? No. pm_shef 06:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; quite. I've appeared on radio and newspapers, have been interviewed on TV three times, and have over a dozen publication credits. Does that make me notable? I think not. RGTraynor 15:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 06:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 07:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, nn. --Terence Ong 09:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Claim to Fame section makes a more than enough case of natability. Imagine a world where everyone has free access to the sum total of human knowledge: this is knowledge. Loom91 09:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a mirror for the web, which is the only reason I can think of to keep this. Being mentioned in newspapers and magazines isn't enough, they have column inches to fill and may be reduced to burbling about inanities on a slow news day. And similarly to Pm shef, I've appeared on BBC TV, been interviewed on BBC radio, and been quoted by the BBC, Guardian, CNN, etc. So it's pretty easy really to get in the media. Average Earthman 09:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Metamagician3000 10:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Since I've been on CBS a few times can I have my own article yet?  RasputinAXP  c 11:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just like with non-notable groups of Christians, Muslims and Wiccas. -- Kjkolb 11:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Utterly non-notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 13:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but this is a case study about how flawed notability is. The real problem with this article is that there's not really anything to write about the subject. This is a perma-stub. Mangojuice 13:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete appears to be vanity and non notable IrishGuy 14:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per what everyone else has covered--Tollwutig 14:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pace Kirbytime, there's knowledge, and then there's trivia. I don't want to know the location of every puddle in Nunavut, either - but it's still knowledge. Fishhead64 20:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity.--Tone 21:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Someone (Calton?) seems to be coordinating attacks on atheist Wikipedia entries. [5] Human455 02:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment All your edits are pro-atheism, so it isn't as though you don't have an agenda yourself. IrishGuy 08:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (redundancy). – Robert 00:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indiana University (disambiguation)

Its a copy of Indiana University, but not as good. Fosnez 00:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, dab page serving little or no purpose. Royboycrashfan 00:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unnecessary disambig page. All this info is and should be in the Indiana University page. Aplomado - UTC 00:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per aplomado.--Strothra 01:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete uh...how can you disambig this? del. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: The only reason for a disambig would be would be IUP, but that's already at the top of Indiana University. Jesuschex 03:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant. JIP | Talk 05:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant. Probably making it a redirect page also wouldn't be a bad idea. However, chances are little that it would be used. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as redundant. MikeBriggs 17:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant. DarthVader 22:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reserve Bank of Fiji Building

According to the Suva article this is no longer the tallest building on the island (see here). I think that removes its only notable characteristic. -- Scientizzle 00:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. If that's its only notable characteristic, how about we write an article on the new tallest building? Royboycrashfan 00:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fourteen floors? Holiday Inns are taller than that. Aplomado - UTC 00:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a stub and can be expanded. I say give it some time.--Strothra 01:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is the second most remarkable landmark - then it is good enough.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't sit back and watch Fiji get slammed once again. Let's give them some credit for building an even taller building than this. Not to mention that it is a major landmark in Suva. But beyond all that, if we get rid of this, do we then delete some of the buildings on our Tallest buildings in the United States article? Because we have an article on each and every one of the 50 buildings on the list and 49 of them are not the tallest. -- JJay 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - if you are so concerned about Fiji, would you consider expanding the article? The current stub text is essentially the same as when the article was created in 2004. --Ajdz 04:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Your comment makes me wonder why you are participating here if you are not "concerned about Fiji"? Having said that, I added two lines of text to the article and some links. Now it's your turn. -- JJay 13:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and calm down. --Ajdz 16:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Enjoy the new article and I hope others pick up the gauntlet, perhaps expanding our coverage to the top-50 buildings in Fiji like in the US.-- JJay 18:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (or merge) I would agree with Strothra, if not for the fact that the article has existed since June 2004 (almost two years!) without any additional information being added. --Ajdz 02:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Once an article is notable i don't think it can become unnotable. We are an encyclopedia NOT a newspaper. It was notable, therefore is notable. Mike _{(T C)} 03:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It was at one time the tallest, that's good enough. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: It was at one time the tallest, so I say keep. It's still notable, but that's because it used to be the tallest building. Thing can rarely "lose" notability. Jesuschex 04:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep somewhat notable - deleting it would be too drastic. Sheehan (Talk) 04:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per JJay, Stothra, and Jesuschex. Grutness...wha? 05:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The page is practically the same as it was when it was first created. If there was anything else notable to say about it when it was the largest building, I would have thought it would have already been written about, the page has looked the same since June 2004 as another user said. Radagast83 05:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Article may be considered notable as it refers to thing that was once notable. Notability doesn't perish. There must be something about it more belonging to the period when it was tallest, the reasons why it was made, etc. However, as the article has remained unattended for so long, my guts aren't very sure whether it would turn out to be a worthwhile article. Obviously, what is written currently needs to be edited and corrected. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but expand if possible. Seems fairly notable. --David.Mestel 07:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per JJay, Stothra, Jesuschex and Grutness. David Sneek 07:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. If a subject was notable to begin with then it does not lose its notability over time. Ever heard of Historical Interest? Anyway, it should be given time to expand before passing judgments on notability.Loom91 09:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, isn't the second tallest building in Fiji notable? It definitely is. If that's the case, then we might as well nominate the Empire State Building and Central Plaza, Hong Kong for deletion as they are not the tallest buildings in the country, per JJay, Stothra, Jesuschex and Grutness. --Terence Ong 09:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete being the tallest building on Fiji doesn't seem to equate to notability and nor does being the former tallest building on Fiji. Being among the tallest buildings in the world at a particular time in history would be notable for me. MLA 09:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Merge, avoid cultural bias. That said, Terence, don't set up straw men like "we might as well nominate the Empire State Building and Central Plaza, Hong Kong" because those buildings are notable in their own right aside from their height and you know it. That said, I don't see why there shouldn't be a Reserve Bank of Fiji article about the bank itself and then have the building entry merged into that. I may just decide to do that later, then we can all be happy.  RasputinAXP  c 11:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Rasputin. That seems to me the most appropriate action here. Just zis Guy you know? 12:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Rasputin, since both articles are very small -- Astrokey44|talk 12:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Aplomado. The tallest building in a nation (however tiny the building or the nation) is notable. A not-very-tall building in a not-very-large nation is not, ad hominem attacks on cultural and national bias notwithstanding. RGTraynor 15:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per RasputinAXP. MikeBriggs 18:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (name didn't seem to stick)
• Merge and add a photo. Whoever goes to Fiji in near future...--Tone 21:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per "what was once notable, is always notable" Jcuk 22:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Loom91. DarthVader 22:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It remains Fiji's first skyscraper. Hawkestone 00:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Former tallest building in an independent nation with a population nearly a million? Seems plenty notable to me. Kestenbaum 00:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just because Fiji is small doesn't mean their former-highest building isn't as important as those of any other country. I'm prepared to do some work on this in the next few days if it still needs it. In fact, take a look at Category:Oceania buildings and structures stubs and you'll see many other articles of even less notable buildings. Should we haul all of those in here too? PageantUpdater 04:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the tallest buildings in Fiji are as relevant as the oldest houses in America. i.e. pretty insignificant on a global scale, but of some local interest. -- GWO
• Merge with Reserve Bank of Fiji. Both the articles are short and would be more useful if merged. utcursch | talk 03:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tilford Kutch

• NN ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete although he did establish the burgeoning metropolis of Cokeville, Wyoming. Aplomado - UTC 00:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the founder of a small town and a local trader is not notable. Royboycrashfan 00:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Poorly written article and clearly nn.--Strothra 01:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete founding a town is sorta-notable. Not really though. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Sheehan (Talk) 04:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Founding a town is very notable. Loom91 09:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 09:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as non-notable. I would say redirect to the town article and mention him there, but I don't want to split the vote causing no consensus. A redirect can be made after deletion. -- Kjkolb 11:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to town article. RGTraynor 15:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per RGTraynor. Fishhead64 20:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, w/cleanup and expansion. Founding a town is good enough for me. -Colin Kimbrell 19:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scout (LC newspaper)

High school newspaper with no claims to notability. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete. DMG413 01:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy A7, no claim to notability. Royboycrashfan 01:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Almost nonsense. Completely not notable.--Strothra 01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Slow delete - a7 does not apply to publications, only people (and perhaps analogously to nn animals).ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong speedy delete: I almost wanted to say WP:BAD, but it's not even good enough (bad enough?) for that. Jesuschex 04:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete nn, useless, bad... Sheehan (Talk)
• Delete, non-notable school newspaper. JIP | Talk 05:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per just click on the thing. Danny Lilithborne 07:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A7 --Terence Ong 09:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn. Metamagician3000 09:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Slow delete. Alright, this is a NN school newspaper, but it's neither illiterate, filled with hate speech, nonsensical or anything of the sort; let's dial it back a notch. RGTraynor 15:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely non-notable school newspaper, as Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Don't forget to {{subst:orfud}} that image when the article is gone. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with whatever school its published by Jcuk 22:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 22:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete per Jcuk. No redirect. utcursch | talk 03:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fireweed Democracy Project

Nn spamvertisement for online political project. Alexa ranking of 3,180,738. Fails to meet WP:WEB. Delete --Hetar 01:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete completely nn.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleting this would be an error. This is a genuine description of a cross-partisan political project in Canada. Fireweed's initial roundtable session was attended by a good cross-section of academic and political experts, and recorded and telecast by Canada's Parliamentary channel. This is an initial entry, which I am sure will be improved by others and over time, but the information is intended to be balanced and informative. User:Rick Anderson 02:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This user is actually Rick@asci.ca who has 8 edits to date. DarthVader 22:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Apparently it's not. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire!

04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Any time a group of cross-partisan experts/citizens get together, it is noteworthy.

• Delete does not establish notability. Danny Lilithborne 07:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Allow some time to establish notability? Currently, a cleanup seems more appropriate than deletion.Loom91 09:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia's for things that are notable, not for things that aren't, but might someday be. RGTraynor 15:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 10:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I sure hope we shall hear from some knowledgable Canadians in this discussion before people who have little first-hand knowledge summarily censor a legitimate political entry. The individuals involved in this are well-known, the fact that they have engaged in this discussion together is significant, the effort is legitimate, it is broadly-based, it is not partisan. But perhaps it is more fun to just lob judgement from a grand distance. User:Rick Anderson 19:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Voting again? DarthVader 22:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep minus the exlinks, based on involvement by notable political figures. Gazpacho 20:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Loom91. DarthVader 22:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry, Darth, changed the second vote to a comment. And yes, 8 edits, and will do more if needed, hope that this entry can remain here in a manner which conforms to wiki purposes and standards, feedback appreciated Rick Anderson 16:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keepany time a group of cross-partisan experts get together to make a better system, it is noteworthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heatherb (talk • contribs) .
• Keep seems to me that this entry is a good introduction to a new project, there are some very notable Candian figures involved including Preston Manning, John Reid, Gordon Gibson and others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.167.147.66 (talk • contribs) .
• Keepseems like a worthy, noteable project. read
• Keepthis event happened, the people involved are important figures and it is an interesting project. william
• Keep I agree with the above. The information is valid and noteworthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pvision (talk • contribs) .

Note: Beware rampant sockpuppetry. All of the "Keep" votes after Rick's comment are the users' first edits to Wikipedia. Sandstein 07:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, plus WP:NOT a soapbox. Sandstein 07:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This notability business is silly. Wikipedia is not limited in space like Britannica. Only 2 Questions should be asked when keeping an article: 1. Is it verifiable? 2. Will anyone outside the project ever come here and type in the title looking for information.--God Ω War 06:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Unfortunately, that's not the case God of war. There's server space, and server load issues. There's copyright issues. As well, your question number 2 is essentially notability: if nobody will ever come to see it, it's not notable. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Afshar

Vanity bio -- complete with numerous presumably-for-SEO links -- of Yet Another Digital Entrepeneur. Gets 54 hits on Google -- the first calling him a scammer, and the second this article. Calton | Talk 01:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO, WP:VAIN, and WP:NOT a soapbox. Royboycrashfan 01:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. vanity, bio, waste of server space. --Strothra 01:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete this strong vanity.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete completely nn, vanity too. Sheehan (Talk) 04:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete "Robert Afshar is a pioneer..." I pretty much stopped reading after this point. WP:VAIN, plus only entry by contributor. Danny Lilithborne 07:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Founded several corporations, wrote 5 books. More than enough notable, considering Wiki is not paper. Loom91 09:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, vanity, nn. --Terence Ong 10:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 12:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MYktm.com

Apparently non-notable Nepalese website. 818 Google hits. Prod tag pulled (twice, actually) by the original author without explanation. Delete. DMG413 01:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB and WP:SPAM. Alexa rank of 1 million plus. Royboycrashfan 01:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - I'm generally strongly in favour of deleting websites, but as far as Nepal goes, there is unlikely to be widespread internet access there, which might explain why the numbers are extremely low - when it may possibly still be very notable for Nepalese standards.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Non notable website. regardless of it's google hit count, notability is not established IN the article.--Strothra 01:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete I agree with blnguyen, but I also agree with strotha that notability wasn't established. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Make that Alexa rating 1.8 million! - Glen ^T _C 08:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep. Let's please avoid systemic bias. Notability is established right at the beginning, it hosts Nepal's most popular chat room. Obviously a Nepal website will have a low Alexa ranking, from when is Alexa an acid test? Wikipedia is for people of all country, not for the rich countries with high internet access. This is even more notable considering the current political situation in Nepal. Let's look beyond our borders to the global picture, not everyone has the same kind of oppurtunities. Loom91 09:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let's try this then; is there any verification for the article's claims that this is, indeed, Nepal's most popular chat site? My vote may change if I see some. RGTraynor 15:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete for the same reasons that Blnguyen stated above. It needs sourcing, and despite the systemic bias evident in this, there'd be something about it somewhere.  RasputinAXP  c 11:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per RasputinAXP Computerjoe's talk 20:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Rasputin (and Bln and Swat, too; share the wealth...). Joe 03:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 17:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Antalek

This article is not encyclopaedic. I deleted it 2 or 3 times on fr:Wikipédia Markadet fr 01:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:VANITY WP:BIO. Royboycrashfan 01:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Perfectly encyclopaedic, not deemed important by some people, and not about a famous person. Note birthdate of person wiki'd. Probably a rather creative birthday present.68.34.230.216 01:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User's first edit. Royboycrashfan 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• delete --Markadet fr 01:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. Why is this an article? Bio, vanity; thank you for attempting to contribute to wikipedia please try again. Please watch this article. User is attempting to delete the AfD tag.--Strothra 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete While this may not be a world famous person, the person is rather well known through the Albany, NY region.User:Adam Riley 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If this is true, you NEED to provide evidence of that beyond one mention in the local newspaper. Her own website doesn't count. Powers 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. You can think of a better birthday present than this. --Strothra 05:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - completely nn, vanity.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sure she's a very nice person, but just not notable enough for Wikipedia. The "Relationships" section almost constitutes an attack, too. Not to mention the fact that it's completely unverified. Powers 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Its not an attack since she proudly admits this, and has vouched accuracy of entry. (unsigned entry by Adam Riley) 03:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you even read WP:NOR? Powers 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no sign of notability --Ajdz 02:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no notability. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see any strong notablilty of this person. Vanity. Sheehan (Talk) 04:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:VAIN, WP:NOT, WP:NN and just plain common sense. Danny Lilithborne 07:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: nnnnnnnnnnnnnnn (nn but more so). Not speedy, though, since it does assert notability. --David.Mestel 07:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, vanity. --Terence Ong 11:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. May I just suggest that we try to be a little bit cognizant of the subject's feelings, and assume good faith on the part of User:Adam Riley? It's becoming clear that he just wanted to do something nice for a friend, and it appears that some people are starting to interpret this AfD as a discussion on Ms. Antalek's worth as a person, rather than as an encyclopedia article. I know it's not, and you know it's not, but not everyone knows that. I'm just asking everyone to be cognizant of the people involved. Powers 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Yes and for that reason I am changing my vote to speedy delete because it is also borderline vandalism and complete nonsense. It was created with absolutely no intention of good faith in contributing to the Wiki project. --Strothra 15:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Read User:Adam Riley's edits to the article and you will quickly see there is no 'good faith' here. Tyhopho 15:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read them. I don't see anything that was obviously done in bad faith. Powers 15:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Try this - and read the last section of the human relationships. if you still think this is done in good faith either this person needs their head read or you need to understand that good faith does not involve nonsense like that. Tyhopho 22:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought that at first, too, but Mr. Riley corrected me above. Apparently it's a little inside joke between the two of them. Powers 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. A debate on Mr. Riley's intent is beside the point, as much so as any need to be warm and fuzzy towards him. This is a barely-sourced article about an obscure, NN lady who looks after crabs in a small museum in a small town. I've seen articles that were more NN, but not many. RGTraynor 16:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Tollwutig 15:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Speedy delete per A7, article does not satisfy WP:BIO guidelines for inclusion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • A7 is only for articles that make no assertion of notability. Powers 22:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not seeing any assertion of notability, at least in the current version. MCB 05:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. And I'm not just afraid of the clowns. Fluit 18:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete This sort of nonsense should be swiftly nipped in the bud. Fishhead64 20:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Very obvious case of nn/vanity. DarthVader 22:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, pretty much a classic example of CSD:A7. Personally, I think it's more respectful to the subject for it to have been speedily deleted than to have a long pointless debate on AfD about an article which has no chance of surviving. MCB 05:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly and whole heartedly seconded Tyhopho 14:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 17:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hernan Lopez

Untranslated Spanish article from WP:PNT. Entry from there follows. Delete unless translated and notability explained. Kusma (討論) 01:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Newly created article on March 23, apparently Spanish. —C.Fred (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Spanish. Bio about artist dedicated to tango. AnFu 10:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Doesn't seem notable. Parts of this don't make any sense to me... I'm gonna leave it for now. Grandmasterka 01:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Here's a rough translation from AltaVista Babel Fish:

Hernan Lopez, born Argentinean the 15-04-1977, centered multifacético artist at first in the architecture and that soon would deposit all its creative load in the tango. An example paradigmatico of the joker of fourth degree is considered. Founder of the interpretativo system of the personality that consists of being made the estupido one to hide that he is natural estupido. It caused that by Frachela comparison it is seen as but studio illustrates cultor of metodo Stanislavski of the actor, and that Marley, TV conductor, like a French estructuralista. Their feats like tango dancer were so important that until a letter "Milonguero of Building" was dedicated to him. A controversy with respect to its doctrine and thought exists, in as much to the responsibility, given the characteristic equality differentials with Emilio J. Rizzo. In order to desmarañar this intríngulis that worries to the modern historian has mentioned a witness, companion of both: Tomás Peisker. Tomás I declare: "they grew up literally together, in any case he is stupid to say that some I copy myself of another one, they lack the encefalica mace to carry out this cerebral process", a corchea, four semifusas, greater DO.

Based on that text, I don't see any suggestion of notability. Delete. Royboycrashfan 01:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete And I recommend that "deposit all its creative load in the tango" become a new internet meme. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

How to create an internet meme: (1) Click here. (2) Click once in the large text box and type '''Deposit all its creative load in the tango''' is an internet meme created by [[Babel Fish (website)|Babelfish]]. It is currently gaining in popularity. (3) Click "Save". (4) Check back periodically to remove prods. Remember to log out before you remove the prod; it looks amateurish if prods are removed by named users. (5) There you go! Henning Makholm 13:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:BEANS, Henning. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Spanish if it's not there and let them deal with it, otherwise Delete. Danny Lilithborne 07:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete -- Ned Scott 07:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• This article lacks the encefalica mace to carry out any cerebral process, let alone this one. Delete it to hell and gone. RGTraynor 16:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RGtraynor Blink484 22:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as WP:CSD#A2: same article in Spanish at es:Juego de la Distribución de la Cerveza. Kusma (討論) 03:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juego de la Distribución de la Cerveza

Spanish text from WP:PNT. Entry from there follows. Delete if nobody translates it, reconsider if someone does. Kusma (討論) 01:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Article ? in Spanish.--File Éireann 18:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Spanish. Unfortunately, in spite of the tempting title of 'Game of the Distribution of Beer', this is not a beer drinking game. Although surely not as much fun, it sounds interesting. It's a "Game Simulation of Beer Distribution" used to teach, learn, and explore principles of management, production, supply, demand, and inventory management. It potentially relates to Game Theory, Economics, & Management. Short. AnFu 10:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Rough AltaVista Babel Fish translation:

The game of the distribution of the beer is a game of the simulation used in atmospheres of education to demonstrate a number of dominant principles of the management of the source chain. Fact in front with the uncertain demand for the beer and and a chain of gradual source, the players is that they fight to avoid to work of product whereas they try to avoid to finance great inventories. The game introduces quickly to students to several important concepts of the management of the chain of source including turnpikes, cooperation, and prognosis

WP:NFT? Royboycrashfan 01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless someone translates it and adds a source. Bob A 03:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Beer Distribution Game exists already, has verifiable links, and is more informative. — TKD::Talk 03:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Elf-friend as nonsense. Henning Makholm 13:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hibbo

Deprodded without comment. Neologism/dicdef.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 00:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable--Strothra 01:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable neologism. Royboycrashfan 01:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not-verifiable, non-notable, nonsense. Complete contents: "A nickname given to Ginger beard bearing individuals who thrive on Curry and Beer. The Hibbo is always keen to know what you are eating and if you will be joining him in an interlude of alcohol consumption before returning to his cave. Most commonly found in the Clifton area of Bristol" Yeah. --Lockley 02:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

comment haha, yeah it's borderline vandalism. --Strothra 02:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-funny joke. JIP | Talk 05:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:PN. Danny Lilithborne 07:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Added {{db-nonsense}}. If that doesn't go through, delete. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Move to WP:BJAODN. :) Loom91 09:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A2 since this is at es:Ingeniería Logística and we have Logistic engineering already. Kusma (討論) 21:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ingeniería Logística

Untranslated Spanish from WP:PNT. Delete if untranslated, reconsider if somebody translates this. Kusma (討論) 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Rough AltaVista Babel Fish translation:

Logistic engineering takes care of the science of the logistics. The logistics talk about the purchase, transport, distribution, storage of raw materials. The handling of all these activities efficiently is for an effective organization the main question in the mind of any logistic engineer. Diverse measures of operation are used to examine the effectiveness of the logistics of an organization. The measurement of more popular operation and extensively used is the landed cost. The landed cost is the total cost to buy, transport, raw materials of storage and that they distribute, half-finished and finished merchandise. Another measurement of equally important operation is the mark of the client. It is the percentage of the demand of client who immediately is satisfied. The logistics are generally service operations of the cost-center, but it provides value via the client satisfaction. It can lose that value quickly if the client is not satisfied. The client of the end can include another center of the process or the work within the manufacture, a warehouse in where to the articles or the final client are stored that will use the product. Another much more popular derivative and a complete use of the logistic term that has appeared in recent years is the provision chain. The provision chain also watches an efficient linking of the same one with the distribution of the purchase and the organization. While Logistic sight single steps with the provision and the distribution immediately related, the provision chain watches manifold escalones/etapas, the right of the acquisition of the raw materials to the final distribution of merchandise or products finished for the client. One is based on the basic premise of which the activities of the provision and the distribution if they estan integrated with the manufacture and the logistics operations, can have like result better capacity of gain for the organization. The local minimums of the total cost of the industrial operation obtain replaced by the global minimums of the total cost of the whole chain, giving one better capacity of gain for the members of chain and of it lowers the costs for products there.

Delete, we already have Logistic engineering. We could, however, transwiki to Spanish Wikipedia. Royboycrashfan 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to es wiki, since we already have Logistic Engineering. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Trannswiki per above. Sheehan (Talk) 04:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Just delete it. I believe that this text is from the Spanish Wikipedia. According to es Wiki edit summaries, this article was originally created over there as a translation of the English version. There's no need to ship it back. What a vicious circle. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki and speedy delete as non-English text on another language Wikipedia. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sociedad Americana del Control de la Producción y el Inventario (APICS)

Untranslated Spanish from WP:PNT. Entry from there follows. Delete if untranslated, reconsider if translation reveals something interesting. Kusma (討論) 01:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Article ? in Spanish.--File Éireann 18:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Spanish. Ti: American Society for the Control of Production and Inventory. Please note that American in this context may refer to North, Central, and South America, as opposed to only U.S.A. AnFu 23:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Rough AltaVista Babel Fish translation:

APICS the Association for the Administration of Operations, is nonlucrative international an educative organization, offers the certification, the programs, training instruments and to make contact with enemy the opportunities to increase the performance of place of work. He was founded on 1957 like the American Society of Production and Control of existence, and has at the moment about 77,000 individual and corporative members in on 25,000 world-wide organizations. APICS defines to the Management of the Operations as "the field of the study that is centered in the planning, programming, and control of an organization with the study of concepts of the engineering of design, industrial engineering, information systems of management, management of the quality, management of production, management of inventory, accounting, and as functions to the organization affect ootras" (dictionary of APICS, 11ma edition). The main push of the APICS knowledge is how to improve corporative benefits eliminating costos.A difference of several consultadoras companies, this knowledge does not require the increase in sales, nor in involuntary unemployment of employees to improve the gains. APICS also considers the authority in systems of management of business such as MRP and ERP, Just in Time, and defects zero. APICS grants three designations professional: CPIM (certified in the management of the production and inventory), CIRM (certified in the integrated management of resource) and CSCP (professional certificate of the provision chain). The CFPIM (Certificó to Man in the Administration of the Production and the Inventory) only has was obtained by about 1200 teachers of the body of APICS CPIM of the knowledge.

Based on WP:CORP, I'd have to say delete. Royboycrashfan 01:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep appears to be a non-profit for training in administrative and managemant positions. The numbers seem to make it pretty good. I say keep on PNT. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This comes from WP:PNT. We can't actually force anybody to translate anything, so we just list things on AfD after two weeks because we don't know what else to do with these untranslated articles. I'm all for keeping the article if somebody translates it, but just letting it sit around hasn't worked in the last two weeks, why should it work now? Kusma (討論) 04:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Seems weakly notable, but transwiki to es:Sociedad Americana del Control de la Producción y el Inventario. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is just a Spanish translation of the article we already have at APICS. Looks like someone translated it over to Spanish, and now has brought it back. Fan1967 20:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • So it is notable and good enough to be transwikied to eswiki, while not useful here? Good, transwiki then. Kusma (討論) 20:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I have worked with production control and inventory management systems for 20 years. This organization is the standard-setter for these areas of management. Anyone who manages large-scale manufacturing operations will tell you it's quite notable. Fan1967 20:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to es: sounds good to me. Kotepho 19:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 23:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Girlfriend

Dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Boatfarm 01:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete. Article could be updated, but, yes it is a dictionary article--Strothra 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless completely rewritten to look more like an encyclopedia entry rather than a dictionary entry. Royboycrashfan 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is currently a list of dictionary definitions. CheckerBoard 02:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. There is nothing wrong with this page, which goes well beyond a dicdef and includes cultural aspects that can obviously be expanded. I also note that the nom joined wikipedia in the last 2 hours and has made no productive edits, but did find time to vandalize the fool page. [6]. -- JJay 02:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Also note that this page has been nominated twice before and the last time looks to be a near unanimous keep Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Girlfriend_(2nd_nomination). -- JJay 02:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Does either fact have any bearing on the merits of the nomination? I don't see how. A dicdef is a dicdef regardless of when Boatfarm signed up for an account. RGTraynor 16:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• My vote stands. Anytime I see someone join wikipedia just to vandalise a page and nominate an article on AfD I vote speedy keep. I'll reserve AGF for non-vandal, non-puppet accounts. -- JJay 18:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Mmm. I hope you don't mind if by contrast I base my votes on the merits of the argument and the evidence presented. RGTraynor 21:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• There is no contrast as my vote is based on the merits of the argument and evidence presented. Hence the first sentence I wrote concerning the cultural angle and expandability. I just add speedy to the keep to reflect the vandal/sock puppet aspects. -- JJay 21:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't give any more information than dictionaries already give, or if it does it's very minor. This doesn't look like an encyclopedia article to me. 152.163.100.203 02:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: anon vote -- Samir (the scope) 03:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef.--Zxcvbnm 02:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, agree with JJay, bad faith nomination, see above links -- Samir (the scope) 03:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Is a dicdef, and I can't imagine ever being much more than original research. Also, if I understand AfD correctly, once there is a delete vote, there cannot be a speedy keep, yes? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep More than a dictionary definition. Golfcam 04:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep It only barely goes beyond a dictionary definition. If kept, it should (and, I believe, could) be expanded majorly. Furthermore, I think it is essential to the boyfriend, marriage, significant other, etc. group. Jesuschex 04:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see a reason for this to exist since wikipedia isn't a dictionary. It doesn't go beyond the definition of the word, too. Sheehan (Talk) 04:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete Merecat 06:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Important phenomenon that must be treated thoroughly to help readers understand twentieth- and twenty-first century mating habits in Western (and several other) cultures. David Sneek 07:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Chambers defines girlfriend as "sweetheart, or girl who is often one's companion: (girl friend) a girl's young female friend;". This article goes into rather more detail, though it could say more. --David.Mestel 07:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Checkerboard - come to think of it why do we still have boyfriend which is similar in nature? - Glen ^T _C 08:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Even though the current article is insufficient, this is a valid and expandable topic. "Girlfriends" and "boyfriends" are concepts which can only exist in a specific type of society, and not, for instance, in a society where sexes are raised separately from a certain age and all marriages are arranged. I am convinced that there are anthropologists or sociologists who have studied this type of relationship, and that the article can be expanded. Tupsharru 09:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Speedy Keep. Certainly encyclopaedia material. This is a cultural phenomena. It's a dicdef in current state, but that's reason to expand, not delete. Loom91 09:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - borderline encyclopedic. Metamagician3000 10:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Clearly a notable topic, even if the current article is somewhat skimpy. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 10:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, definitely notable topic, expand, encyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 12:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Tupsharru et. al. Smerdis of Tlön 13:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep would like to see more discussion of cultural impact of the use of the term particularly in different countries around the world Tyhopho 15:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand: the article doesn't mention "girlfriend" as non-sexual female friend among women, as it is also used. More than a dicdef. ProhibitOnions 15:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Dicdef or not, it's an important article. Should be expanded, not deleted, as deleting it will only invite someone to come along and recreate it, losing all the work that's already been put into it. Qleem 20:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Fishhead64 20:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, just because it is currently a dicdef (and it is barely just a dicdef) does not mean that it will stay a dicdef, and the topic is obviously both notable and encyclopedic. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 22:05 (UTC)
• Speedy keep or she'll kill me. Just kidding. Maintenance is never a reason to delete an article; there is no doubt (in my mind at least) that this can become a decent page. Isopropyl 22:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Important article. DarthVader 22:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve; definitely potential for culturally significant, encyclopedic expansion. MCB 05:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. More than just a dictdef; for example, the Japanese stuff was interesting and informative. -Colin Kimbrell 19:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Has extra information on cultural diferences (eg: Japanese info). Should be more fleshed out however. Royrules22 23:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.--陈鼎翔 ^说!贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Gary Kirk (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Significant other. -zappa 18:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Royboycrash. Freddie 01:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tigor Music and Media

Non notable company. "Tigor Music and Media" yields 0 Google results. Rory096 02:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CORP, WP:VAIN, and no Ghits. Royboycrashfan 02:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete 0 ghits? that's easy. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete zero notability. no ghits as User:Swatjester mentioned. Sheehan (Talk) 05:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, also the user created a duplicate page at Tigor music and media. Danny Lilithborne 07:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanispamcruftisement Just zis Guy you know? 09:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanispamcruftisment, 0 Google hits, definitely nn. --Terence Ong 14:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. DarthVader 22:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep as the AfD has been withdrawn by the nominator. ConDem^Talk 03:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swearing

Information that is in oath and profanity already. Also looks like a dicdef. Suggest redirect to profanity, since this is probably what someone searching for "swearing" would be looking for, or maybe a disambig page. ConDem^Talk 02:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to profanity. --Hetar 02:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, useful to disambiguate between oath and profanity and can give information about how the meaning of the word slowly changed from mostly one to mostly the other. Kusma (討論) 02:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kusma. Royboycrashfan 02:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Just realised that since I don't think the page should actually be deleted, I probably shouldn't have listed it here, so sorry guys.ConDem^Talk 02:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, come one, how could a religion that was created today (tomorrow, for us here in the United States, possibly be notable? patent nonsense.--Adam ^(talk) 03:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Existism

1. non-notable, delete Bill Sayre 02:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
2. delete Benon 02:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 (e) 17:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian Oil Bourse

there's no indication that anything will become of this "bourse". given that, the only other thing i can think of to do with this article would be to merge it to "planned exchanges that never happened". the question is, should it be deleted now or given more time (or merged)? Bob A 01:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Nominator forgot to list on the AfD logs; completing nomination. --cesarb 02:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Bob A is factually incorrect as this "bourse" is mearly a propossed addition to the Tehran_Stock_Exchange. If anything this should be merged in to that article but I belive the current geopolitical ramifications of trading oil in euros warrents a seperate article Carbonate 12:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree strongly with all the comments opposing the deletion of this article. While it is definitely in need of updating - what's the situation now, etc., to delete this page seems like a covert agenda intended to render invisible serious motivations for continued American military threats against Iran. To delete this article is a ridiculous proposition. Erik 11:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This was a newsworthy event for months, causing much speculation and discussion. Deletion would seem more than a little revisionist, particularly given the current threats against Iran. — JEREMY 02:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against deletion. The fact that the opening of the Iranian Bourse has been posponed for geopolítical reasons or may be cancelled is not enough reason to destroy the information. At the time when the US is threatening Iran is just normal to expect projects to be put on hold. The article just needs to state that and explain the whole story, why it happened or why it didn't.--tequendamia 04:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• "Against deletion" Despite the fact the IOB did not open on the scheduled date, there is still important and relevant information in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.76.82.120 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against deletion. Wow, i can't believe that anyone could be considering deleting this article! The intention to establish an alternative to the petrodollar, thus financially harming the U.S., seems like a pretty valid reason for the U.S. to attack Iran. Certainly a better reason than to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons, of which there is no evidence. Please don't let this page disappear 'down the memory hole'. -- Mark is Happy 15:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Factual and relevant. Brisvegas 23:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Factual, relevant, and notable. Bill Sayre 02:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nothing has changed since the article was created: the tensions with Iran still exist, and this topic is still in the news. Hmm, I don't know much about finance: is "bourse" really the right word for this? I only know it as the French word for "purse". --Saforrest 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep factual, still relevant. Sheehan (Talk) 05:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Even if the bourse is not operative (yet), the fact that it has been in the news for almost two years now make the plans notable. David Sneek 07:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, factual, relavant, encyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 13:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, as developments such as this in the oil market (basically setting up, IIRTC, a new market to bypass OPEC) are inherently important, even if they come to naught. Pat Payne 02:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• support - per all above --Benon 23:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep see above Blink484 22:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Pat Payne Blink484 22:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep factual, very relevant Frankman 13:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Pat Payne Barnetj 14:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• I don't know French, but it sounds right; the Brazilian Portuguese words for "stock exchange" is "bolsa de valores", and "bolsa" is the Portuguese word for "purse". --cesarb 02:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Traditionally a bourse is a currency exchange, not a commodities exchange. Wikipedia is not Wikinews and I'm undecided whether detail on a not-yet-realized proposal belongs in its own article, rather than a sub-article on conflict between political factions within Iran. What I consider important (and very dangerous) is that some people call this proposal "a pretty valid reason for the U.S. to attack Iran." No vote. Barno 04:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Which would make it pretty notable, IMHO.

RGTraynor 16:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:V, it doesn't qualify based on a Wikipedia editor (or a consensus of them) saying something like that; it qualifies now only if this is among the comments from current and former Bush Administration military and national-security experts which have been reported by the major media in recent weeks. However, if Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld think that way, then it will soon become very notable. Perhaps we should keep and expand the article based on what has been published; but in most cases there are large numbers of grand proposals that die out or are replaced by something else. Barno 23:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but, it seems rather strange that now this is regarded by some as a useless piece of news. I cannot help thinking that there is some hidden agenda here. Official Revisionism.--tequendamia 04:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Check your facts: Nobody here called it "useless", nor attempted to revise anything to meet any hidden agenda. The question here is whether it's encyclopedic content that will be worth reading in an encyclopedia one hundred years from now, or if it's just news whose current importance (and potential future greater importance) will soon be overtaken by later developments. Please note that wild imprecise charges are likely to lead editors to discount your comments as violations of the policies WP:NPOV (which doesn't control AfD comments as it does articles, but ought to be kept in mind) and WP:NPA. Barno 05:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, A5. – Robert 00:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secrets and glitches in Halo 2

Transwikied to Wikibooks Transwiki:Secrets_and_glitches_in_Halo_2, not needed here anymore.--Zxcvbnm 02:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. (Wikipedia is not a how-to guide). Bucketsofg 03:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. BryanG 03:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 03:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete a5 ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. JIP | Talk 05:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete Merecat 06:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. Sheehan (Talk) 08:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide. --Terence Ong 13:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. DarthVader 22:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wizor

Advertisement and a Non notable electronic device. Every DVD player and most home theater stereos have circuits that do the same function. Bige1977 03:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC).

• Delete-Non-notable product--blue520 03:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --KimvdLinde 04:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 06:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 12:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tips for weight loss

• Delete: WP is not a how to guide KimvdLinde 04:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per WP:NOT.--blue520 04:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN, although I should probably follow its advice and drop a couple pounds. Tijuana Brass 04:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Wikipedia is not the place for these kinds of things. Sheehan (Talk) 05:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 05:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete Merecat 06:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above. Metamagician3000 12:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Cut the fat and delete. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. DarthVader 22:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious fanaticism

I am probably going to lose this one, but... Religious fanaticism is a priori a NPOV violation. The whole article cannot escape being terminally biased. One man's religious fanatic is another's normal religious person. And before you can retort with, "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, and look, we do have an article on Terrorism", at least terrorism is a defined crime and statutes describe it and people who may condone it at the very least recognize that they're involved in it. Religious fanaticism is much more amorphous, and cannot be defined. Practices of sect X, which some may consider to be R.F., should go into the article on sect X. Everything else here is hopeless conjecture. Note also that this article has been untouched for half a year. Delete - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 04:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, and merge any useful content into related articles. Well said. Tijuana Brass 04:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and I believe the term would be res ipsa loquitor instead of a priori? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • A priori means "necessarily resulting", meaning there's no way to craft this article without violating NPOV. Res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself" and is a legal principle by which a tort is proven just by virtue of the fact that the harm could not have been incurred absent a tort, even though no direct evidence is available. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 14:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete stinks of POV. Even if it is somehow cleaned up it'll continue to attract more POV junk. Seems like it was left untouched for a long time too. Sheehan (Talk) 05:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete Merecat 06:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Good reason, too. I wish there was a way to systematically deal with articles like this. --Impaciente 06:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 07:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain I don't really like this article, but I think it is possible to make a NPOV article on this. Abortion is a POV magnet too but I don't see us deleting it. Kotepho 08:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong keep. I can't imagine anyone wanting to delete this. Why on earth? It's a very important topic in current climates and just because an article may attract POV is no reason to delete it. It is quite possible to discuss the evolution and strength of religious fanaticism over the ages and the controversy surrounding it in a NPOV manner. It's possible to discuss who considers what to be religious fanatcism and who doesn't and how it affects global politics. This is so obviously encyclopaedia material. If you think it's POV, well clean it up or tag it but don't delete it. Abortion and Terrorism provide two perfect parrallas, I don't see any difference. This is one of the most absurd AfDs I've seen. Loom91 09:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Loom, this AfD is not absurd, and I resent the notion. Islamic R.F. should be covered in article on muslim religious philosophy, but not as "R.F.", rather as "this is what they do, this is why they do it, and here's who condemns it." You see, R.F. is inherently an epithet. For example, the article refers to the adherence to Shari'a as R.F. That just serves to denigrate the billion muslims who adhere to it. And I am arguing that there is no way to clean up an article like that, it's inherently uncleanupable. Please re-read the article and the nom carefully -- and consider being softer around the edges. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 14:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right in saying that the abortion, terrorism (and any other hot issue) articles attract POV edits, but that's not what the nom is for. The title itself is inherently POV. If we were to use those examples in comparison, the articles would instead have titles like "Abortion as Murder" or "Terrorist Arabs." I agree that there's useful content that could presumably be written here, but it would need to be added in a way that doesn't have tinge of a POV accusation of "fanaticism." Tijuana Brass 16:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't agree that the title or subject are inherently POV--unless you are going to deny that it exists. This article could be easily written NPOV if well cited and it discussed psychological and sociological studies. Kotepho 17:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Hopelessly POV, and doesn't seem particularly useful when this could be covered on each religion's page, or possibly in fundamentalism. Perhaps this should redirect to that... Grandmasterka 09:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Per Loom91, this could be a legitimate topic, but this article is going nowhere. Metamagician3000 09:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge and redirect at fanaticism. NPOV is a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. Certainly accusations of "religious fanaticism" make this a concept about which a worthwhile article can be written, and the text now at the page is not entirely unhelpful. Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 14:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. IrishGuy 14:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - merge useful material with fanaticism, fundamentalism, or the articles dealing with various faith traditions. Fishhead64 21:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but heavily rewrite. It can be a useful article, but the language in it is too POV at the moment. If anyone knowledgable about the subject and who has a calm enough demeanor to take it on were to rewrite it from the ground up, it could come out a valuable piece. Pat Payne 03:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. We should no delete an article because it's bad NOW, but only when it could be nothing but bad EVER. The article doesn't have to label any particular group as fanatics, it can discuss the CONCEPT of religious fanaticism and alleged examples with cited sources as to allegations and refutations. It is not necessary to say 'following Shariyat is religious fanaticism", we can say "this what religious fanaticism is, Reputable Source A calls following Shariyat religious fanaticism, but Reputable Source B refutes this claim". NPOV and bad material is not ground for deletion, bad topic is, and I don't think this opic is predestined to be bad. Certainly encyclopaedic content. Loom91 07:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, but it'd be difficult in practice — it's hard to do an article on religious fanaticism without mentioning at least a few groups (although there may be an appeal to a general agreement for certain groups, like Charles Manson's). I think that the argument in favor of deletion is concerned with the article's title labeling groups in a POV manner rather than the kind of content you're suggesting. Tijuana Brass 16:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to point the finger at all religions, balancing it out. Holds great promise for expansion. Religious fanaticism is a real phenomenon, and I don't see why--if it is such a strong influence in world affairs--not to have an article about it.--Primetime
• Comment. I've extensively rewrote the article to prsent an encyclopaedic and NPOV approach to the matter, also trying to explain to some extent why it should be considered an encyclopaedic topic. Please review the article in its current form and reconsider your vote. Loom91 07:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You just deleted all of the examples. I thought they broadened the definition and gave made the article more complete.--Primetime 07:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Whoah. First, Catholics have not been the only Christian fundamentalists. Second, there is not a direct war going on between the West and the Middle East. I'm sorry, but I'm just going to have to revert the change.--Primetime 07:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I would also add that the Crusades weren't one sided. It isn't as though that was a Christian fundamentalist issue with no fundamentalism at all on the Muslim side.IrishGuy 08:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It was a step in the right direction, but the very last sentence is exactly why POV is a problem — "Members of the religious mainstream usually disapprove of fanaticism, but some also feel it to be necessary to maintain cultural identity and spread the word of God." Your aim was clearly not to take any side on the issue, but it's exceedingly difficult to nail down objectivity on this one, as this sentence indicates. A noble effort, though. Thanks for taking the initiative to do it. Tijuana Brass 16:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep article needs editing and cleanup, not deletion. It is (to me) clearly an encyclopedic topic. See the article on terrorism for a good example of how to approach this kind of stuff. Deleting notable articles without given them a chance to improve harms wikipedia, instead of helping it. Also I object that any encyclopedic article could be by necessity not NPOV. And if it is so, is that still grounds to delete if, if it is encyclopedic? Many topics would be missing if wikipedia avoided controversy. Perle 19:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Lucid Dream Project

non-notable, advertisement Bill Sayre 04:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

(Helped Bill Sayre with discussion page lay out) blue520 05:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn advert.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 05:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--blue520 05:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete any information of value on this page could be posted at Nagualism Merecat 06:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 07:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 08:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 12:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. DarthVader 22:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saidu hospial swat pakistan

illegible. The closest I got was that it's a hospital called Saidu in Swat, Pakistan, but does not make any claims of notability. Is totally unreadable, and I would LOVE to see someone count how many times the author says the word "swat", it seems like every other sentence. Anyway, nn, horridly written, signed by author, etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I can read it, although, yes, I agree, it is horrendously written. I'm going to try and make some sense of it though - I will do so at Saidu hospital swat pakistan/2 and then move to the original page if that's okay with everyone. -zappa 05:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it got moved to Saidu Hospital. I cleaned up the history section, and it looks okay, but after reading the rest (or trying to) I figured it isn't notable enough to keep. Nevermind. -zappa 05:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• SPEEDY Delete - seems to be patent nonsense, in its current form at least. pm_shef 05:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Erm Zappa: if the page is non-notable, then no matter how much you clean it up it still won't merit inclusion... ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete Merecat 06:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 07:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep now that ive had a go at tidying it. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as nicely rewritten by BL Lacertae. Good save! Please move to whatever the right title for the article is after the AfD closes. MCB 05:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the rewrite. Nice job, BL! -Colin Kimbrell 19:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Niki Ashton

Delete NN, doesn't meet WP:BIO, consensus has generally been that former candidate, if otherwise not noteable, do not get pages. pm_shef 05:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This page was nominated for deletion once before, and survived. CJCurrie 05:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 06:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election as per other defeated candidates. Luigizanasi 06:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. An NDP candidates in the 2006 Canadian federal election candidate. For great justice. 08:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A candidate for mainstream party in national election is a marginal case, that can go either way. But, given there was not a delete in the first AFD, we should stick with that. With a million articles in Wikipedia, one AFD for each is sufficient. --Rob 10:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per For Great Justice. OoskMR 11:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ought to have been deleted the first time. Even less reason now to keep it. Skeezix1000 11:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with other defeated candidates. The article was kept last time due to no conensus based on being a candidate for national office. Well, she lost. Thatcher131 11:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The previous AfD was closed as a no consensus not keep forever. AfD in the past has shown that candidates cross the threshold to notability when they win the elction they're campaigning for. Merely being nominated isn't enough because plenty of people are nominated for these things all the time in Canada and the US and luckily we don't have entries for all of those people. To state that one AfD of no consensus should be sufficient to shield any article from ever being deleted is disingenuous.  RasputinAXP  c 11:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, losers of an election are usually not notable and she is not notable enough for other reasons to be an exception. -- Kjkolb 12:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Highly notable, and of considerable historical interest, for defeating three-term incumbent MP Bev Desjarlais in her own party's nomination election, a rare occurance, after which Desjarlais ran in the general election as an independent (and placed far below Ashton). Samaritan 15:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:BIO turns on "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature" and "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage." Ashton is not the former, and as to the latter, she has all of 168 total G-hits. "Significant press coverage" that isn't. (Quite aside from that the Churchill riding defines, in non-territorial Canada, the back end of nowhere.) RGTraynor 16:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A fairness argument can be made while the election is going on, but once it's over, unless the person is otherwise notable, I see no reason to have a bunch of entries for candidates who ran once and lost. Fan1967 20:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Please do not keep. Commons has 308 seats. US House has 435. Conservatives, Liberals, NDPs, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and independents add up to a lot of losing candidates. A huge number lost the only election of their lives, and will go back to obscurity. Unless an individual has other notability, or made the campaign notable in some way, they should not have permanent articles. Fan1967 01:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO -- Ned Scott 20:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Fishhead64 21:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. She is a notable Northern Manitoban, not many of them, fewer people up there, so it's no surprise that she doesn't have many web hits, though the page does need to work. The Ashtons are a political family here in Manitoba, it might be better to make 1 page for both of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.179.252.24 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep or Merge to NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. The above anon is correct in saying that the Ashton family is highly influential in northern Manitoba. Also, someone above mentioned her unseating a three-term incumbent, which makes her notable in the history of Canadian politics; nomination unseatings are very rare in Canada. Also, on the Google search method - a poor choice indeed for a region where, despite high computer ownership in Canada, less than half of the population owns or has access to a computer. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 22:12 (UTC)

• Comment. Google hits =/ page views; we're not measuring how popular Ms. Ashton is (I rather think the electoral results did that for us). They measure how notable she is. What you and several other noms are doing is arguing why she should be notable, and your arguments are defensible, but the purpose of AfD isn't as an advocacy group. Demonstrably, Ms. Ashton was a mere drop in the outside world, and barring greater success in politics, she just hasn't demonstrated that the world's particularly noticed her. RGTraynor 14:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Rob. Ground Zero | t 23:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment it still doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. I'm sorry, but what is wrong with you people. Just because someone doesn't have their very own Wikipedia article doesn't make them not important. This article gives nothing to the world. -- Ned Scott 23:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think Ashton was the only person to defeat any Canadian Member of Parliament running for reelection for their own party's nomination in the 2006 election. Political historians will value a quick biography of the victorious candidate who did so, even though she came second in the general election (to a well-known actor who seized on this split running for another party). Samaritan 00:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• While I realize that not everybody agrees on the notability of unelected political candidates, the precedent has already been set that federal candidates are entitled at least to inclusion in a merged list. I'm inclined to agree with Samaritan that l'affaire Desjarlais is, in and of itself, a sufficient criterion of notability, but per established practice, as a candidate in a federal election she's unequivocally entitled to at least a subsection in a merged candidates list. Either keep or merge into NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election; precedent already excludes outright deletion as an option. Bearcat 00:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep on merits of notability as a federal NDP candidate, as well as nothing having changed since previous AfD. MCB 05:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment There was a huge change since the last AfD. The election happened. She lost. Fan1967 13:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep She was part of a nomination race and election campaign that garnered a lot of media attention. She's also pretty youung and could make future runs for office. It does need some heavy editing though. --NDP Johnny 07:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep I would have no doubts about voting delete were it not for the same sex marriage issue defeat of Bev Desjarlais for the nomination, which was extensively covered by the national media, and a notable (but transient) current event. Pete.Hurd 19:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Ashlee Simpson remixes

Pop-Music-cruft. I found this on the Dead-end Pages page and added a Prod" tag. Tag removed by User:Everyking (although, I oughtta add, he was NOT its creator), with the comment what is this thing? there must at least be an afd. So here we are. Calton | Talk 05:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comments. I recalled that List of Mariah Carey remixes went down in flames 0-14, so I decided to see if any other similiar articles were deleted, were kept, or existed:
  • List of remixes of Britney Spears songs - not Prodded or AFD'ed.
  • List of Ayumi Hamasaki remixes - not Prodded or AFD'ed.
  • Shakira remixography - not Prodded or AFD'ed.
• If these lists are inappropriate, should these be nuked/merged, too? --Calton | Talk 05:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I "second" these co-nominations for deletion, if it is not too late to include them too -- Ned Scott 07:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Maybe it could be merged into List of Ashlee Simpson songs? Everyking 06:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Merecat 06:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - per Mariah Carey remixes -- Ned Scott 07:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not a valid basis to speedy. Everyking 14:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable unless good verifiable source citations are provided prior to end of AfD period. In this case, a source citation means, at the very least, something that would enable someone to locate the items. Unless, being ignorant of this area, maybe I'm missing something obvious. If I wanted to listen to "Eddie Baez Radio Edit 4:21" (or verify that it is 4 minutes 21 seconds long) what would I do? An iTunes Music Store search on "Boyfriend Eddie Baez Radio Edit" yields no hits; neither does "Boyfriend remix." Have these remixes in fact been "published" in any significant say? Where? Why doesn't the article give the publication data? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as useless cruft. And sure, if anyone will be so kind to AfD similar articles, I'll vote to delete those too. RGTraynor 16:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Very Delete as cruftycruft. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 16:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • But NOT Creator is OK to remove prod! Anyone is. Prod guidelines re-read Yoda must! - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 16:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted by Marudubshinki at 06.37.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kwok Kin Kwong

nn secondary school teacher. Horribly POV ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Righteous Warrior Temple

nn cruft website ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Tyr_shadowblade I do not understand why this article was slated for deletion mere seconds after I posted it. The information is verifiable, does not violate copyright and is unbiased. And what did User:Swatjester mean by "nn cruft website"? Please be specific as to how this article can be improved, as I'm new to posting here.

The poster deserves more explaination. The criteria for a Wikipedia article about a web site is at WP:WEB. The requirements are set rather high, or every promoted website in the web would have a Wikipedia article. "nn" just means "non-notable", which refers to Wikipedia's requirement that a website or person or band be "notable" to be included. --John Nagle 06:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable website about a non-serious topic.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 06:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Tyr-shadowblade Warriorship is a "non-serious topic"? Mr Binguyen is entitled to his opinion . . . even if it's wrong. I looked at Wikipedia's articles on the topic of notability and understood that this is not necessarilly a "requirement", as "Wikipedia is not paper". I thought RWT was of interest, and their website certainly isn't a fancruft or vanity website. Have any of the people in favor of deletion even looked at the material there?

User:Tyr_shadowblade Just realized that I made a mistake in the first paragraph and edited it. RWT was an organization which created a website and published several books . . . if that makes any difference. Not JUST a website.

• Delete as non-notable, unsourced, unverified cruft. 96 unique G-hits, many of which are from link and mirror sites. Alexa ranking of 2,486,338. [7] if you'd like a chuckle. RGTraynor 16:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Tyr_shadowblade Fine . . . article deleted. . . oh, the bot won't permit it.

• Delete per nom and RGT. Joe 03:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The SubGenius must have SLACK!!!

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hanshin Republic

Delete, we can't have whole articles devoted to minor elements of an anime. I'm a big fan of this series, and even I find this article to be completely unnecessary. Wikipedia is NOT here to retell every possible event in fictional stories. Please "nip this in the bud". See Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) -- Ned Scott 05:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Merecat 06:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with nom. Average Earthman 09:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 11:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, though I can't say that we don't have articles about small event in fictional stories. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I thought I should say, I hope the creator of this article does not feel insulted or discouraged. The article is rather well written for a stub, it's just not-notable. -- Ned Scott 04:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Baird

Delete Attempted speedy, user deleted it. Article looks like a vanity article, there is no claim to noteability, being a failed election candidate does not entitle one to an article pm_shef 05:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 06:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Casper2k3 06:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election as per other defeated candidates. Luigizanasi 06:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• The user who removed the speedy tag was me, and the reason I did so was because an article that survived AfD unchanged is surely not a speedy candidate. I have no opinion on whether or not it should be deleted, mind. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 07:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Stood, came third. Isn't, therefore, sufficiently notable. Average Earthman 09:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Luigizanasi --Ed (Edgar181) 10:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Baird. --Rob 10:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Thivierr. See parallel debate on Niki Ashton here] OoskMR 11:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ought to have been deleted the first time. Even less reason to keep it now. Skeezix1000 11:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge The equivalent of a candidate for a seat in the US House of Representatives. If otherwise non-notable people can get an article by losing an election, we have 230 years worth of failed US candidates to add. Thatcher131 11:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia already has dozens of articles on people who didn't even successfully win their own party's nomination for Congressional elections. Bearcat 00:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, he is even less notable than Niki Ashton. -- Kjkolb 12:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. At least Niki Ashton wasn't this colorless. RGTraynor 16:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Preferably keep, otherwise merge. Samaritan 23:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• While I realize that not everybody agrees on the notability of unelected political candidates, the precedent has already been set that federal candidates are entitled at least to inclusion in a merged list. Either keep (though boy howdy, does it ever need cleanup) or merge into Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election; precedent already excludes outright deletion as an option. Bearcat 00:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Please do not keep. Commons has 308 seats. US House has 435. Conservatives, Liberals, NDPs, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and independents add up to a lot of losing candidates. A huge number lost the only election of their lives, and will go back to obscurity. Unless an individual has other notability, or made the campaign notable in some way, they should not have permanent articles. Fan1967 01:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; major party candidate for federal office makes the cut for notability. MCB 05:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not notable. --MaNeMeBasat 15:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete NN Pete.Hurd 19:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheng Mi Tian

This article is an appendage to Holy Tantra Jin-Gang-Dhyana Buddhism by the same author (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Tantra Jin-Gang-Dhyana Buddhism). Totally unreferenced, obscure, and contextless. Nat Krause^(Talk!) 06:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 07:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom; could have been speedied as A1 for lack of context. MCB 05:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus tending towards keep. bainer (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koorong

POV and plain spam Casper2k3 06:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 06:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Alexa rank is 209,832. There's quite a few references in Google for this book chain. I'm reserving my vote for now pending further research into the company. -- Longhair 06:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm with Scott here. If this were spam, competitors wouldn't be rating a mention from the same author. - Longhair 02:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. If this chain merits an article, don't build it off of an advertisement. Feezo (Talk) 06:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: maybe there are problems with POV but it isn't plain spam because we're talking here about a company which has an oligopoly in the Australian Christian bookstore market. as longhair says, the alexa ranking is also quite high. Also, if you search on Google for koorong christian book you get around 26,400 results which is quite significant.Rebecca Rowland 06:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: -- I didn't say the Alexa rank was high (by the way, low Alexa ranks are a good sign, not high ones), I merely told those interested in this debate what the actual ranking was to save them the bother of checking. - Longhair 06:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As it is now, it is slightly spammish, but that can be fixed and I think the chain is notable enough for an article. JPD (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as per comments above. I would want an independant verification of the oligopoly claim which others are using to support retention of the article.--A Y Arktos\^talk 11:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Casper2k3. -- Kjkolb 12:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above nom. --Roisterer 13:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, a national chain of book stores would be notable, edited to make more encyclopedic. -- Paul foord 13:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rewrite. We really can't claim it isn't encyclopedic. RGTraynor 16:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - Ianblair23 (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 14:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a notable Australian bookshop. POV is no grounds for deletion. Cnwb 06:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations): The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Cannot find any such works. -- I@n ≡ talk 09:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Then you aren't looking very hard. Koorong is the biggest and most notable Christian bookshop chain in Australia. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess it's better to find some examples rather than say "look harder". Googling "koorong" gives a lot of church and christian sites discussing Koorong as a resource, and book reviewers giving it as a source. I guess these don't quite meet the criteria, but do give some idea of the notability. [8] and [9] are perhaps more helpful, as would be "looking harder" in non-web publications. JPD (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Completely, 100% STRONG keep! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep. The article can't be spam, or the same author would not have also created the article for the major direct competitor! Does anybody have access to retails statistics to show how Koorong ranks in bookselling chains in Australia (without restricting to "Christian" book shops)? --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable; plus my favourite pub is right across the street from the Adelaide one. michael ^talk 05:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vinny's Pizza - Clarion

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Article seems to be self-promotion for Vinny's Pizza. Also, not of significance/notability. jpmck 06:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 07:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete! Seriously, shameless advertising needs to be a speedy criterion. I think I'll go propose that change sometime soon... Grandmasterka 09:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue. Wikinoob. Ha, i say delete too. jpmck 23:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and yeah, shameless advertising should be speedy criteria.--Isotope23 16:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ad OSU80 16:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete adcruft, then go and delete the user whose sole contribution this is. RGTraynor 16:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Make that one large Delete...with mushrooms. PJM 19:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• nice one.--Isotope23 19:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• No, it's not. I don't like mushrooms. (Make it sausage or pepperoni, though, and we're good!) RGTraynor 14:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as duplicate of Bridle Path, Toronto. – Robert 00:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The bridal path

No context provided, has not been edited since January 22. --Impaciente 06:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- Nobody looking up this article could possibly have any idea what it's about, which makes it useless as an article. The El Reyko 07:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete This is patent nonsense. Also, only edit by user. Danny Lilithborne 07:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It may be a notable neighborhood, but there's no way of knowing without any details or context. --Ed (Edgar181) 10:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete It's a mispelling of a Toronto neighbourhood, The Bridle Path, that already has an article. Eron 14:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above. --Off! 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article as nonsense and a possible personal attack (probably not, but "WASPS with old money" doesn't seem friendly, and the subsequent naming of names seems a little caustic to me). — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What Eron said. Fishhead64 21:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as attack page. – Robert 00:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miss_Lau

No clue how this page has been around for so long. The entire article seems to be a joke and/or hoax. Landeyda 06:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete - clear hoax. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blnguyen (talk • contribs) 07:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • More evidence Miss Lau was impregnated, with a son, "Gay"-Wan. No-one is sure who the father is, but many genetic scientists believe he is Annika Sorenstam, the noted golfer. Sorenstam is a woman. Clearly doesn't stack up - hoax.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, non verifiable, probable hoax. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable WP:V, extra strong likelihood of being a hoax.--blue520 08:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. --Ed (Edgar181) 10:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as an attack article. -- Kjkolb 12:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as disgusting attack hoax. RGTraynor 16:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. DarthVader 23:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Attack article OSU80 15:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 18:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lenox (tools)

As it is, advertisement. Has been left virtually untouched since creation. Impaciente 07:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete "focus on quality"... "significant... savings and value"... blah. Danny Lilithborne 07:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. Feezo (Talk) 08:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Merely an advertisement. Sheehan (Talk) 08:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy userfy. -- RHaworth 16:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Fuchs

Nothing in the article asserts any kind of notability whatsoever. It's a biography of an unimportant person. All Google hits on "Anthony Fuchs" writer are of different people with the same name. The El Reyko 07:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per WP:VAIN and noting the article was created by Tonyfuchs1019. Danny Lilithborne 07:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - I have tagged it so - long but utterful useless throughout.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Boldly userfied. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 14:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lockley 15:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anton Lui, Chris Walasi, Francis Manioru, Jack Iroga, Mariuti Uan, Wally Kirika

This is a block nomination for six sprinters from Oceanic countries. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casnel Bushay for precedence.

These six athlete substubs were created in connection to the 2006 Commonwealth Games, where they participated without even reaching the semi finals. Except for this mere participation at the 2006 Commonwealth Games these athletes have achieved nothing of note, thus falling below the notability bar. No Olympic participation, nothing. Believe me, I have searched for ways to expand the articles (see for instance this diff for Fijian sprinter Jone Delai), but as these athletes haven't even won medals at the Oceania Championships, or the Oceania Youth Championships for that matter, it's just not enough to warrant inclusion here. Punkmorten 07:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete their PBs are 10% outside the WR. This is too much. They don't appear to have done much in the way of placings.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ed (Edgar181) 10:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RGTraynor 16:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, participated in a major international competition. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Bln. Joe 03:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Punkmorten,

You stated that, Except for this mere participation at the 2006 Commonwealth Games these athletes have achieved nothing of note, thus falling below the notability bar. To what notability standard do you refer to. The only one I could find is at WP:BIO, where it states that:

"the following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles:

• 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."

Now the 2006 Commonwealth Games, whilst not the Olympics or the World Championships, still had 71 nations and territories competing. It is classed as a Category A event by the IAAF when calculating world rankings. (see [10] - page 6)

I created these articles on the athletics participants and others based on the fact that 1) they had competed at this level, 2) they had a profile on iaaf.org and 3) these athletes, in each of their own countries, are considered notable. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment - Hello Ian. I have mentioned this a few times before, in other contemporary athlete deletion debates, that some weak countries are allowed entries on a wildcard basis, meaning their athletes do not have to meet the A-qualifying standard to qualify, unlike an athlete from a developed sport power, who must meet the A-qualifying standard to apply. So I am not convinced that wildcard-qualifiers are sufficiently notable on sporting-merit alone, as they have not earnt their position in the international arena on merit. (I am pretty sure the A-qualifier is less than 10% outside the WR).ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 04:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What Blnguyen said. The WP:BIO guideline mentions "an individual professional sport". Whereas the top finishers at the Commonwealth Games are indeed fully professional, I don't think these athletes are. Mariuti Uan clocked a personal best time in 11.65 seconds. He would have entered a 98th place on the 2005 statistics in Norway, a rather small country which sent 1 athlete to the latest World Indoor Championships. Moreover, getting an IAAF profile is not a great achievement by itself, seeing that an athlete like Stian Andersen has a profile. What really puzzles me here though, it that you left my early attempt to contact you via your talk page unanswered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Punkmorten (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment - Wow a guy with 11.46 for the 100m gets an IAAF profile. My old high school had people running 11.2s and none of them even got into the state level championships - and Australia isn't a sprint running power.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 23:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Zoe. MCB 05:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep please these sprinters are important to the countries they represent `Yuckfoo 23:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per zoe. Blink484 22:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alfred Moussambani, Gibrilla Bangura

This is a block nomination for two sprinters from African countries. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casnel Bushay for precedence.

These two athlete substubs was created in connection to the 2006 Commonwealth Games, where they participated without even reaching the semi finals. Except for this mere participation at the 2006 Commonwealth Games these athletes have achieved nothing, thus falling below the notability bar. No Olympic participation, nothing, and believe me, I have searched for ways to expand the article (see for instance this diff for Fijian sprinter Jone Delai), but when an athlete hasn't even won a medal at his respective regional championships (in this case: the Central African Championships or the West and North African Championships) it's just not enough to warrant inclusion here. Punkmorten 07:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Moussambani and Bangura, their PB is 7% and 5% outside the WR and nothing else sticks out. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is not Eric Moussambani. Just zis Guy you know? 09:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Alfred is no relation to The Eel MLA 09:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both, based on Commonwealth particpation. I think retention is supported by a reasonable interpetation of WP:BIO. The odd AFD doesn't outweight WP:BIO. --Rob 12:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It isn't as if they participated in the Olympics or any world championships. RGTraynor 16:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a major international competition though. --Rob 17:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 14:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, participated in a major international competition. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Zoe. MCB 05:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Lui
• Keep well known. Bur expand. --MaNeMeBasat 13:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted by Jaxl. Sango123 (e) 14:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tigor music and media

Duplicate of Tigor Music and Media which is also AfD. Danny Lilithborne 07:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete - an advertisement, nothing else. Sheehan (Talk) 08:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 09:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam/advertising.--Alhutch 14:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Yep, Delete this one too. -Colin Kimbrell 19:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies in autism

POV fork. Contains lots of redundant information part of more neutral articles. Merge relevant information into other articles and redirect Rdos 08:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep: While it's a poor quality article that seems to mix autism in medicine and autism in pop culture, the various autism articles need someone really knowledgeable to sort them out. Peter Grey 08:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Yet another attempt by POV pushers to hide information that is important for anyone affected by this condition. Absolutely no basis for the assertion that it's a POV fork. --Leifern 10:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that Leifern put all the redundant information back into the article that I selectively moved were it belonged. In the process he also reinserted all the speculations about vaccines that Wikipedia has been flooded with. --Rdos 11:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete . Merge the verifiable non-duplicated information in it into the existing articles dealing will with those aspects. Failing that, if it were rewritten shorter, tighter, and about the controversies, rather than another copy of the usual article as they all tend toward, it would be reasonably useful. Midgley 10:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: articles cannot be merged and then deleted. The history of the article must be kept to preserve attribution. After merging, the article is redirected to the article that received the content. -- Kjkolb 12:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is hardly possible to do a simple redirect, as this article contains a lot of information that should be spread to many articles. --Rdos 12:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that in such a case you would simply redirect to the article that received the most content. If it is about equal, then redirect to the most notable article or just pick one. All of the pages that receive content should be mentioned in the edit summary. -- Kjkolb 12:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, point taken. I've changed my request. --Rdos 12:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: NO, Kjkolb IS INCORRECT. Articles certainly can be merged and deleted, preserving histories. The process is straightforward and described here. The only reason why "merge and delete" votes are strongly discouraged is that the process is very laborious for the closing sysop. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• keep: There are numerous noteworthy controversies stemming from the iatrogenic epidemic of autistic spectrum diagnoses. This AfD is unlike the usual offensive attempts to silence dissenting medical opinions, as it seems likely to be a protest to make a point, triggered by the odd decision to delete Neanderthal theory of autism. The real reason this article needs to be kept is that big pharma has as much as admitted its culpability for the autism epidemic by launching an expensive, preemptive lobbying and propaganda assault aimed at securing immunity from the industry's enormous vaccine injury liabibilities (e.g. BioShield Two and PREPA). The assault also shows that the industry is unwilling to defend itself in the judicial system, which itself has been undermined to suit corporate special interests, rather than the mere carbon based life forms that courts were originally designed to serve. At least ten bills were in the works as of the end of last year to shield vaccine makers from any form of responsibility for these atrocities. Liabilities are projected by some observers far in excess of tens of billions of dollars. The controversies will only escalate as health care rationing decisions are made about the best/most cost effective treatments for this huge, emerging population. The controversies may be ignored deliberately by the mass media, as advocates like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. have found out, but there is no doubt that the increasingly unstable and inefficient medical system will be put under considerably more stress in the near term. Ombudsman 19:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in that the deletion of the Neanderthal theory of autism sets a preference for me (and should for others too). However, in this case I'm not arguing only this point, but for the bad idea to have similar information at many locations. If you and Leifern prefer to have the vaccine argument in this article that is fine with me, but then you will need to delete it from the other articles (like Causes of autism). --Rdos 05:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with redundancy, per se; the purpose of this article is to summarize the various controversies in one place and then provide links to the in-depth article on each one. I always wanted this article to be succinct, providing readers with the means to study each matter more deeply, but with the right context. The term "controversies" is carefully chosen to avoid bias. Although I think the Neanderthal theory is specious, I think it should be kept and would have voted to keep it. I want all the controversies here. --Leifern 14:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The causes of autism themselves are all controvesial. However merging causes and controversies pages would make the article too long. I believe that all causes information should be kept with causes, with a link from controversies Alister Namarra 02:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, per Peter Grey. I believe it needs a more clinical approach, starting with individual assertations having direct citations, and not a blanket "references" for the whole article - as is it seems to serve to disguise the POV nature of the topic. -Dawson 22:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• merge & redirect as per nom. Pete.Hurd 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep It is very much needed, I often see links to it on autism sites. I have also made a note on the discussion page for the article. AmyNelson 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bowland Challenge

Advertisement for a non-notable local charity walk. Was PRODded, but tag removed without comment. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 08:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 08:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. It has some notability. Certainly it is interesting. I suggest it be merged into Forest of Bowland as an evvent that takes place there. --Bduke 09:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I have trimmed it down, wikified it and changed it from a copyvio of the web page for the event. It is now in a form that could be merged into Forest of Bowland. Does anyone object if I do that? --Bduke 22:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Go ahead and do it - WP:BOLD backs you up! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete advertorial. Far, far, far too many links (now removed). Just zis Guy you know? 09:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement. Sheehan (Talk) 12:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 12:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Goodfellow

Local councillors, unless otherwise notable, do not meet WP:BIO. (I can see a case for redirecting this to the council page rather than deleting it, and would be interested in others' views.) —Whouk (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, there are an enormous number of local councillors, and they are only of very local interest, if at all (the only reason I'd have a hope of knowing who my local councillors are is that they keep sticking pieces of paper through my door) Average Earthman 09:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Metamagician3000 10:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete preferably we could delete politicians themselves. Other than that can you imagine having an article on every local council member for every county/district in the English speaking world?--Tollwutig 17:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• No, I really can't, and further more do not want to do so. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 19:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lin Ce Wei

No assertion of notability and only two relevant-seeming Google hits. But has an entry in the Indonesian Wikipedia and has been in List of famous Indonesian Chinese since the article started on 26 December 2005. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 08:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete doesnt seem to meet english wiki notability. Tyhopho 22:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ego non fui

Not notable garage band from Argentina. Zero google hits on band and albums. I know the people don't like google hits, specially with 'third world' stuff, but today all bands that makes it to the news has at least some hits. I, Argentine, never heard of them. Mariano(t/c) 08:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 09:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delenda est. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great_Expectations_plot_details

The plot summary of a book should not have an article to itself unless it is demonstrated that the plot summary itself has some unique notability. Integrate content into Great Expectations and delete. Loom91 08:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with main article. Metamagician3000 09:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge --Ed (Edgar181) 10:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I am the main author of the article. The question of having spoilers in literary articles or moving them to a separate article is significant and is now being actively discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum. There are reasons other than separate notability for spoiler content in literary articles and it is grossly overreaching to be looking to delete or even merge and delete before these points have been thoroughly discussed. -- Cecropia 15:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back into Great Expectations.--Isotope23 16:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - But open to persuasion. Please do look into the detailed points made by the author at the place he mentions Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum. This is a serious issue with far reaching consequences (far beyond Novels, all Fiction in fact). So we do need sober and reasoned debate on this. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I looked at the points and I see no strong reason to fork plot details... that's why we have spoiler warnings.--Isotope23 16:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • And I believe that spoiler warnings are woefully inadequate. -- Cecropia 16:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • And I believe they are wholly adequate... a difference of opinion.--Isotope23 19:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. --Stbalbach 16:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep re Cecropia. MikeBriggs 19:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment .. Well, I don't think using Great Expectations to make a point is the way to go about it enacting change, because it will meet resistance with every article it is tried on. The best way is make a proposal and build consensus using a test case on a temp page somewhere so people can play around with different ideas. It may very well be a great idea, but it has to be demonstrated and build up support, which takes time. -- Stbalbach 00:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and all worthwhile information into the actual article. The spoiler warning that appears on many pages will steer away people who don't want to know details (though people should realize that if you're going to an article that Wikipedia is not obligated to censor data (eg put data on a seperate entry) so you don't have a book/film spoiled. Radagast83 19:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. SorryGuy 04:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brianism

An alleged religion-substitute based on the teachings of a "cyber-prophet", but whose website is (and has been for a while) 404. About 750 Googles, none of whihc appear to relate to coverage in reliable sources. Contains unverifiable claims (especially since the primary source no longer exists). So, problems with WP:V, apparent lack of WP:RS, no way of verifying WP:NPOV, quite likely to be original research, and no real way of showing otherwise. As far as I can tell Wikipedia is the primary source of information on this topic. Just zis Guy you know? 09:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Previous nomination (Jan 2004) --kingboyk 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 09:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As above. I count 760 google hits, Alexa.com shows one site linking to brianism.org = and that's this one. - Glen ^T _C 09:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• KeepDelete (see comments) This is evidently a parody religion that is by definition a joke. Only question is how notable the joke is. Well, not as notable as the flying spaghetti monster, but it seems to gets some reasonable hits on google. Metamagician3000 09:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Which of those sources are reliable? And to what extent is a spoof religion which Googles a fraction of the number of hits I do encyclopaedic? Just zis Guy you know? 10:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, some look otherwise reliable and are not obviously part of the joke. However, prompted by your question, I've spent some time trying to get to the bottom of it. It looks like the creators of this parody religion have been successful in using the Wikipedia article to fool various people such as Webster's On-Line Dictionary into thinking that this is, indeed, a popular joke like the spaghetti monster or whatever (in which case I would consider it to be encyclopedic as long as it was discussed as being a parody or a hoax, not as if it were a real set of beliefs). The article can't bootstrap itself into notability, so I've changed my vote. Metamagician3000 12:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't seem to be notable to me. --Ed (Edgar181) 10:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, since it doesn't have the popular culture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as judged by a lack of google hits and the fact that I've never heard of it (obscure religions may well deserve entries if there are people who take them very, very seriously, but this doesn't count here). Average Earthman 17:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --kingboyk 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. Also, it's misspelled :) BryanG 22:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not even particularly funny. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Deleteper nom.--blue520 05:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep; cleanup and expand. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death Blooms

Very mildly notable, but not enough information available on this song to warrant an Article -- Mattrixed ^Talk 09:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Even if notable article should be deleted until written so it constitutes an actual article - One line does not an article make. - Glen ^T _C 09:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup and Expand, singles are notable but content needs to be added. SorryGuy 04:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pirates of the Cablemodem

This article is a storyline from a movie which claims that this is claimed as "first prize at the first annual Southwick Film Festival (Spring 2004), Southwick, MA." Also, there are no Google hits relating to this. Not notable or encyopedic and does not satisfy the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyopedia, not a collection of stories! fnfd 09:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete neither "Southwick Film Festival" nor "Pirates of the Cablemodem" have a Google hit. Gu 11:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Metamagician3000 12:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes in Kanto between Pokémon Red/Blue/Yellow and Pokémon Gold/Silver/Crystal

Pokémon gamecruft. Punkmorten 09:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• If it's verifiable and useful to any of the Poké-articles (I don't pretend to know), merge. If not, delete, per nom. PJM 11:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd like to add all Pokemon while we're at it, but alas, it will never be.  RasputinAXP  c 12:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article seems a little too specific, maybe an article for the list of overall changes between all the different version of Pokémon is in order. In its current form it's barely understandable. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A better and more expansive form of this list already exists at Pokémon Gold and Silver#A different Kanto, and that's where it should stay. BryanG 22:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• 'Redirect to Pokemon Gold and Silver where the topic is already covered in more detail. Delete —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 22:19 (UTC)
• Delete - not encyclopedic. The article's title is too complex to be of any benefit as a redirect. Pagrashtak 02:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a redir is absolutely not remotely useful. --Golbez 03:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 @ 04:06 (UTC)
• Delete. Long name, who finds this article? Gold and Silver article can cover it, and it violates WP:NOT. --Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 21:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survivor online

An so-called "online version" of Survivor running on Freewebs. No Alexa ranking or relevant Google hits. Very non-notable online game. Canley 09:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• delete, non-notable, unverifiable.  RasputinAXP  c 12:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete as per nom Tyhopho 15:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. MCB 08:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7.--Alhutch 14:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Courtney

Makes absolutely no sense - not an article at all. Needs deletion. Kingofspades 10:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. I think the word you are looking for is {{db-bio}}, so tagged. Weregerbil 10:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Gu 11:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It starts off by describing a character from American Dragon: Jake Long, then turns to mush. It's unsourced and there is no mention of this character in the main article. PJM 11:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ram Cam

This is the webcam at http://rameysrealm.com/cam.html, which is on a domain that is ranked 5,551,357 by Alexa . It appears to be no more notable than any other webcam. Almost all of the Google hits for "ram cam" are for totally unrelated products and sites. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 10:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please Note: The "Ram Cam" was only officially called "The Ram Cam" from the year 2005. I recommend you re-check the site under the search name "RAMEY GHOST CAM" which comes up with completely relating links which shows it is amongst the most popular of webcams and has been for years.
  • Well, that search term gets exactly five hits on Google. Three of them are message boards, and the other two were posted by "Ramster". GeorgeStepanek\^talk 11:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete also get too few hits to think that this is more notable than any other ghost cam. Gu 11:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and don't cross the streams, Ray.  RasputinAXP  c 12:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry friends i dont mean to be annoying but this article took so long and i hope i can spare it with one more chance. Here goes...Please use dogpile instead of Google. Searching with one search engine cannot simply disquality something for being popular or not. Taken from the Geocities Stats for website /rameysrealm stats show: www.rameysrealm.com has been visited a total of 92,363 times. A link here with a huge comprehensive gallery on the cam found at :

http://www.ruthshere.com/ghost/ramcamcaps.htm

The ghostcam has had many, many hosts- the name changed- some links were lost- but if you go to any paranormal community and ask them about the ramcam or "rameys cam" they will know exactly what you are talking about. Rameys Realm won an award for the most Original Paranormal Site at Hunts ghosthunters paranormal group. Its listed on Paranormal Australia- Horrorfind Ghosts- Will County Ghost Hunters Society- Paranormal Reviews- Best Websites. Net - Ghostfiles. Org- Ghosts In The Linen Mill- Ghost Encyclopedia @ The Late Shift- Deviant Art and more...I just find it frustrating that something with plenty of reference- thousands of photos- genuine website- plenty of links and adequate hits simply cant make it to wikipedia...The Ram Cam is one of the strongest and convincing paranormal cams ever put on show- not to mention one of the longest lasting. What more is required?

• Comment I'm sure that your cam is well known within the ghost hunter communities and boards but I don't think it's especially known to the rest of us. Google certainly has its faults but still if something has little Google hits it's usually one among other pointers to non-notability.
  But that aside your article is also to a large extent original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia Wikipedia:No_original_research. So it also lacks independent sources and references which would be necessary to verify most things mentioned in the article.
  Maybe you want to consider to make a more general article about ghost cams around the world [11] [12] [13], with your cam as part of the list of existing ones? But please remember, no original research, just information which can be verified be independent sources. Gu 14:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have links that directly mention the things that i have mentioned in this article to verify that these did indeed happen...You can see the pictures that relate to the apparitions mentioned in its text. I still ask of you to keep this as it is different than other ghost cams and has had reliable sources such as investigators and tests to conclude that it wasnt a hoax. I can post links that give more direct mentioning of the article which further shows that what is said can verified by more than one source. Im having a difficult time understanding this.

• Delete no evidence of notability or exceptional popularity. I would support a well-sourced article on the concept/phenomenon of ghost cams in general, though. MCB 08:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears that people are ignoring the sources listed and going about their merry ways researching the camera with their own methods its already been clearly stated that Rameys Realm won an award for the most Original Paranormal Site at Hunts ghosthunters paranormal group. Its listed on Paranormal Australia- Horrorfind Ghosts- Will County Ghost Hunters Society- Paranormal Reviews- Best Websites. Net - Ghostfiles. Org- Ghosts In The Linen Mill- Ghost Encyclopedia @ The Late Shift- Deviant Art and more...The website has nearly hit 100,000 web views (according to its host Geocities) and there are sites that back up its sources that show the information is accurate and reliable. Please stop ignoring the sources which directly point out the camera and its "popularity".

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Business planning (an integrated plan approach)

This is a student essay — original research. Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. And watch out for more of the same kind - I think we may have a student class project here - see The Buyer Utility Map. We also have Product Software Pricing - especially the see also with assigned author names!

Note also that it includes Image:Concepts.JPG. Creating what should be a Wikitable as a JPG file is a totally anti-colaborative action which should be stomped upon firmly. -- RHaworth 11:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Sleepyhead 11:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:NOR. PJM 11:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 12:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 14:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Isotope23 19:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• What's the problem? The table has been changed and there is no information published without the proper rights. 1:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: see debate at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Method Engineering Encyclopedia. -- RHaworth 11:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd like to ask that this nomination be withdrawn or put on hold pending centralized discussion. It's not just one page in question; it's a fairly large number, all related. John Reid 13:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  I sympathise with your general position, but if one or more of the articles (such as this one) shouldn't be here, then shouldn't we delete them? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  Duplication of effort, risk of inconsistency. John Reid 15:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  The history of AfDs is one of inconsistency — that's unfortunately the name of the game. My worry here is that we shouldn't just decide not to delete this article despite the near-unanimous consensus, simply because there are other articles that might be in the same position but not yet deleted. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NDI University Award Center

Few Google hits, sources rather old (1997 and 2003), non-notable scam Gu 11:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Looks like a good faith article, but subject matter not notable. Metamagician3000 12:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment upps, with non-notable scam I actually didn't mean the article, I'm sure it was written in good faith. I ment the dealings of the NDI University Award Center are a scam, however, a non-notable one. Gu 13:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No problem, that was how I interpreted you. I just meant to comment FWIW that this looks like a well-meaning article about a scam that is not important enough to justify such an article here. Metamagician3000 13:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toromat1 Games

Not notable. 20 google hits. Unknown in Norway. Sleepyhead 11:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Probably vanicruftspamvertisement.  RasputinAXP  c 12:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - spam. Metamagician3000 12:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Some guy 21:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Buyer Utility Map

This is a student essay — original research. Delete. Seems to be a mate to Business planning (an integrated plan approach). -- RHaworth 11:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 12:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make clear that my article is no original research but the result of a literature study (see references at the end of the article). More argumentation can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Method_engineering as this article is part of this project. What should I do to contribute to the wikipedia ecyclopedia with my article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rgiesen (talk • contribs) .

Root it in Real Life rather than academic hypothesis. Cite documented instances in which this paradigm has been used (or has been disproved for a specific microcosm), so that a reader could relate it to their own experience. -- Simon Cursitor 07:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: see debate at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Method Engineering Encyclopedia. -- RHaworth 11:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd like to ask that this nomination be withdrawn or put on hold pending centralized discussion. It's not just one page in question; it's a fairly large number, all related. John Reid 13:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  I sympathise with your general position, but if one or more of the articles (such as this one) shouldn't be here, then shouldn't we delete them? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• In view of the discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Method Engineering Encyclopedia, I endorse deletion of this article (and associated ME material]], with their transfer to an ME-wiki of their own. -- Simon Cursitor 07:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOR. SorryGuy 04:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Only one article has been published about it and I have some WP:OR concerns over the section Buyer_utility_map#The_buyer_utility_map_process. —Ruud 18:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 23:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychoembryology

This term gets only three Google results. Unfortunately, none of them work. From the results page, two of them appear to be mentions in a list. The word is not shown in the third result, but it is not promising. If this was a real field of study, I would expect far more results, with at least several of them being of decent quality. The article mentions cellular memories (mispelled in the article), which seems to be pseudoscience from my brief investigation. Here is one statement about them. "Cellular memories are stored in the DNA, which we receive from our ancestors. Cellular memory is created whenever we experience trauma or make an emotional decision. And if you believe in such things, cell memory comes in from other lifetimes, other aspects of ourselves in other dimensions." I believe that this article should be deleted as non-notable pseudoscience. -- Kjkolb 12:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 12:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: a pseudoscience without followers, and looks like a bad Babelfish translation of some sort. The two links are unimpressive (Yahoo free hosting?) Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete as per nom, also qualifies as Nonsense IMnsHO Pete.Hurd 19:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Proto||type 10:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sun City Palm Desert, California

An article about a gated community in Riverside County, California. Doesn't assert notability, plus there is a city called Sun City in the county that is unrelated to this community, that has already caused confusion. While I assume good faith on the part of the author, this article should still be deleted. Danny Lilithborne 12:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I believe there is precedent for communities and neighborhoods to have their own articles, however. I don't know enough about this particular one to cast a vote myself. 23skidoo 12:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If that's true, then I should probably alter my vote, until I get enough information to make a fair vote. Danny Lilithborne 12:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't see the notability. Metamagician3000 12:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, real place. If we can have articles on neighborhoods in major cities, then housing developments of over 5000 homes should be kept as well. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I wrote the article and I live here. This is a huge community and shows on all the tourist and real estate maps in the area. There is more than one Sun City. The community I wrote about is Sun City Palm Desert and is a community of nearly 5000 homes. There is also another Sun City near Hemet in Riverside County and yet another in Indio (also in Riverside County) called "Sun City Shadow Hills". I don't feel that Sun City Palm Desert should be deleted, rather, the Sun City near Hemet can simply be added with it's own article. When you have a community with over 10,000 residents, which is more than many incorporated cities in America that are recognized here, that should not simply be written off. Rchristiananderson 11:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Can I withdraw a nomination? There's only one vote to delete here, and I already understand the reasoning. To Rchristananderson, there is an article for Sun City here. :) Danny Lilithborne 09:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi Danny.... yes, that article you refer to is the Sun City near Hemet, California, which is also in Riverside County. Besides the sheer size of Sun City Palm Desert, the main reason for the notability of it is the golf club, which is open to members who don't actually live in the community itself. Within the community is a huge "par 72", 36-hole regulation golf club. The course is known as "Mountain Vista". It was designed by former PGA Tour great and two-time PGA Player of the Year, Billy Casper and Greg Nash. The club is divided into 2 courses: The San Gorgonio (6,669 yards) course and the Santa Rosa (6,720 yards) course. This is one of the most significant courses in southern California and is only a few miles south east of the new Classic Golf club being built for the Internationally known Bob Hope Golf Classic. Rchristiananderson 12:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. --MaNeMeBasat 15:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable for 10,000 in population and the Mountain Vista Golf Club. Nearby Thousand Palms, California has a Wikipage and it's population is only half of this community. Here is an overview of the golf club from the Palm Springs.com website: [Mountain Vista Golf Club] --sandowmuseum 16:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Die Ritter von Bork

Allegedly, a Knights Templar splinter group turned American mobsters. Already "Bork" suggests a hoax, and "Ritter von Bork" scored a perfect zero Google hits yesterday (today Google seems to be slightly ill, and suggests 62 links, none of which actually seem to contain the phrase). If they indeed "operated toll gates on all the major rivers in Germany and Modern day Austria", there would surely have been Googlable mentions. Delete as sourceless hoax. Henning Makholm 12:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• A prod was contested by an anon (70.32.10.59) who added on the talk page:

Often times things about the Knigts Templar and any other group from that era are hard to find. Is it possible that the author is a mason, and cannot give us the sources?

Said anon's only logged contributions is removing the prod and vandalising Bork to point exclusively to Die Ritter von Bork. Suspect anon is identical to User:11spike whose only contrib is creating Die Ritter von Bork. In any case, the explanation offered here is not a valid argument for keeping, because it directly contradicts Wikipedia's fundamental verifiability standard. Henning Makholm 12:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 12:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:V--blue520 13:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Blue520. Gwernol 14:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Blue520. Note if they are notable there will be Historical References to cite.-Tollwutig 18:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Concur with hoax-delete -- Simon Cursitor 07:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scuffleball

The Scuffleball stub has been about for over a year in which time it has been updated mainly with janitorial edits. It has only one external link which no longer works. A google search for scuffleball shows mirrors only. It is a self-declared new sport and I don't think it is verifiable. MLA 12:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Gwernol 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. My reading of the current state of the centralised discussion is that the articles will have to be dealt with individually. So I see no reason not to act upon the consensus here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Product Software Pricing

This is a student essay — original research (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business planning (an integrated plan approach) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Buyer Utility Map). Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Even when Dr Sjaak Brinkkemper (whom god preserve) of Utrecht tells us what product software is, this is still likely to be original research. -- RHaworth 17:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT how-to and WP:NOR.--Isotope23 19:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: see debate at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Method Engineering Encyclopedia. -- RHaworth 11:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd like to ask that this nomination be withdrawn or put on hold pending centralized discussion. It's not just one page in question; it's a fairly large number, all related. John Reid 13:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  I sympathise with your general position, but if one or more of the articles (such as this one) shouldn't be here, then shouldn't we delete them? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  Duplication of effort. See, I made the same comment on -- what? -- three different noms; you asked this same question three times. Must I now answer you three times? One size fits all for these dozens of related articles. John Reid 15:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bloggy style

Contested prod. It's a blog, no indications of meeting notability guidelines and WP:WEB. Unless such information is provided, delete. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB.--Isotope23 14:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Fuhghettaboutit 14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• "Delete' per nom. Gwernol 14:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 14:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cje 12:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Blink484 22:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikisource and delete - Couldn't find it on Wikisource, so I'll just transwiki it myself. Proto||type 11:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Cobain's Suicide Note

Transwikied to wikisource per tag request. This isn't an encyclopedia article. Delete.--Isotope23 14:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki. Did you already transwiki? I cant find it on Wikisource; am inclined to do it myself but wouldnt want to duplicate efforts. Also, have added the text to Image:Cobainnote.jpg, so it shouldnt need a seperate article anymore. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 17:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ha, looks like I hit preview but never saved it on my transwiki. Fixed now.--Isotope23 17:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmmmm. Cant find it. I probably dont use the search correctly; I search for Kurt Cobain but get no hits. Do you have a link? The Minister of War ^(Peace) 14:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - transwikied primary source. -- Saberwyn 13:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment—It's not on Wikisource. This shouldn't be deleted until it actually is. Ardric47 00:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, Transwiki, then delete. -- Saberwyn 13:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 19:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesse Dangerously

Was PROD, but may meet WP:MUSIC (winner of a major music competition, may be "prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city") —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• I see a bunch of assertions of notability have been added since it was prodded. No opinion yet on those. There's a bunch of stuff related to Nerdcore hip hop that may be similiar- the folks on that talk page are asserting that since the movement is "underground", there won't be any reliable sources covering any of this. Nothing against this genre, but what's unverifiable can't be in an encyclopedia. Also, FWIW, apparently some of these people have taken to writing aritcles about themselves, see High-C for example. Friday (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, most of those claims are adapted/copied from his website. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 14:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Not sure if this counts as being a national tour or anything, but I know he's playing in Vancouver (did play? I forget the date I was given), and he's apparently appeared on MuchMusic as well as getting airplay on CBC Radio. Can't research heavily right now, but I'll take a look later on.Tony Fox 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep after some research. He is in fact playing dates in Vancouver, Oregon, San Francisco and San Jose in the next couple of weeks (though they are listed on his LJ and aren't exactly huge venues), and did appear on MuchMusic's Going Coastal program in March. Can't find anything on CBC, but seems to be popular on some level. Borderline on WP:MUSIC, but seems to lean to the positive side juuuuust a bit.Tony Fox 04:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the correct format here is, I'm sorry, but I wanted to say that the reason the info is mostly copied/pasted from Jesse's website is that I was too lazy to re-write it. Oh, and also to say that Jesse also has a weekly hip-hop column in Halifax's Daily News. You can check it out here: http://hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?cid=45 . He's not just a nerdcore rapper! Not even. Lefty Lucy

• Copy/paste from another source can be problematic at times. I'll try to give it a rewrite when I get home from work and see if it helps things.Tony Fox 16:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There. Cleaner, at least. I leave it to the mighty purveyors of pages from there. Tony Fox 00:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The very basis of this genre is indy, DIY, self-produced and self-released artists. Many notable nerdcore artists will probably never release on any label whatsoever. Jason Gortician 01:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, now that it's been rewritten (Good job, Tony). A lot of the music stuff just skirts around the fringes of WP:MUSIC (especially C1.3, C1.9, and C1.12), and I went back and forth on it a couple times, but the newspaper column clearly qualifies him under WP:BIO's requirements for writers (circulation figures here). All's well that ends well. -Colin Kimbrell 03:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'll have to go with the keep here. Although I admit that it's surfing close to the line in some respects, I can't and won't put an artist I've actually heard on the radio with my own ears on the delete side of the line. (And besides, I'm down with anything that actually inspires Lefty Lucy to become a Wikipedia contributor.) Bearcat 16:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep does pass WP:MUSIC, and is verifiable, in my opinion. For that matter I think the verifiability clauses are mostly crap, since they tend to encourage wikipedia turning into a lame mash-up of the New York Times and Wired, which is not anything the world has been particular clamoring for. Perle 03:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. This article does not meet any criteria for deletion. – Robert 23:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human rights in the United States

no chance of EVER becoming a useful or encyclopedic article, nothing more than a series of rants and other questionable content--IworkforNASA 14:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup Sceptre ^(Talk) 14:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It needs work, but its tagged appropriately. No need to delete it. Gwernol 14:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom.--Kalsermar 14:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup Metamagician3000 14:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 14:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per gwernol. --Lockley 16:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. Rhobite 18:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep There are 54 other nations with specific human rights articles. Why not the US? Fishhead64 21:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Fishhead64. It needs to be cleaned up, but that's no reason for outright deletion. BryanG 22:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: if there is something POV in the article, it can be removed. You could also call Human rights in North Korea inherently POV as the North Korean government would contest almost every statement on that page, but it is not; there are simply people with strong opinions about both who may attempt to weasel in or directly broadcast their opinions on the page. Controversial pages may need to be monitored for POV edits but are not inherently POV. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 22:23 (UTC)
• Keep Encyclopedic subject Hawkestone 00:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Needs clean-up but decent enough material there to mould into comprehensive article. Cheers, Ian Rose 06:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as many above, as this article does not seem to meet any criteria for deletion, but OTOH I have very little confidence that this article could become and stay POV unless some fair-minded editors do serious work and then monitor it closely for a long while. I'll volunteer to do what I can on this, but I think it will take more than one of us. It seems to me that earlier editors have had a serious axe to grind on this issue and the thing needs to be rewritten from the ground up.--Deville (Talk) 12:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This gives me confidence, somewhat, that the article may actually ever approach a balanced POV. I watered down my vote accordingly.--Kalsermar 16:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — No brainer. Being willing to air their dirty laundry is a good indicator of a nation that takes human rights seriously. — RJH 18:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep — Agree with other "Keep" votes above but also there is a debate about the length of the "Human Rights" section in the United States article which currently constitutes 9% of the total article length. We need a place to move that text to. This article is the obvious candidate. Maintaining NPOV is a huge challenge but I am willing to join with Deville in trying to maintain an NPOV. See my edits on the "Human Rights" section of the United States article for an example of my work. Richard 09:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is an important topic; however, I must agree with nom that the current article is hopelessly POV. Even the lead section seems to say, The U.S. thinks it has human rights, but it doesn't. I would be willing to help rebuild an article from scratch to treat the topic from a more neutral standpoint. Perhaps Human rights in the United States/temp. — MSchmahl… 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Any of the mentioned reasons does not qualify under Wikipedia:Deletion_policy which has very specific policies. I guess this is pretty clear, I'll remove the nomination.--Donut2 13:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 15:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dartmouth Seven

I'm no prude, but this article on the seven places to have sexual intercourse on the campus grounds of Dartmouth College seems pretty unencyclopedic. Disregarding notions of censorship, this list looks to me to be unverifiable (unless someone wants to try it and get back to us), and its one source (cited in the article and the only Google hit) are from an article in student newspaper The Dartmouth, making it sail dangerously close to original research or "something made up at university one day". Canley 15:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. You're not being prudish, you're being encyclopedic, which this article clearly is not. It appears to be a rather arbitrary list of places on this particular campus. At most, it appears to be a game made up at school one day. Fluit 18:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• I go to UVA and I've heard of the term, so for whatever it's worth, I think it's useful to have.

• Delete and you could probably have got it as a speedy at a push Robdurbar 21:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Or I will start listing nookie spots from my alma mater. Butler fornication anyone?--Mmx1 00:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Campus trivia. Hawkestone 00:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If this is encyclopedic, then so are the corners of my house I piss in. Kirbytime 00:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Only seven ?? -- Simon Cursitor 07:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per all the forgoing Ande B 07:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep famous places of fornication are as important as tourist spots, which wikipedia lists. famous banks, famous squares, famous mountains are listed too. Munckin 07:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Fluit. MCB 06:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 23:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyperion Solutions Corporation

Although the company might be big enough to be notable, the article is just advertising Gu 15:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I took out the adspam... here is the afd'd version if anyone cares to see it [14]. I'm still looking into if this company meets WP:CORP.--Isotope23 15:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Here, can help with WP:CORP:

1. Non-press release news coverage is detailed here. There's about a couple hundred articles, you should be able to dredge up several dozen that are respectable magazines or newspapers and cover the company in a non-trivial fashion (i.e. not some blurb about an executive change).
2. Should appear on any ranking of financial or analytical services products. Here's Forbes, Frobes again, American Banker.
3. Stock indexes: Hyperion is a component of the S&P 600 SmallCap and the S&P 1500 Super Comp.

So, at a glace it would appear to meet "any one" of the three, as well as all three. Kuru ^talk 00:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep At least until they are bought out. I've heard of Hyperion before, but then I have a Banking IT background. --Tollwutig 18:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, very notable company in the financial services industry. I don't think there's much question about it meeting WP:CORP. If there's a content problem with the article, that can be fixed without an AfD. Kuru ^talk 23:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - They meet WP:CORP, are notable. Not well known, but notable. Georgewilliamherbert 22:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy userfy and replace with bio stub about a more notable person. -- RHaworth 21:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Close

Looks like the same exact vanity page which I asked to be deleted a few days ago.--Lacatosias 15:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete {{db-repost}} has been speedied 3 times as vanity already. Delete and salt the earth. Gwernol 15:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and protect from re-creation per gwernol. Unmistakable vanity; author's name is 'Alexclose'. --Lockley 16:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Vanity IrishGuy 18:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Userfy Kotepho 19:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jayender

Contested {{db-bio}}. I'm thinking speedy userfy. Weregerbil 15:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy per nom. Gwernol 15:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 20:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War on Easter

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

Non-notable web site / club started within the last two weeks. No alexa rank. Prod contested with edit comment Deleted the deletion notice. Deleting this would just be anti-atheistic predjudice, which I would not like to see on Wikipedia.. Weregerbil 15:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB or simply as a non-notable publicity stunt by a non-notable group.--Isotope23 15:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with it being non-notable. Brian Flemming is a notable director of a very notable documentary which has been featured in Newsweek Magazine, the LA Times and countless other prominent publications (see http://www.thegodmovie.com/press.php). This is no less notable than anything Michael Moore has done, just perhaps more controversial given that most people aren't athiest whereas there are far more Democrats. As to the length of the article, I will work on fleshing out the article more robustly tonight. -- Zeroverse

Brian Flemming is a notable director of a very notable documentary Wrong and wrong, ast least as far as "notable" is concerned. --Calton | Talk 05:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Do you have some references to third parties saying this is important? Press reviews, ...? Notability of the person does not necessarily transfer to everything he does or says. Google finds very little [15]. Weregerbil 17:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment it doesn't matter how notable Flemming is; that does not confer any notability to a one-off publicity stunt unless major media outlets cover his "War on Easter". to use your example Zeroverse, if Michael More took a dump in a paper bag, walked it up to the front porch of Bush's Crawford Ranch, lit the bag on fire, hid in the bushes, filmed George Bush stomping it out, and them someone created an article called Crawford Ranch Flaming Poo on Bush's Hush Puppies I'd still say delete. If this is important information to you and you can source it then add it to Brian Flemming, but right now I see no strong case for this to exist as a standalone article.--Isotope23 17:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Dunno The site 404s for me and it isn't googling well. Maybe turn this into more than just about Brian Flemming as Bill O'Reilly has gone on at least one War on Easter rant on his radio show. Kotepho 17:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I understand that Bill O'Reilly will be featuring The War on Easter very prominently tonight on his TV show. This isn't a non-issue. Thought I do agree that the "War on Easter" can and should be about more than Flemming's and the Rational Response Sqaud's movement. There is a BIG article here...it just hasn't been written yet. As I've said earlier, when I have more time tonight, I'll get to it. My hope was that others might be able to contribute in the meantime...that is the whole point of wikipedia right? Zeroverse 19:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong DELETE or merge. Whether or not this Flemming character is notable is not in question. War on Easter, the subject of the article, is not notable. PS, I do not like Moore but will admit that Moore is a household name. Flemming does not even begin to compare.--Strothra 18:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Zeroverse: Regarding Michael Moore: says who? How can you compare the "household name" degree of people? He's certainly not a household name in my house. What is your empirical evidence? Should media coverage alone indicate one's notability? Ok fine...Here are some media sources from today alone:
    1. http://www.lavoice.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1726
    2. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49678
    3. Radio appearance: 11:30 AM PT/2:30 PM ET. KOMO 1000, Seattle. http://www.RationalResponders.com/media/KOMOWaronEaster.mp3 - Recording of the KOMO interview
    4. Radio appearance: 1 PM PT/4 PM ET. "Fox Across America," Fox News Radio. XM: Channel 168. Sirius: Channel 145.
    5. Radio appearance: 2 PM PT/5 PM ET. AM 1320 "The Patriot," Jacksonville, FL.
    6. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060411/latu089.html?.v=49

• At least you are starting to move in the right direction here Zeroverse... yes media coverage is essential in this sort of situation. If nobody covers it a publicity stunt, then really what is the point? I'd still like to see more important national sources... local radio interviews and a blog (lavoice) just don't cut it as sources in my book. worldnetdaily.com isn't what I would call a reliable source. I can't say I have a high opinion of Fox News's journalistic integrity, but Fox New Radio is a good first stab at proving reasonable national media coverage.--Isotope23 19:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I stated "household name" meaning his name is common knowledge among most Americans. You can have a conversation with any half-wit on the street and they are highly likely to know who Michael Moore is. Whereas this Flemming fellow cannot claim the same. I'm sure he's a nice guy but not notable. Media coverage does not make an individual notable. The individual's achievements make them notable. There are standards to judge this but as I said before, no one here cares if Flemming is notable. You are not arguing along the lines of this AfD which is concerns if War on Easter is notable. It is not. --Strothra 21:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I appreciate that you are trying to be objective, but I think it's incorrect to say that "the individual's achievements make them notable." What exactly has Michael Moore achieved that Brian Flemming hasn't (other than make more money)? While all your other points about moving/merging this article may be valid, I don't think they should be done under the cloak of "notability." If the article is insufficient at this time, fine...but saying that something isn't notable because Flemming hasn't "achieved" as much as say, Michael Moore, is a poor reason to exclude this article from the public...especially as Easter 2006 is only a few days away and there is very little critism of the holiday in general. The very fact that someone vehemently opposses Easter is notable in itself, and the fact that a growing group of people are committed to this effort is notable on its own merit, Flemming or no Flemming. Brian Flemming is an extremely notable individual in the atheist community anyway. He might not be a "household name" to religious folk that prefer not listening to opposing perspectives, but that doesn't discount his importance to rational thinkers in the freethought community. The War on Easter is extremely important to atheists and freethinkers, and calling it "not notable" because the relative size of the freethought community is miniscule is really just a form of mob rule and bullying. Zeroverse 14:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What exactly has Michael Moore achieved that Brian Flemming hasn't (other than make more money)? Well, there's making several internationally released movies, winning an Oscar, producing and hosting two TV series (one in primetime), writing a few internationally best-selling books, and popping up as a pop-culture reference everywhere from Team America: World Police to 24 to Family Guy. Other those things, yeah, he's just like Brian Flemming. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)--

• Merge into Brian Flemming. I can't find anything online that would make this notable enough for its own article. Just because A is notable and A makes B, that doesn't necessarily make B notable. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteHow notable is a 404ed website?--Tollwutig 18:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: All of Flemming's websites have apparently been victims of some kind of attack externally or via his host. I understand they will be back up shortly Zeroverse 19:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • So a 404ed website is an attack? --Tollwutig 19:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • 404 is server unavailable... could be an attack (like DoS), could be software/hardware crash, or could be someone doing an page update and not reloading the pages to the correct place on the server.--Isotope23 19:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I know what a 404 means was being a bit sarcastic.--Tollwutig 13:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Eh, it's so hard to tell sarcasm in the written form... especially when you don't know the person writing.--Isotope23 13:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • 404 error is "URL not found". Assuming "attack" from this is assuming that the target is interesting enough for someone to actively attack. A more likely explanation is an incompetent admin. No, there is no great conspiracy to hide this nn stuff. Please let's not pretend someone cares that much. Weregerbil 21:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete. And as for no one caring enough to "attack" Flemmings websites, it looks to me like some do care just that much. However, I cannot know if that is what caused the sites to vanish today. Check out this person's website attacking Flemming: http://www.beyond-propaganda.com/pages/1/index.htm

• Absolutely Do Not Delete I do suggest this article be merged with another, but there is no way you can delete this article for being irrelevant or not notable enough. That's just a ridiculous proposition. More than half of the information on this site is only recognizable by a number of people that you can count to in about 30 seconds. Even if notability was the case, Brian Flemming the man who wrote the article on "The War On Easter" also directed a movie: "The God Who Wasn't There" which is the current Number 1 Best Seller on [16] indie film list. On top of that, there are thousands of people that have visited the Rational Responders Website and most of them regulary attend a radio show or catch the latest news on the irrational. Hmm, sounds like The Rational Responders need to take a peek at wiki's editors...--Animefreak1390 18:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I first point you to WP:WEB, which the website does not meet. Secondly, it doesn't matter how notable Brian Flemming is in relation to War on Easter. Just because he is notable doesn't mean every little thing he does warrents a separate wikipedia article. You've made a good case for Brian Flemming's notability, but nobody is suggesting deletion of his main article. Try proving [War on Easter]] meets WP:WEB instead.--Isotope23 19:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unnotable per WP:WEB Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Do NOT Delete: The War on Easter has been spoken about in many media sources. Here is another interview posted from this afternoon on 1390AM "The Patriot" in Florida http://www.RationalResponders.com/media/waroneasterthepatriot.mp3 also Yahoo News just posted about it: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060411/latu089.html?.v=49 Bill O'Reilly is supposedly covering it tonight. The argument that this item doesn't validly sit on it's own in addition to a individual page for Brian Flemming is now bunk. 68.46.79.43

Please login before making comments. Further, you have not invalidated the arguement. The article does not establish the organization's notability regardless of whether or not it's been reported on in a few news outlets. That fact does not make an organization notable. Yahoo and a radio station are hardly major media outlets. FOX News is a major media outlet but it's only one and it a current item. That does not establish notability. --Strothra 01:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Besides, I couldn't find any mention of O'Reilly doing a piece on this on his website archives. All I could find was a bunch of blogging about Fox News doing a piece about employers not allowing people to display Easter decorations and other cultural bias against Easter. As far as I can tell it had nothing to do with Brian Flemming and The Rational Response Squad and in fact is exactly the opposite of what Flemming is trying to do.--Isotope23 13:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Do NOT Delete: My home, snailmail and email boxes are spammed with religious propaganda weekly. Some people trying to share an alternative point of view should be applauded. I recently became a fan of the Rational Response Squad, and through them, found this movie. The fact that atheists are giving out copies of their movie for free seems a very "christian" thing to do.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.180.80.74 (talk • contribs) .

What?? That's not even an arguement - just nonsense. Also, please sign your comments. --Strothra 01:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Isotope like I suggested twice in my previous comment on the article, the "The war on easter" article should be merged with either brian flemmings article or one of the correlating Rational Responders biographies. --Animefreak1390 01:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Then lets agree to agree. Someone who is interested in this can just go ahead and boldly merge the content into Brian Flemming's main article.--Isotope23 13:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP, at least for the next couple months. This topic may ultimately justify it's own web page, or be more appropriate for a section in TGWWT. It all depends on how Christians respond. If today's DoS attack on Flemming's web sites is any indication, this could be significant in it's own right. In summary, my vote is KEEP. Human455 04:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Could be significant" isn't sufficient justification for keeping the article. It violates WP:NOT crystalball clause.--Isotope23 13:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. More promotional fluff from the ego of Brian Flemming, the distinctly minor movie-maker. --Calton | Talk 05:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Come on. Are personal attacks really necessary to justify your position? Brian Flemming had nothing to do with the addition of this article and he certainly doesn't make films or spread rational thinking for an ego-boost. A distinctly minor movie-maker? Your unsubtle bias completely undermines any valid points you may have had and frankly didn't add anything constructive to this discussion. I vote not to count your vote. Zeroverse 14:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• And what personal attacks would those be? ...frankly didn't add anything constructive to this discussion. On the contrary, they're noting the source of this particular aggressive PR campaign. Wikipedia? NOT a free PR resource, no matter how fervent. --Calton | Talk 04:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: Calton previously tried to delete the Wikipedia entry for The God Who Wasn't There: [17] Human455 15:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment what Calton has done in the past is irrelevant to this discussion.--Isotope23 16:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: It's relevant if he and/or a group of people are trying to delete lots of atheist Wikipedia entries. Why is there simultaneously another VfD attack on Atheists of Silicon Valley? [18] Human455 02:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheists of Silicon Valley (Second nomination) was nominated by pm_shef, not Calton... so unless you have some overwhelming proof that there is a secret cabal working against "Atheist articles", it's a completely irrelevant point. 2 AfD's don't equal "lots of atheist Wikipedia entries". The reason there is a concurrent AfD of 2 "Atheist" articles is coincidence (I'm too lazy to count but there are probably about 600+ articles on active AfD right now... meaning "Atheist" articles make up 0.3% of articles on AfD) and more due to the fact that the 2 articles make no strong case for meeting their respective guidelines.--Isotope23 02:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll take this opportunity to point out that User:Jason Gastrich was banned in part for attempting an actual campaign against articles on atheists. We don't put up with that kind of crap here, and the fact that nothing bad's happened to Carlton is pretty good evidence that he's not doing anything of the sort. The only campaign I've seen him wage is against bad articles. -Colin Kimbrell 13:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Do NOT Delete: Has it occured to those from Wiki that maybe some of us have been coming to this site for the longest time and have not posted anything on any topic, however but because this issue is so important for us, we feel the need to post for the first time?! Thanks for not allowing my one post to get less weight than those regular posters, although I have been and am a lifetime user. 65.40.245.66
  • In answer to your question: no. Why would this time be different from all the other times that the sock drawer burst open? --Calton | Talk 04:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If you really were longtime lurkers, I think you would've known more about the way AFD works. -Colin Kimbrell 13:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If the antics make it into the news in a major source, then maybe. Martinp 15:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Just letting you know it's at least hitting joke news as it was covered on The Colbert Report this week, or at least the headline was War on Easter. Still don't think it has enough notability yet. My suggestion is give it year, if this group gets a strong campaign together it might make it notable enough.--tollwutig
• Delete nn. OSU80 04:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Radagast83 20:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. 132.241.246.182 06:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per martinp. Sandstein 19:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Proto||type 11:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cimorene

NN character according to description Gu 15:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. If we can have entries for Rincewind and Rand'al Thor we can have entries for this one. Wrede is a published author and this is apparently the main character of her books. It needs to be cleaned up and encyclopedified though. Harp Heaven 17:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Amazon shows this Author around 8k in books, In above example Terry Pratchett is 2k and Robert Jordan is at 370. The 2 characters above are rather notable, so bad comparison. Also looking at the author works seems more geared towards younger readers. --Tollwutig 18:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Patricia Wrede. (Cimorene is the main character of 3 of Wrede's books.) —Chris Chittleborough 08:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Proto||type 11:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gesellschaft für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Gu 15:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is not a definition article but rather a stub about an organization. Mike _{(T C)} 17:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Seems notable enough from what I could read of de: and google. Kotepho 18:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to be anything but an acronym, in German yet. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is not an acronym, but just translating the name of this scientific society. It needs expanding. --Bduke 22:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • So write an article about Society of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics and redirect it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a German Society so has a German name. The english name could well redirect to the main article. --Bduke 23:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The article used to be GAMM, I moved it to the German name as it is more common than both "German Society of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics" and "International Society of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics". The organization seems notable enough so the article should be expanded not deleted. Kotepho 10:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Notable organization, now categorised to improve its chances of expansion, but be patient. Hawkestone 00:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable organization, has article on the German Wikipedia. Do not move it to an English title, as the Society uses the German name (or its acronym GAMM) on the English version of its webpage. Tupsharru 06:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the AfD was for the original GAMM article, which didn't contain anything than the acronym, certainly not for the now created proper Gesellschaft für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik article Gu 15:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Issue seems to be fixed. Good stub. Martinp 15:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Patti