The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer alliance

NN Adcruft, doesn't even make Alexa Pyroclastic 01:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB and WP:SPAM. Royboycrashfan 17:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. _→AzaToth 01:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (cosign with Royboycrash). Danny Lilithborne 02:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertisement --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 19:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertisement. Metamagician3000 06:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. Encyclopedias don't say "click the arrow". JIP | Talk 08:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What JIP said —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 15:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 02:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ol' Widowmaker

This seems to be flat out vanity. The product described isn't found in the top ten of Google in its own term, and does not seem to be notable by any stretch of the imagination. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 01:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 01:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete vanirt article _→AzaToth 01:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, blatant vanity. Royboycrashfan 01:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ConDem^Talk 01:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, also not big on one-paragraph entries. Danny Lilithborne 02:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Brewers are all notable. Brews, however, are not. If the brewer had an article this could be merged there (anyone want to make one?) but since there is none, this stub must be deleted. NTK 03:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delte per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Metamagician3000 04:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cool name though ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable enough. If we have an article about the brewer, this can be briefly mentioned there. JIP | Talk 08:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Gimme citations re praise for sweetness, etc. On second thoughts, don't. Colonel Tom 13:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without confirmation from the company this article is merely original%u2014oh wait, I agree with Colonel Tom and NTK —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 15:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 02:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Bardavid

Non-notable _→AzaToth 01:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO. 58 Ghits, first two are Wikipedia. Royboycrashfan 01:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Royboy. ConDem^Talk 02:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 18:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Royboy. Fetofs ^Hello! 02:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Royboy. Sheehan (Talk) 03:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 04:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep. Should there be a notability standard for attorneys? This guy looks to have been directly involved in an unusual number of fairly high profile cases. Is that just par for the course in immigration law? I hadn't heard of Bardavid, but I wouldn't have rushed to delete this. On the other hand, I do see that the article creator has done nothing else on Wikipedia, which raises the likelihood of vanity. Kestenbaum 01:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 02:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters with removable or interchangeable heads

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information / Listcruft. Fetofs ^Hello! 17:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ConDem^Talk 02:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete reasons self-evident. Danny Lilithborne 02:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because when you get right down to it every character with a head has a head that's removable. Interchangeable, perhaps not, but removable most definately. Sethimothy 02:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sethimothy's comment is amusing, although I'm supposing that the removable head for the purpose of the list is one that can be put back in place without a fatality. Where's Detachable Penis on this list? Шизомби 18:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 04:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BryanG 04:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Funny list name though. T K E 05:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny enough for WP:DAFT? Grutness...wha? 05:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ..........wtf? delete per TKE ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Is this a new fetish? -156.34.86.252 06:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, but wouldn't be a bad category. -Jcbarr 08:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Absolutely hilarious, though. Aplomado - UTC 23:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as funny as it is. --Optichan 16:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are limitless comedy opportunities for people to add the names of political leaders or celebrities to the list. --NEMT 22:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Concept is sound. Obviously needs expansion. -- JJay 01:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's ridiculous. Who in their right mind would write an article about this!?Freddie 01:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Nations

First of all, the term "American Nations" isn't used to describe these entities. Secondly, this info is already at Historic regions of the United States. JW1805 (Talk) 01:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 02:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant and irrelevant. The first page of Google hits for "American Nations" is mostly about Native American nations. I wouldn't mind an article on that. Royboycrashfan 02:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ConDem^Talk 02:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant --Ajdz 06:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Royboycrash ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 06:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Jcbarr 08:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete oer Royboycrash Computerjoe's talk 09:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep these weren't regions, they were countries. Munckin 06:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy League business schools

Delete. Irrelevant article, only ~500 Google hits on the phrase "Ivy League business schools" (see: [1]). This article appears to be created just to boost the impression of less prominent b-schools by association. Comment: Article creator seems to be interested in advancing an agenda that Ivy League business schools are superior to others. The intention of this article is clearly to advance his POV. MBAguy 10:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 02:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. All of the articles included are, in fact, Ivy League business schools. Unlike "Public Ivies," "Jesuit Ivies" or other bogus prestige-by-association faux "Ivies," these are business schools that are part of the eight Ivy League institutions. The real question is whether this article has any added value over the existing Ivy League, business school, and individual Ivy league and Ivy League biz school articles. I think it does have a little, since business schools tend to be compared against their peer business schools rather than the institutions as a whole. This article has some potential. NTK 02:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I went to Dartmouth, and even I think this smacks of elitism and boosterism. The schools have their own articles, so there's no need for this list. Brian G. Crawford 02:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep with NTK. The question to be considered, I think, is whether someone might find it useful to have one entry to serve as a hub to the individual schools. If it might be useful, then let's keep it. Bucketsofg 03:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Metamagician3000 04:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep as per Brian G. Crawford. Seano1 04:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since the 6 schools have their own articles -- Astrokey44|talk 05:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Move to Category:Ivy League business schools neh? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A poorly research deletion nomination of a factual article. For great justice. 06:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not denying that the article is "factual". The reason for deleting this article is that the topic itself is arbitrary and meaningless, as evidenced by the lack of Google hits. In the world of business schools, affiliation with the Ivy League is devoid of any significance. This list is as interesting and useful as "Ivy League engineering programs" or "Western US Medical Schools" (neither of which exist as articles, of course). MBAguy 08:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• These schools, however, are not simply affiliated with the Ivy League but actually part of them. Wharton in particular is the central and defining school of UPenn, and all of the otehrs are influential within their respective universities. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 10 April 2006 @ 12:04 (UTC)

[Off topic] I recently spent more time than I should have trying to trace the provenance of "Penn" and "UPenn"—someone simply kept deleting "UPenn" it from the University of Pennsylvania article on the grounds that it was "incorrect." It is so widely used that to call it "incorrect" seems... incorrect. But apparently for the past five years or so the University of Pennsylvania has been very assiduously pursuing a conscious branding strategy in which all nooks and crannies of the University are urged to use the proper logo, etc. and Penn is the official abbreviation. So... if you want to be in tune with what "defines" the University, you probably should get with the program. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a Penngineer I dislike the imperialist Wharton attitude that they "define" the University. It is an extremely prestigious business school at an extremely prestigious university. They certainly are not central to Penn's world-class medical school, multiple Nobel-winning chemistry department, or top-notch psychology department, to name a few divisions of the school that are at the very top of their game. But otherwise, agreed. NTK 01:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep out of jealousy that will come from staring at the list. T K E 07:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep certainly create Category:Ivy League business schools but keep this as lists and categories perform different functions Jcuk 08:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jcuk Computerjoe's talk 09:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per NTK and others. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 10 April 2006 @ 12:04 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Deleuze 21:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Individual articles on these would be perfectly fine. This collective pile is absolutely pointless, as there is no substantive connection between them. Makes no more sense than an ACC Medical Schools article would. Derex 22:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I fail to see a link that is not served by the category. -Dawson 23:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace with a "List of Ivy League business schools" or some such list, which might be helpful for navigation or browsing. Outside of the list, the actual content on the page is not worth keeping though. RayaruB 23:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I dislike it. But I don't see any sufficient reason for deleting it. It's verifiable. By defining it as "Ivy League" you at least have some stable, objective criterion for what schools should be included. The dates of founding are mildly interesting to see together, as opposed to picking them out of the individual school articles. It's mildly interesting to note that two of the Ivy League members don't have business schools. It would be much, much more interesting to have an article on the history of business schools in general, and it would be interesting to have capsule summaries of the different characters and approaches of business schools. I thank whatever gods may be that this article at least does not include any rankings. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems to add a little more information (at least some trivia) than a category would, or does. Could be expanded a little more, but I'm not seeing a real solid reason for deletion. Kuru ^talk 00:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep tag for improvement Merecat 06:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Utterly arbitrary (and unused in the real world) grouping. Seriously, biz schools aren't grouped this way by companies hiring MBAs or by applicants to the schools. --Calton | Talk 05:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do worry about the possibility of articles on "Ivy League theology schools," "Ivy League cafeterias," "Ivy League sexual customs," etc. etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 03:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a valuable list/article hybrid. Google isn't everything. Silensor 02:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Ivy League business schools are the originators of such concepts as "business school," "business degree," and "MBA," as the article mentions. This may be a useful hub for info on those schools. There's a concern with the responses from MBAGuy who nominated this article for deletion. In his response to one voter, he said the "... Ivy League is devoid of any significance." That seems a bit much. He also said this factual article is "boosterism" for the schools - he didn't demonstrate that. After he nominated this article for deletion, he then edited the article several times to try to make the same negative points in the article that he makes in his vote and vote response. Why? One voter, Dpbsmith, was optimistic about this article since it isn't littered with current rankings. Unfortunately, MBAGuy then dumped rankings into the article. Why? Of the many available rankings, he seemed to pick the only magazine ranking that might support his negative cause. What's up with that? That negative approach doesn't seem to be in keeping with the Wikipedia spirit. If this article is not deleted, then it would definitely help to back out the stuff that MBAGuy added to the article AFTER he nominated it for deletion. GO WHARTON 02:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 02:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun_Butler

While the amateur surfing part may be true (haven't bothered to check, as that alone wouldn't be grounds for inclusion in wikipedia), the information about his professional rugby career is entirely fabricated. noizyboy 01:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 18:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ConDem^Talk 02:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 04:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 15:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merecat 06:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 02:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ R

Nonnotable DJ, fails to assert notability. NTK 11:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it can be shown to meet WP:MUSIC--blue520 18:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't see how it meets WP:MUSIC. Royboycrashfan 03:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, and possibly WP:VANITY --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete next time use WP:PROD Computerjoe's talk 16:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merecat 06:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn; keep. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuatafa Hori

Only ghits outside Wikipedia are for a myspace name. Probably hoax on the part of User:Laceymichelle (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimo Fontenot and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigave National Association (soon to come). Delete. Mak (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom withdrawn, as now has a source. Mak (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ConDem^Talk 18:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me, sorry, I'm replying to something you left on mytalk pages about my article on Tuatafa Hori being a hoax, and I'm afraid it may have been brought on by another recent event that has occurred. You see, I just logged on to my talk pages today and suddenly I discover that I wrote this hoax about some actor, Aimo Fontennot something or other? I believe it was my brother's doing, he wanted to get me in trouble with the wiki pedia people, since he knows how often I go here and I wanted my first article to be a success. The Aimo one is absolutely rediculous, so I'm sorry if he brought any doubt to your mind about my genuinity for writing articles.

I love oceanian society, I've always been really interested in it, and Tuatafa Hori is one of my favorites, she is for real, as is her party, the Sigave National Association. (Laceymichelle 02:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete per Google. Royboycrashfan 03:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Tuatafa Hori is mentionied on this page: http://www.geocities.com/aserakto1053/politics_of_wallis_and_futuna.htm Laceymichelle 04:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete per nom. Shame on the redlink user trying to interfere. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's assume good faith on the redlink user's part. I don't see providing a possible source as unreasonable interference. Mak (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 06:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I found a source of information. What more would you like? Laceymichelle 10:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A page that isn't on GeoCities, for starters. And vote Delete. Danny Lilithborne 11:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and lack of any reliable sources —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 15:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of WP:V sourcing.--Isotope23 16:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• And what, exactly, is wrong with geocities? It is a website and it says information on it, does it not? That is what you asked for. Laceymichelle 16:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Geocities is a website where anyone can post anything, with no authority or verification. Fan1967 17:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, please read WP:RS.--Isotope23 17:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all I could find, but there she is, mentioned somewhere other than here. I don't think the area of Wallis and Futuna has a very high internet presence for there to be many things on her at all on Google, especially since there are only two people on the island of Alofi itself-- what does that say to you? She is also in one of the books on Oceanic culture that I have. I think it's called The Changing Cultures of the Oceanic Peoples in the Nineteenth Century. She wasn't very powerful then, but still mentioned. I can go find out who the author was, if you want. Laceymichelle 22:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot find that title on WorldCat. Can you give some more specific information and the exact title of the book, please? Mak (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is the exact title, I just brought it down from my bookshelf. It's written by Cyril Belshaw and I bought it a few years ago at a used and old book sale at my library. Laceymichelle 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've found the book in WorldCat (she changed the title slightly), so we now have a source.

Withdrawn as now having a source. Mak (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 14:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigave National Association

This seems to be a hoax (see also above). No ghits apart from Wikipedia [2]. Delete. Mak (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment sorry, forgot to spell it out, unverifiable. Mak (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdraw due to new source (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuatafa Hori). Mak (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ConDem^Talk 02:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. Feezo (Talk) 02:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Royboycrashfan 19:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; fake political party promoting a possibly-fake princess --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If there is a farthest corner of the world left in this day and age, it might well be Sigave. I suspect this article and the accompanying one need to be deleted as unverifiable. Not necessarily a hoax. I don't see any way to determine whether the princess or the party exist or not. Fan1967 03:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[3] also no ghits for it in French, but the editor has found one geocities site. I don't generally feel that these are a particularly good source. Mak (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reading the article as opposed to the nominations, this does not seem inherently implausible. Keep unless provenly untrue -- SockpuppetSamuelson

• Comment That is exactly the opposite of Wikpedia rules on verifiability. The article must be verifiably true. "You can't prove it's false" is not a sufficient justification to keep. Fan1967 12:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Quite so; an unfortunate truism on AfD is the number of people who vote Keep because they don't have enough information to delete. IMHO, the onus is on the article creator and supporters to provide that evidence, and if a few minutes of research can't turn any up, let's Delete until verification of an article's notability or factual nature turns up. RGTraynor 15:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nonverifiable per Fan1967 —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 15:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article can't be WP:V sourced.--Isotope23 16:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bloggers

Was prodded as (likely) non-notable. Prod tag was removed without explanation by the creator, so it goes here. DMG413 02:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are other pages on Canadian political blogging groups, including Progressive Bloggers and Blogging Tories that seem to be reasonable pages. With a bit of work, this could be OK. ConDem^Talk 02:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, looks notable enough. [4] Feezo (Talk) 02:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The page seems to have been created by Craig.cantin, who appears to have founded the organisation, so most likely vanity. ConDem^Talk 03:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pending any third-party verification. No online press results that I can see - has this topic been discussed anywhere else? Ziggurat 03:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, vanity is not necessarily grounds for deletion. Alexa rank of 175,624 is not that good, but 107,000 Ghits is somewhat impressive. Royboycrashfan 03:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, This is not a vanity piece. Green Bloggers is a legit group of bloggers that I happened to spearhead the initiative of creating it. Blogging Tories and Progressive Bloggers have been around for a couple of years, with 300 members each. We've been around for only 7 months, and have 50 over members, and growing. It's importance will only continue to improve. CTV has linked to it during the election as well. Didn't realize my first Wiki article would cause so much grief. If there are legit concerns, why not edit the article instead of this? Craig Cantin
• Keep Has some merit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment After reading about Wikipedia's definition of vanity, I see how it would have been considered as such. I have removed the sentence regarding my founding the site. Hopefully that will be satisfactory. Again, as a new user, I would have thought editing that information would have been less drastic. Craig Cantin.

• Question Having removed vanity, can you provide neutral point of view reasons as to why it is meritorious? Because the next obsticle is WP:WEB, so you have a case to build. T K E 05:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep if we already have Blogging Tories and Progressive Bloggers this should be ok. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Was nominated for no-good reason. For great justice. 07:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can see the reason for the quick nomination, as the blog is owned by the username. However, we (AfD Patrollers) are all slacking in welcoming the newcomers and commenting on their talk pages when tagging articles. T K E 07:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. It includes in it a number of prominent blogs, such as Frogblog (being the New Zealand Green parties official blog). --Midnighttonight 09:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn blogcruft. Eusebeus 11:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply I'll comment from a Canadian standpoint. The Green Party has fielded a full set of candidates for the past two elections. The share of the vote for the Green Party is approaching 5%. There is a constituency of people who are interested in knowing more, but are not aware that there are 'green bloggers' out there. Green Bloggers fills that role, like Blogging Tories does for the Conservatives. The rationale for creating this article is because there were a couple of links from Green Wiki pages to Green Bloggers...people were going from Wiki to there, according to my log files. I created the page to satisfy what I believed was an interest in having more than just a couple of links. --Craig.cantin 12:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I know I'm bucking the tide here, but I can't see a single thing about this "group" that makes it notable as a group. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all this "group" is about is that they (a) hold to a roughly consonant political POV, (b) each (supposedly) have a blog, and (c) add themselves to the Green Bloggers list. Do they do anything as an organization? Do they have any cohesion? Does anyone actually vette whether they hew to the party line, provided there is a genuine set of environmental tenets to which they all adhere? If someone started a similar blog-list called "Friends of Pokemon," would that make for a notable Wikipedia article? Would my Livejournal friends' list qualify for a Wikipedia article? This is beyond fuzzy, folks. RGTraynor 15:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply If you remove this page, would you not use the same criteria for Progressive Bloggers and Blogging Tories? Why would they be included, and not this page? Craig.cantin 16:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles for Deletion is a collaborative effort and both of the pages you've mentioned were brought for AfD (as you already know from your post below) and survived that process due to a lack of consensus to delete (which defaults to keep), my personal opinion is that both of those pages should be deleted, but as I said above, this is a collaborative effort and since there was not overwhelming consensus to delete, both of those pages still exist.--Isotope23 17:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I quite agree with you, Craig, and if I saw those others come up for AfD, I would certainly vote to Delete. RGTraynor 19:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Blog popularity inside the blogosphere is measured by Technorati linkage. Only 6 incoming Technorati links [5]. NN. Computerjoe's talk 16:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply That is a misleading number. Technorati can't judge links based on javascript, nor does everyone use Technorati. It's impossible to logically say there are only 6 links when where are more than 50 members. If I had known how much trouble it would be to offer a page, I don't think I would have bothered. Again, I was only doing it based on the referrals from Wiki to Green Bloggers the site was getting. Craig.cantin 16:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply You are wrong. Technorati can read JavaScript. Every large blog will ping Technorati, or a Techonari feeder site. Computerjoe's talk 18:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's not sufficient assertion of notability according to WP:WEB. I really dislike this kind of promotion on Wikipedia. The Green Bloggers are using the Wikipedia to promote their politics, and many of you are condoning it. I don't see how the poor kids in Africa and Southeast Asia with no library access for whom this encyclopedia is being written should care about Green Bloggers. Brian G. Crawford 16:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply If that is the policy, then it should govern all of your pages of this nature. This is the last I will say on this subject. Craig.cantin 16:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete blogging group; qualifies as a non-notable club in my book.--Isotope23 16:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Context Sorry...I lied. This will be my last comment on this subject. Please take time to review deletion discussions for the Blogging Tories and the Progressive Bloggers (who had two seperate discussions). This discussion should be using the decisions rendered on these three occasions as precedents, if there is actual fairness on Wikipedia. Thank you. Craig.cantin 17:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both appear to have ended in no consensus opinions (considering that Blogging Tories was accidentally deleted then restored), which leads me to one precedent: those rendering opinions have a hard time agreeing. The fairness in my opinion is judging Green Bloggers on its own merits.--Isotope23 17:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, but that said would it be disruptive to bring back both those other non-notable blogs to AfD? They don't really deserve entries either. Eusebeus 17:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete comparison of G-hits: "Blogging Tories," 315,000; "Progressive Bloggers," 411,000; "Green Bloggers," 107,000. 107,000 is impresive enough, but looking through the first few articles, most are using the phrase in a general way and not refering to this particular Canadian group. Also, it is irrelavant to our discussion, but author has posted a comment about this very debate on his blog[6]. --MrFizyx 17:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: charming. I know we're not supposed to bite the newbies, but I don't care for the newbies biting us. Our jobs here are not to be warm and fuzzy and friendly and all-inclusive; they are to be encyclopedic and informative. RGTraynor 19:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And even the delete opinions have been rather WP:CIVIL; this has been all rainbows and ponies compared to some AfD discussions.--Isotope23 19:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is there anything here that you wouldn't learn by actually going to the website in question? No? Then how is an article here on it helpful, other than to promote that website? Derex 22:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks pretty clearly like vanity to me. pm_shef 00:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merecat 06:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Swatjester --Ardenn 06:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Condem OoskMR 11:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Condem, Swatjester. I wish it hadn't apparently been created by a principal, but that's not for here; it'd be keepable if it hadn't been. Samaritan 16:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only website promotion. Radagast83 19:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's an important group, and Wikipedia should focus more on environmental issues. Munckin 07:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia is not supposed to 'focus' in on any issues. It's an encylopedia. If by focus you mean have more notable encylopedic articles on the envrionment, than that is acceptable, but if you mean that it should "focus" on the environment by politicing Wikipedia, that is not. Radagast83 20:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep please it is notable enough for us Yuckfoo 06:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 02:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TES-forum

Notice originally added by User:82.31.27.110. Page for web forum, mostly consisting of a list of members. tregoweth 02:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn forum. Feezo (Talk) 02:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB; Alexa ranking is 10,233 [7]--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB and forumcruft. Royboycrashfan 03:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete forumcruft.ßlηguγεη | Have your say!!! 06:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I thought this was the official The Elder Scrolls forums! anyway, forumcruft ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ha, so did I.--Isotope23 18:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Listing individual forum members should be a speedy deletion criterion. JIP | Talk 08:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 11:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As well as other things mentioned here, the article fails to provide a link to the forum. JIP | Talk 12:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even with the weight of the Times newspaper behind this, this is still not notable. And a nice precedent to show all those other people who think their forum is notable. Average Earthman 12:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You need to read the forum pages and take a good look at the content before making such cursory statements such as many of those here appear to be. It is not valid to argue that because certain members have been named because of the usefulness or the otherwise outstanding nature of their contributions ( out of a total membership of some 100, 000 + teachers, university lecturers and educationalits in the UK) the article should be deleted. The forum offers much in the way of information and advice to those dealing with all matters educational.

These people may be using online names but that is irrelevent since most of the individuals posting here are also using similar online names to hide their identities. It is not possible to criticise others where you can be equally so criticised. The views and opinions of those on the forum are as valid and reliable as the views of those people voting here. Maybe more so.

The weight of the Times Educational Suppliment is good enough. This is a paper of considerable note. Many of the individuals on this forum appear to have high levels of qualification and expertise. Valuable expertise.

Much of the forum concentrates on dealing with professional and educational matters . It is a valid and reliable source of information and of advice on all matters educational, all matters dealing with the UK education system, and on many matters dealing with government policy and legislation.

It is an arena of discussion. Sometimes controversial. It is often the cutting edge of policy making debate in education. The TES forum is often used as a source of publication for TES articles. It is probably the largest and most honest collection of educational professionals concentrated into a single place. That has to be worthy of note.

Whilst in its current form the listing is probably inadiquate, I do not believe that the removal of this listing is justifiable under the deletion guidelines. Therefore keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyndylou (talk • contribs)

• • Delete. It's worthy of note if those claims of size, validity and vast expertise are verifiable, which they have not been, and we still don't have a link to the actual forum. By the bye, this is my real name: RGTraynor 19:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB Computerjoe's talk 16:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't meet WP:WEB.--Isotope23 16:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet my need to play Oblivion. Also non-notable. --Optichan 16:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete also per WP:WEB Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 11:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted by Sceptre. — FireFox • T [20:37, 10 April 2006]

Legion 1818

NN, local soccer support group founded in 2006. De-proded by page creator without explanation. Article makes no assertion of notability with regards to the support group. Delete. --Hetar 02:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Feezo (Talk) 18:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable as well as vanity (since the article was created by User:Legion1818) --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn-club and embarrassing vanity. Royboycrashfan 03:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete local, vanity. --Kbh3^rdtalk 03:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is to inform the people of St. Louis (an extremely rich soccer town) that a new supporters group is active in the sporting arena where a professional franchise does not exist. Why are you suggesting this page be deleted? We are, to date, the only major collegiate soccer supporters group, and we havent even been to a game yet! If this page is deleted, it will only be brought up again once thousands more are members. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Legion1818 (talk • contribs) .

No matter how rich St. Louis may or may not be, if the supporters group isn't notable enough by Wikipedia's standards, it will be deleted. Even if someone does recreate the article, the page can always be deleted and protected. However, if the group does manage to gain some sort of notability in the future, maybe then it can merit an article. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete a7, nn group, no assertion of notability.ßlηguγεη | Have your say!!! 06:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete And shame on the group for picking a name (possibly intentionally) so similar to the American Legion ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 11:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. A7. RGTraynor 15:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please close. Deleted. If contested send to WP:DRV Computerjoe's talk 16:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 11:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual var

Delete. Self-serving neologism. Advertisement. Prod removed by author. cmh 02:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEO and WP:SPAM. Only 168 unique Google results [8], most of which are not relevant --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TBC. Royboycrashfan 03:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Concept is becoming more and more common place in the Value Added Reseller (VAR) industry. This is real, and not Advertisement/SPAM. If you contact your local Value Added Reseller and asked if they can remotely service you then they are applying the Virtual VAR concept. --Workopia 04:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article cannot be kept if the concept is only "becoming" more popular, the concept has to be popular. Well, at least popular enough for more than under 200 Google results or a mention from a notable media source. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, understood, still new to Wikipedia, thanks. --Workopia 05:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn.ßlηguγεη | Have your say!!! 05:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "becoming more popular" or "up and coming" or "rising popularity" translates to "delete " in wikipedia speak ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above discussion. Metamagician3000 07:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, intolerably vague, advertisement, and close to patent nonsense: a "framework for servicing vendor product"? Smerdis of Tlön 13:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 15:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan herrera

Delete. My prod removed. After searching around on Google this seems to be a hoax. I wouldn't swear to it and if someone can find info on why this page is not a hoax and should be kept then I will withdraw the nomination. Until such time I vote to delete. cmh 03:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VANITY. Google shows only 89 results [9], though most of the results are about an Olympic athlete with the same name, not the comedian. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, either a hoax or an egotist's vanity page. Fails WP:BIO. Royboycrashfan 03:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity. Only relevant hit I can find is a profile on a gamers site: [10] - Fan1967 03:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:BIO--blue520 03:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:BIO and vanity. --Arnzy (Talk) 03:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 04:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete this nonsnese.ßlηguγεη | Have your say!!! 05:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At least Jabia has more pictures. T K E 06:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 11:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki; delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mufljuz

From WP:PNT, where nobody translated this for two weeks. Discussion from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 03:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The language of this article is unknown. Found loose in the category.--Kusma (討論) 13:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Croatian. KolyaFrankovich 18:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means sponge/freeloader lit. parasite. A wiktionary candidate. --Kunzite 04:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki per above if translated. Royboycrashfan 03:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Transwiki per above, after its translated --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per TBC. --Arnzy (Talk) 03:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per above. Or delete. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 02:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PINAS FIRST

I've listed PINAS FIRST, Pinoy in Austrian Society for Integrity, Reforms and Social Transformation, Pinas first, and Vission and Mission of Pinas First for deletion for the following reasons:

• They are not notable.
• These almost certain to be vanity.
• These are not known in the Philippines, or even in Austria. User:Pinkblue has inserted the links to these articles on several Philippine related articles (since reverted, by not by myself).

Note: The articles were elevated from prod by User:WP. Howard the Duck | talk, 16:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Not notable/encyclopedic. --Jondel 01:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Not encyclopedic, more of a mission statement of a group. Mission statements like these are for message boards, not for online encyclopedias. Elektrik Blue 82 02:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Arnzy (Talk) 03:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn. Sheehan (Talk) 03:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom's excellent reasons. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Danny Lilithborne 11:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 14:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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