The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-elect

This article is just a very stubby version of, and almost a direct port of the lead of, President-elect. President-elect shouldn't be moved to -elect as it is the far more common name, and -elect provides no new information so should be deleted with a redirect. Staxringold 17:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not sure there's even a point to having a redirect for this one.--み使い Mitsukai 18:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is a dicdef with no possibility for expansion. Ziggurat 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per Ziggurat. -Dawson 23:01, 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) 02:42, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 02:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian television ratings for Home and Away

Delete - Do we really need a list of television ratings for a specific TV show?, it pretty much borders on WP:What Wikipedia is not. --Arnzy (Talk) 04:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 04:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ConDem^Talk 05:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a summary of typical ratings in the Home and Away article would be fine. This is overkill. - Longhair 05:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- Astrokey44|talk 05:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cruft.ßlηguγεη | Have your say!!! 05:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --cj | talk 06:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruft ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, topic is far too specific to interest anyone. JIP | Talk 08:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 11:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--blue520 12:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd speedily delete this one. --Roisterer 13:58, 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) 13:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yvon Duplessis

WP:BIO Non-notable academic lawyer. John Nagle 04:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article about an apparently non-notable lawyer who teaches at a Canadian school has touched off a flame war concerning his grading policies. Multiple edits have been made to the article over the last few weeks, but no new verifiable information has appeared. "prod" and "verify" tags have been inserted and removed. Threats have been made (see article history). As someone uninvolved in the issue, I suggest just deleting the article. --John Nagle 04:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. --John Nagle 04:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm in two minds about this, but a google search suggests that he really is a full professor. If so, that alone should may be enough for notability. But let's delete it to take the heat out, if people are actually making threats and no one is contributing anything worthwhile. If an article is created at some time in the future it may be a different story. Metamagician3000 04:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Responding to the above comments, threats and edit wars do not always merit an article deletion and being a professor does not always merit an article to be kept. Either way, delete the article as it fails WP:PROFTEST and recieves only 95 unique Google results [11]. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This looks like a borderline case to me as far as WP:PROFTEST goes. If he is a full professor at a prestigious university, that is a distinction that would probably might get him over the line. I've been assuming that the University of Ottawa would be pretty prestigious, but I realise it's not Oxford or Harvard or something, so it's open to argument. Notability is borderline. Article seems irredeemable at the moment. My vote stays as it was, just commenting. Metamagician3000 07:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are votes in favour of it being kept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yvon_Duplessis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.87.250 (talk • contribs)

Also, the article as expanded 06:20, 10 April 2006 24.43.87.250 should be considered. History BA keeps deleting things out of a personal vendetta on this thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.87.250 (talk • contribs)

The record will show that I have deleted unsourced material from the article and have explained my reasons why. The editor who keeps adding this material, some of which may well be libelous, refuses to supply a verifiable source. HistoryBA 12:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, those who voted for the article to be kept on the talk page were all anonymous IP adresses.--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in response to PROF test, Me. Duplessis passes on item #1 in part as well as #2 and #5 in larger part. He is also notable for his performance in the aforementioned case (which History BA probably has already reverted again) as well as his relation to a Quebec historical personality (also incorrectly reverted by HistoryBA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.87.250 (talk • contribs)

If so, then please provide a reliable source that verifies these claims--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete grading wars are not wikipedia material. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a grading war, i have never even taken a class with him. He has national noteworthiness particularly in eastern canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.87.250 (talk • contribs)

• Delete per nom, notability has not been established within the article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and just end the mess. Gotta love rookie lawyering, though. Danny Lilithborne 11:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Being related to Maurice does not constitute noteworthiness. Eusebeus 11:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (& Can't sleep, clown will eat me).--blue520 12:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- We're not going to give an article to every distant relative of Maurice Duplessis, nor to professors who have annoyed students by failing them. HistoryBA 12:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• At present I can't see anything offensive in this -- unless people object to a Canadian getting Wiki-space when there are doubtless PBS talkshow hosts in US who are still to sreep into these pages -- Keep -- SockpuppetSamuelson
• Delete. Could someone point me to the spot in WP:PROFTEST where being a full professor at a major university alone qualifies someone for notability? Somehow I am missing that; could we see some cites to notable academic papers, theories, awards? Beyond that, no one with only 95 Ghits has national notability anywhere, even if I am a Yankee who must be suspected at all times of harboring screw-the-Quebecois sentiments. RGTraynor 16:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth (and remember how I voted) see criterion 8 and then point 9 of the examples, which says "Receiving full professorship at a prestigious university, or receiving a named professorship at a reputable university, may be considered an award or honor under criterion 8." Note also that it is says, "may" not "shall", which makes the whole thing even more borderline (hence I've re-edited my edits above), and that I'm only answering the question, not acting as advocate for the "keep" case. :) Metamagician3000 08:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, in which case this guy wouldn't qualify; is the University of Ottawa really a "prestigious" university in the ranks of the Harvards and Stanfords, as opposed to a "reputable" university? RGTraynor 13:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I honestly don't know what is meant by a "prestigious" university. I'm pretty sure that Charles Sturt University does not count as "prestigious", though it is perfectly reputable, but I would count the Australian National University. I like to think that Monash University, where I hang out, is a prestigious institution, not just a big one. Canadians would doubtless have views as to which of their institutions are prestigious and/or reputable, but these are incredibly vague and relative terms. Metamagician3000 23:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 16:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 06:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very week delete He seems notable enough, but there is no article here: there is a world of diffrence between a two paragraph stub and a two sentence stub. Abstain if the article is expanded somewhat. JeffBurdges 13:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No obvious claims to be more notable than the average. Hasn't obviously made a big impact according to google or google scholar. Delete unless something comes out of the woodwork. Ben Aveling 17:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article should not be deleted, because Mr. Duplessis is one of the best legal scholars in Canada. You just don't know. Get a life! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurobest (talk • contribs)

  Agreed, we don't know. But on the evidence we have, we have to make a judgement. If you disagree, it's up to you to persuade us otherwise. Thanks, Ben Aveling 10:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Let me address a few points. First of all, the University of Ottawa is in Canada's capital and is, "Canada's University". It is one of the more important Universities in Canada behind McGill and University of Toronto. Second, Yvon Duplessis is a full professor, who has been published in many French journals. Wikipedia should not be biased against this despite the fact that these journals have smaller circulation due to smaller language population. Third, it is true, if you research on QuickLaw or WestLaw (I may not reproduce it here for copyright reasons) you will see that he did indeed litigate the Supreme Court decision Entreprises E.A. Bourque (Québec) Inc. v. Hull (Ville) [1996] C.S.C.R. no 368. Fourth, I have heard from other professors that he does indeed grade on a 120 point scale and the average grade in most of his classes is usually below 50%. Although not enough to be notable on its own, it is an interesting anecdoate and highly irregular. The man is a graduate of Harvard and I have been told he is related to former Quebec Premier Maurice Duplessis. This is a Strong Keep not because he is highly notable, but because he clearly passes the de-minimus test to be on Wikipedia. Anber 07:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The De minimus test? "De minimis, in a more formal legal sense, means something which is unworthy of the law's attention." You're going to have to explain that one to me - I don't follow your meaning in this context. I haven't heard of the case you mention. Is it particularly interesting? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's not clear about the use of the term De minimus, if you have seen its use before, or even if you read through its entire Wikipedia article, you'll see that it refers to a 'minimum threshold for non-triviality'. Just substitute that in and it will make sense.Anber 13:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You are saying that although he is not highly notable, he is notable enough. Why not just say that, and make all our lives easier. If you want to impress us, then do so by being clear in your communictaions. Thanks, Ben Aveling 15:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Canada's University" is the institution's advertising slogan. It proves absolutely nothing. Furthermore, "I have heard" and "I have been told" do not meet the Wikipedia standard for a verifiable source. HistoryBA 13:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It`s borderline but much less borderline than a lot of Wikipedia articles. I agree with the writers who say that the context of a French Canadian professor should be considered when interpreting Wiki rules because there should not be a systematic bias against an equally notable segment of the population at large who just happen to be less recognized on internet sites. Remember the internet overwhelmingly more English than it is French; Mr. Duplessis has been published in many print Media.

Also, I noticed that nobody has refuted his involvement in the Hull Supreme Court Case. Coupled with his full status (part of the prof test) and also his bizzare tendencies this seems enough (barely)

• Comment: A case upon which there are only a handful of unique G-hits and nothing notable off of Lexum; may I ask why you consider this case any sort of a landmark, and why Duplessis was any more notable than the other attorneys involved in the case? So he litigated a case before the Canadian Supreme Court; do you have any notion how very many attorneys do that every session? RGTraynor 03:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After all, Wikipedia has a tribute to a Dancing Banana!!!

• • Yes, thank you, I have raised the Supreme Court Case before, but History BA keeps deleting it because he is trying to prove his point.

• Not discussed yet: Yvon Duplessis has also authored a number of French Language books. http://thema.caij.qc.ca/rooms/portal/media-type/html/user/anon/page/caij_municipal_doctrine.psml/js_pane/P-106035c6d95-101ec

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (A7). — FireFox • T [13:13, 10 April 2006]

Mushrooms (How I'm Too Short To See The One I Love So I Poison Mushroomed Myself)

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND, wikipedia is not a crystal ball, all but 1 member is redlinked and that one goes to a disambig page. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable album by a non-notable band --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non notable does not meet WP:MUSIC.--Dakota ~ ° 05:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete bandcruft.ßlηguγεη | Have your say!!! 05:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, band is non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Vanity as well. Royboycrashfan 09:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Clearly falls under A7. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 10:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 11:38, 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 deleted by pgk. — FireFox • T [13:10, 10 April 2006]

Baby Mario and the Toads

does not meet WP:BAND or WP:BIO, not a crystal ball, etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; non-notable band --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, holds no candle to Toad the Wet Sprocket ;) T K E 05:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete bandcruft.ßlηguγεη | Have your say!!! 05:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 06:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BAND and WP:VAIN. Don't have their own domain. Royboycrashfan 09:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Clearly falls under A7. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 10:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 11:38, 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 redirect. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Learns To Rock (disambiguation)

A disambiguation page to distinguish a band from its eponymous LP - unnecessary. There doesn't seem to be any point in redirecting anywhere, either. Flowerparty? 04:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and add a see also sentence on the top of both pages mentioned in the disambiguation page --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TBC ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:TBC. JIP | Talk 08:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 11:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Mitsukai Learns to Delete. Well, I already knew how to do that, but you get the idea.--み使い Mitsukai 18:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the group. It's a plausible mistake to capitalize all words in the name. Henning Makholm 22:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The capitals aren't the problem, we already have Michael Learns To Rock redirecting to Michael Learns to Rock. It's the (disambiguation) bit that's unnecessary. Flowerparty? 16:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the group - Band names always take precedence over eponymous album titles (regardless of title case). The article will have a link to the self-titled album in it. No disambig link required at the top of the page, either. ProhibitOnions 15:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Onions, although I think a disambig on the page would be helpful. Kappa 10:41, 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. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gandharvas of indian classical music

Relevant policies: WP:RS, OR

Not being Indian, I don't really know what to make of this, as it's very badly written. But since Gandharva are a type of deity, this appears to be one fan's POV and unsourced list of "musical gods". Some of these individuals appear to have articles (or maybe ought to), e.g. Bal Gandharva, so feel free to move any useful content there before this article is deleted. PROD contested by anonymous user without comment. Sandstein 05:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Gandharva if thats the same thing -- Astrokey44|talk 06:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently not. Gandharva are gods. These are musicians. Sandstein 07:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Gods who have superb musical skills though -- Astrokey44|talk 22:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article will always be OR. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR unless evidence surfaces this is a widely regarded list of the most famous musicians. Googling even the first two musicians mentioned together finds only this article; [12] or [13]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weregerbil (talk • contribs)
• Delete unless cites are forthcoming (er... is there an Indian version of NME?) Average Earthman 12:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Would prefer to postpone, actually. I claim no expertise here: but it seems me that at minimum, the information about individual performers should be split up and either merged or used to create new stubs about them; they are probably notable, and getting information about them may otherwise be difficult. The stamp would appear to suggest that at least one musician has been honoured with "Gandharva" being a part of his name. Some information about the use of this divine style as a title, and whether it is conferred by some authority or by popular acclaim, might be in order here. I'm just reluctant to lose obscure (to me) and interesting information. Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can prove that this is the Hindi term for "Gods of Rock" or the like.--み使い Mitsukai 18:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and recontextualize to list of Indian classical musicians unless someone can prove what Mitsukai says. Kappa 10:39, 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) 02:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit boots

Delete - WP is not Urban Dictionary. Wickethewok 05:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEO. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn neologism.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 06:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MrFizyx 17:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Add to UD if not already there. Chris Chan.talk.contribs 21:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Freddie 01:52, 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. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 11:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe D'Ambrose

• Delete vanity page that is merely a front for commercial advertising of non-notable person - article apparently created by the subject too--RexRex84 22:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:34, 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 Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 11:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloo Toons

Delete - I don't see any assertion of notable. Wickethewok 05:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete - There are many articles on wikipedia that have half the information the Bloo Toons article has, not to mention, Bloo Toons is gaining popularity, it needs its own wiki article so fans or viewers can find information on the site. Flanman772 010:35, 10 April 2006

• Delete - nn, and length of article is not a guide to notability.ßlηguγεη | Have your say!!! 05:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB. Only 37 unique google results [14], and an Alexa ranking of 694,914 [15]--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "...not a hugely popular series..." & Flanman772's defence is advertising under another name. Non-notable website, WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 06:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Keep per nom. Danny Lilithborne 11:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable and most likely vanity created by the site owner IrishGuy 13:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not the guy who makes Bloo Toons! Whatever, if it needs to be deleted, go ahead.
• Delete. Mmm, maybe Bloo Toons needs a Wikipedia entry to gain more fans, but Wikipedia doesn't need Bloo Toons without some evidence of notability. RGTraynor 16:07, 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 Speedily deleted as recreation of previously deleted material.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Hendrickson

Vanity, non-notable bio. Has already been userfied and speedied once. -- RHaworth 05:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, recreation of previously speedy deleted material --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:44, 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 keep. Flowerparty☀ 01:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multilingual internet population

global perspective, and do we realy need an article about this? Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 06:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Hm. I did delete, but rethought before submitting. This is actually an interesting concept, but it needs a lot of work. T K E 07:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for further expansion. Interesting topic. I don't get the nominator's point about "global perspective" above, can you explain? Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems very US centric Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 16:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, can't quite follow you there. The article describes how the Internet was in fact US-centric, which seems true, relevant, and NPOV. Why is describing US-centricness US-centric? Lukas ^(T.|@) 18:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. Can't quite follow the US-centric claim either, as it's somewhat common knowledge that the net started out as the ARPANET. But I'll be the first to agree that the page definitely could use some sprucing up.--み使い Mitsukai 19:01, 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 keep. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Tunnel (movie)

from talk: "Non-notable independent film. IMDB cautions "Note: Many of the "reviews" for this incredibly poor film seem to be written by people who actually worked on this film or were hired to promote it." Only 2 actors are not redlinked ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. And of the two non-redlinked actors to this 2005 film, one is a redirect to a poet who died in 1991, and the other is to the author of the original Roger Rabbit novel: so the links may, er, not be accurate. --Calton | Talk 07:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable and spam (see creator's user history). — Saxifrage ✎ 09:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 11:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A few minor festival appearances, pretty much straight to video, terrible reviews on IMDB, Amazon, etc. Can't find any box office figures whatsoever, so strongly suspect it did next to nothing. It might slowly claw its money back from the long-tail of people who like watching extremely badly plotted B-movies (one review I have managed to find congratulated it for the most ludicrous crowbarring of nudity into a film he'd seen). Just because it's a film, doesn't mean it's notable. The internet has enough of b-movies, we don't need to replicate it. Average Earthman 13:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment IMDb does not make any such caution as the nom claims. There might be a user on IMDb who made such a claim in their user comment or on the message board for the movie, but that does not make it an official statement of IMDb. Such a user is speculating, or could even be a plant from a rival studio trying to slam the movie (though I would guess the movie is indeed nothing special). Redlinks are AFAIK not a reason to delete an article, nor are bad reviews, etc. I'm not sure if the article should stay or go; WP needs to define by policy in a much clearer way which movies should have articles and which shouldn't. Шизомби 14:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agreed. This isn't someone's garage movie filmed on a video cam, starring ten people who had never, ever been in anything else. The cast's credits in other works seem to be in bit parts, but those bit parts are in big time movies and TV shows, and the film was distributed by Sony. The degree to which the movie sucked or someone's alleging self-promotion on the IMDB review page is irrelevant. Wikipedia's criteria for non-notability involve no one ever hearing of the subject, not the subject stinking out the joint. RGTraynor 16:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. Brian G. Crawford 16:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article would have been accepted into Wikipedia if it hadn't been from all the associated self-promotional spam articles. Yes, the movie is apparently awful. Yes, the high point of the star's career was as a minor character in Gigli. But you can order the thing on DVD from Amazon, and it's in IMDB, so it's verifiable. I suggest keeping this article, but deleting all the other Boothspam. The article will probably need some cleanup for WP:NPOV, though. --John Nagle 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's availiable at Amazon and has an entry on IMDb, notable movie. bbx 00:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. No matter the result of the debate, this appears to be a copyvio. If consensus is to keep, someone will probably have to rewrite. —Seqsea (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merecat 06:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Opinions and personal reviews are valid but not on an encyclopedia. Death Tunnel is a notable horror film released world wide distributed by Sony Pictures domestic and foreign, Paramount Pictures in Spain, ArtPort in Japan, Imagine Entertainmnet in Australia, Movie Bank in Netherlands. This is also on IMDB. Please keep this in mind. The website has over 4.4 million hits within a year and a half. Bad or Good, Let all the world's people make it's own conclusion without judgemental commentary. This board seems some what bias.

Note that previous unsigned Keep came from User:Csaint. See history to verify. --John Nagle 16:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why is this even being debated?Brian1979 12:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This mess started when, within one day, User:Harlie8304 created Tee for Two Publishing, Tee for Two Music Publishing, Saint (Christopher Saint), The Booth Brothers, Saint and Sinners Entertainment, Twintalk Entertainment, Christopher Saint Booth, Christopher Booth, Christopher Saint, Shadowbox, and Death Tunnel (movie). All this activity resulted in complaints from four people and one bot. Most of those articles have now been deleted or made into redirects. The only ones remaining are Christopher Saint and Death Tunnel (movie), and they're in AfD. Those might or might not be kept; the votes are mixed. The process seems to be working; in the end; we'll have one or two decent articles, not the original copies of press kits. --John Nagle 16:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I understand. I see how the rampant creation of pages such as those is irksome. However, if rewriiten, the page for Death Tunnel should be kept. Brian1979 11:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I really don't know how easy or hard it is to get a film on Amazon and Netflix, but somehow they managed to do so. Bige1977 18:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please this film is notable why erase it Yuckfoo 06:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per John Nagle. --Rob 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 deleted by SlimVirgin. Henning Makholm 12:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowbox

another non-notable movie stub from the Booth Brothers. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Booth Brothers article could use more cleanup than a separate movie stub. T K E 07:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I can speedy it if there's no objection. I nearly deleted it last night when I saw it come in, but I decided to tidy it instead. I probably should just have deleted, so if no one minds, I'll go ahead and do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go ahead and speedy. The user is just spamming. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and speedy wouldn't bother me. It's rather harder to create a person than a movie these days (videocameras are cheaper than babies, and don't smell as much), and we don't list every person on the planet. Average Earthman 13:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd delete this - it does not seem helpful to anyone -- and sorry for my lack of editing skills. -- JCF
• Delete like everyone else. TheRealFennShysa 16:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll speedy it now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently part of a hoax/vanity/spam ring (see The Booth Brothers). Her Pegship 23:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (footnote: oops! sorry, I didn't mean to blank all the other comments. Her Pegship 03:16, 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) 11:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Booth Brothers

part of bulk afd surrounding Death Tunnel (movie), SHADOWBOX etc. nn stub, much of the articles are hoaxes and/or crystal ball. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable spam. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete adcruft, plus all other pages associated with this. Danny Lilithborne 11:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Spam, spam, unlovely spam. Average Earthman 13:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete like everyone else. TheRealFennShysa 16:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above (but I don't like spam...). Her Pegship 23:15, 10 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) 13:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Saint

Along with Booth Brothers, Death Tunnel (movie) et all. Further more Saint%22 MPSE&btnG=Search Google search shows that he in fact has NOT won any MPSE in sound editing. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note: Assertion of contacts with Bryan Adams and Sweeny Todd band appear to be fake. Bryan Adams was in Sweeny Todd [16], but Christopher Saint does not appear to have been. However, John Booth appears to have been, and given the Booth name connection to this, it appears to be a very suspicious claim, especially given the lack of hits regarding the MPSE ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have not seen any clear evidence that Christopher Saint actually worked with Bryan Adams. He was brought in as the replacement for Bryan Adams on lead vocals, but the band was on the decline broke up shortly thereafter. No albums were released with Booth as the vocalist. Performing remixes as a DJ is not qualify as releasing 200 songs. The entire article is clearly vanity and a series of nothing but gross exaggerations. Bige1977 19:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy it all to User:Harlie8304. T K E 07:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Death Tunnel was nominated for BestSound Editing in a Foreign Feature in which Christopher Saint Booth performed this service: http://www.mpse.org/goldenreels/foreign.html Christopher Saint is a AKA for Christopher Booth who was in Sweeney Todd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweeney_Todd_%28band%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csaint (talk • contribs) 09:11, 10 April 2006
  • Comment - can you prove that the requirement for nomination is more stringent than it merely being sound edited outside of the US? Average Earthman 13:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Death tunnel was not nominated for BestSound Editing in a Foreign Feature. It is one name in a very long a list of entries submitted by the filmmakers themselves, not by a nominating board or a notable third party. Bige1977 18:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable spam. Note that this is part of a bulk-spam effort by the user. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per above. --Hetar 17:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to the article on Sweeney Todd, Christopher Booth was not in the band, John Booth was in the band. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This article appears to be a copyvio from [17]. I haven't checked the others. It's possible the author of the article is the author of the blog, but that was not immediately obvious to me. —Seqsea (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article needs editing/wikifying/cleanup/etc, unless it is firmly established as fake, then I will come back and change my vote to delete. --ElectricEye 00:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note: Assertion of contacts with Bryan Adams and Sweeny Todd band appear to be fake. Bryan Adams was in Sweeny Todd [18], but Christopher Saint does not appear to have been. However, John Booth appears to have been, and given the Booth name connection to this, it appears to be a very suspicious claim, especially given the lack of hits regarding the MPSE ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (Note: previous comment was deleted by User:CSaint and has been restored. See page history. Please do not make deletions from an Articles for Deletion page; it will not help you.) --John Nagle 21:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Christopher Saint is a AKA for Christopher Booth who was in Sweeney Todd: http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicPopEncycloPagesS/sweeney.html

Sweeney Todd

Nick Gilder (lead vocals)

Jim McCulloch (guitars)

John Booth (drums)

Budd Marr (bass)

Dan Gaudin (keyboards)

Clark Perry (lead vocals; replaced Gilder 1976)

Bryan Adams (lead vocals; replaced Perry 1976)

Skip Prest (guitar; replaced McCulloch 1976)

Chris Booth (lead vocals; replaced Adams 1977)

• Comment Reading on in the article cited, we see this: "in 1977 Adams left the band. He was replaced by Chris Booth. Adams's departure signaled the end of the band. Prest left shortly thereafter to work with the Rocket Norton Band, to be replaced by Grant Gislason, but this version didn't last long and they called it quits in 1978." This may not qualify as notability for Booth. --John Nagle 21:33, 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 Speedy delete attack page. Again. Just zis Guy you know? 11:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wenzeled

• There are only 95 results on Google for 'Wenzeled' (excluding duplicates), most of which are Wikipedia mirrors or links to the forum thread. As such this article, is establishing etymology rather than reporting it.
• The article is a mess and unlikely to be fixed.
• The article is an orphan.
• It appears the article was created as part of a campaign against Wenzel.
• Charlie Wenzel was deleted at the time[19][20]. The subject is even less notable now. Xtmouse 06:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism. I doubt the 1.5million hits. Wenzeled.com is a "under construction" link ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn. Metamagician3000 07:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete three previous deletions were all correct: this is essentially an article which serves no purpose other than to disparage its subject. Just zis Guy you know? 11:04, 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) 11:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vmk spoilers page

Wikipedia is not a game guide - Brian Kendig 07:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Article fails to even specify what "Vmk" is. Not everyone here reads GameFAQs daily. JIP | Talk 08:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Virtual Magic Kingdom. -Colin Kimbrell 20:56, 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 keep. Flowerparty☀ 01:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Menengah Teknik Ipoh Persiaran Brash

I believe that the article is a vanity page, an advertisement, represents little neutral information and is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia.--Momolee 07:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup, as per WP:SCHOOL --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Though the page does need real cleanup. __earth ^(Talk) 10:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - AFAIK schools qualify for Wiki -- SockpuppetSamuelson
• Remove or heavy editing - non-NPOV, sounds like advert like user Momolee said.
• Keep, and move the stuff about the alumnus into his own article. Kappa 10:15, 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 keep top page; delete sub pages. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FIPS place code and its subpages

This is just the tip of the iceberg: I look at New Pages, and was startled to see entries like "FIPS place code/Minnesota (390,351 bytes)" and "FIPS place code/Arkansas (311,887 bytes). These are HUGE subpages of lists of geographic codes. The creator is stacking 'em up, one by one. Wikipedia is NOT a primary source, and it's NOT a bunch of lists. Calton | Talk 07:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a primary source. These are taken from the USGS files, simply cut down to be more useful than the raw data. The primary source is the USGS files and the exact same information can be found there. Paul Robinson 20:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Then leave them there. --Calton | Talk 21:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wow, I really don't know what ot say. T K E 08:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a government report, relevant information, hell I paid for it. T K E 08:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How about: the top FIPS place code article is good info and the subpages are deletable as not an indiscriminate collector of information. Weregerbil 08:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It's sad to see so much effort go to waste, but it's right in FIPS place code that the original list can be downloaded from an official (presumably up-to-date) source. An article about FIPS place codes, maybe keeping a manageable amount of place codes as examples, would be an excellent idea. Peter Grey
  • If there was an automated way the place codes could be added to the article for each corresponding location, that really be neat. Peter Grey 08:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure RamBot could do it alongside all his census info. Night Gyr 17:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The top-level info (i.e. that on FIPS place code, rather than its subpages) can added into the InfoBoxes for the various state/territory. The insanely long complete list is not encyclopedic (primary source) and can be covered with an external link to the USGS branch that hands these things out. -- GWO
• Delete. I'm likewise impressed at how much work went into this, but what is here that's not on the gov't link? RGTraynor 16:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wikisource is the place for primary sources, so if you want to put this on a wiki, put it up there and link it from here. Night Gyr 17:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an article on the FIPS place code system as such, if it is a notable reference system. Delete the codes themselves, which do not belong in an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 17:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikisource ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: we add no value to the world by copying such an immense amount of numeric data; what we do is create a reference which will become out-of-date and therefore misleading. A reference to the primary source is the way to do this. Keep the top-level article. — Johan the Ghost _seance 18:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep top-level article, remove tables from its, delete subpages. FIPS place codes are important in the geographic and demographic industries (such as the Census Bureau, and Claritas where I work), and not otherwise noteworthy. A good two-paragraph article would be appropriate here; the raw tables are not. WP is not for primary sources, excess level of detail, etc. Barno 21:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep top-level article, remove tables from its, delete subpages. Per Barno and Johan the Ghost. —Ruud 13:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm with that. A bot for this would be nice, I didn't even know about government produced rankings. T K E 19:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Argument in favor by the author: As I am the person who has created this, I would like to make the case why it should stay as is.
• It is a cut-down version of the complete list, it only includes cities and major unincorporated areas. As is, it just becomes useful as opposed to the complete list which contains practically every location in the U.S. bigger than a hot dog stand.
• Where do you draw the line? If you want to set some population figure, say, 50, 100,000 or whatever, fine. But what is the criterion.
• There is the possibility of cutting it by county (borough/census area in Alaska, parish in Louisiana) but I for one am not up to the task of creating circa 3500 separate pages. Now, if you only create separate sub pages if there is several items in a county, but you're still going to have large pages.
• Most of the bloat comes from having to code them for HTML. I think I could try changing them to flat text and they would be a lot smaller. Actually I wish I had thought of that. I'll see if there isn't a way to have both.
• I think this is exactly appropriate for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should provide, well, encyclopedic content, which I would think means it should provide very broad coverage of a subject or an issue. This also includes providing substantial reference material.

Paul Robinson 20:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am looking at reformatting the pages. I use a program to create them. I think if I use a wiki table format instead of HTML I can cut the page sizes by about 1/2. But the data within them is still substantial; take a look at a test version I have reformatted for Minnesota and it went from 380K down to 140K. I can see some places for improvement.
• The creation of these tables was a start, and was subject to improvements later on as I - and others - had more experience in how to work with them.

Paul Robinson 21:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Where do you draw the line? How about "none at all?" Seems simplest.
• Most of the bloat comes from having to code them for HTML It doesn't matter whether it comes from too much starch in their diet or from not enough exercise: they are still a form of raw data that is NOT encyclopedic, IS a primary source of data best handled by an external link to the data supplier, and is grossly inappropriate here. --Calton | Talk 21:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone please tell me WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON HERE? People are saying they think these sub pages are not appropriate to this encyclopedia, so I decided to mark them for deletion. Now I'm being told that what I'm doing constitutes vandalism and I'm going to be blocked! I had the impression nobody wants these pages because they're too long, they're not encyclopedia content and they constitute original material. I disagree with all of these but I decided not to fight the issue.

If the material doesn't belong here then it needs to be marked for deletion. I'm sorry I wasted the effort.

23:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, you bastards, you win, I give up; it's not worth the fight. I wanted to make this encyclopedia better and improved its content, but you don't want the content. Fine; I now close the subject and the issue ends. I have deleted the links to the subsidiary pages. Whether you keep or delete the subsidiary pages doesn't matter. I'll null them since it's clear people don't want the fucking things and this will solve. It The original page is simply a table of state entries. Since my contribution is unwanted, I have removed the contribution so as to get rid of the problem.

You may now go about your business on whatever else you want to bother with. I have removed the "Request for Deletion" off the original page as the issue is now closed and the entries are now destroyed.

Paul Robinson 22:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but Paul Robinson's contributions are appreciated. Stifle (talk) 00:13, 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 Delete - Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 11:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Woodard

NN-Bio, just one appearance in one film, can't find any other relevant Google hits or sources, maybe vanity as submitted by User:Tpwoodard Gu 08:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable biography - one entry on IMDb.com, WP:BIO and possibly WP:AUTO and WP:VANITY refers to.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at a crossroads with a stake through it. Possible hoaxy vanity too; the IMDB entry is for "Tara Woddard", who isn't even part of the main credited cast for her single appearance in a film so off the radar it doesn't even register box office. No listings for the alleged miniseries or Homicide appearances. (And what, pray, is a fourth degree burn?)RGTraynor 16:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be helpful: Fourth degree burn. Also, Delete per RGT. -Colin Kimbrell 20:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Jonas Silk 16:59, 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) 11:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time compression

I don't think using a phrase once in a press conference makes it noteable Gu 08:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is linked to from the Superman (movie) page. Obviously doesn't mean the same thing as written here. -Jcbarr 08:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in its current form, but I would not be adverse to an article on differing rates of time passage as used in Science Fiction. Off the top of my head, its a major plot point in Epiphany (Stargate Atlantis), but I'm pretty sure other examples can be cited. -- Saberwyn 09:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Final Fantasy 8 too, but I'm not sure we need an article describing any of these. Kotepho 09:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing useful. Cedars 15:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. Does it count as a neologism if it's a usage no one else employs that just happened to have its only citation sixty years ago? RGTraynor 16:45, 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) 11:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PHCDownload

Was PROD tagged but tag was removed by original author without comment, new nn software, probably advertising Gu 08:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Advertising non-notable software, WP:SOFTWARE refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I was unaware of the fact I can not add an article for something i have developed, I am not trying to advertise for commercial benefit, merely attempting to add an article about it. AlexGW 12:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, according to WP:SOFTWARE: Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged but not forbidden. It is indeed easy for an author to overestimate the notability of their work. If such work is notable, someone else will eventually start an article about it. From the number of unique Google hits and the number of threads in the program's developer forum I simply don't think it does match WP:SOFTWARE criteria for inclusion as notable software. Gu 13:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- dispute "advertising" :: merely informative; as to non-notability, suggest this depends on one's viewpoint -- SockpuppetSamuelson
  • Delete. Viewpoint: only 36 unique G-hits (and almost all of those are from sites Powered By PHCDownload), Alexa rank #865,096. No reviews, awards, or verifications of industry notability as per WP:SOFTWARE. RGTraynor 16:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertising-like article for a non-notable piece of proprietary software that is still waiting for its final 1.0 release. Cedars 15:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable software that fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Hetar 17:47, 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) 11:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cigoutlet

Non-notable advertising. Delete. Linkspamremover 08:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB and WP:SPAM. Doesn't Google well. [21] [22] Royboycrashfan 10:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing but spam. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. spam Bill Sayre 05:13, 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. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 11:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underwear pervert

This article appears to have been created about eight days late. The temr barely Googles, and it's doubtful it deserves as much as a passing mention in Superhero. Just zis Guy you know? 09:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable term, neologism or otherwise. Royboycrashfan 09:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO. Danny Lilithborne 11:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. PJM 13:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-widespread neologism. Punkmorten 20:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this neologism and its boingboing back into the obscurity they so richly merit. RGTraynor 20:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep maybe it is not a widespread neologism, but it is well known among comic fans (due to the Marvel/DC patent episode). It needs evolution, obviously. --Chester br 20:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this one-liner with Warren Ellis, who coined the term on his blog. It's not widespread enough for a standalone article, though that could change in the future I guess. -Colin Kimbrell 21:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete This is idiotic and doesnot belong here. Aeon 17:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable term, at best it should be trivia in either the Warren Ellis artilce or the Superhero article. Glowimperial 19:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If kept, then merge. --Durin 18:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• All said above (delete).Freddie 22:28, 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 nomination withdrawn. Royboycrashfan 10:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kretchniff

I originally prodded this, but the author removed it. I can find no evidence that the subject is notable. I've tried several search engines and didn't find a thing. Delete as non-notable WP:BIO. Royboycrashfan 09:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. you are dealing with a sect in chassidic judaism that does not condone internet use, and therefore lack of finding on search engines, especially since anything you would find would probably be in hebrew, is not a valid reason for deletion. Rebbe 09:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're probably right. Royboycrashfan 10:03, 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) 11:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Watts

Thanks to Elefuntboy for picking this article out.

The user's main claim to nobility is candidacy in the California recall election. There were over 100 candidates, many identifying themselves as Green Party candidates. He could be incorporated into a group article on California recall longshots, since as a collection of eccentrics they were notable, but not as an individual. Delete as vanity.

Lotsofissues 21:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]