- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Brazilian bikini
Delete or merge into bikini with heavy rewrite. Currently pretty nn advertising, IMO. Definetly not worded encyclopedically. Google test gets a lot of hits, but I don't think it's anywhere near notable or different enough to warrant a seperate article. The merge suggestion was reverted by the article's sole writer without discussion. Staxringold 15:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- After reading the article, I still don't know the difference between a Brazilian bikini and a regular bikini. I did notice, though, that the girl in the picture is showing some ribs, and I think she needs a sammich. Delete unless the article can be rewritten to explain what makes Brazilian bikinis unique. -- E lkman - (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, advertisement. Pavel Vozenilek 17:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. is currently complete spam from a bikini merchant. Could be possible to clean up the article, but I'm still not sure that the difference between the subject and a normal bikini is all that great. Probably worth keeping as a redirect, and insertion of a paragraph's material into the bikini article. Kuru talk 17:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, blatant advertisement. JIP | Talk 18:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete this advertising. Possibly redirect, though unlikely search term. ProhibitOnions 20:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 20:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete spam, then create a redirect. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I marked this up as merge with Bikini but as the author of the article doesn't appear to want to do such a thing and there is not enough notable material about the subject to justify a separate article of its own, delete is the order of the day. (aeropagitica) 23:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Elkman -- Pal5017 00:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. What is there to merge? Henning Makholm 03:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Advertising. Not even very good advertising. Peter Grey 04:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and delete its image too. JoshuaZ 04:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge Interesting design -- Masssiveego 07:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Advertising!
V
i
r
tual
Steve 10:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete advert ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete Out damn spam out! Nigelthefish 15:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Kate's Playground
Website for a Cam whore with an allegedly deformed right foot. I contend that it's not encyclopedic, but debate will probably concern whether her appearance in a Playboy Newstand Special makes her notable or not. Brian G. Crawford 00:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as much as I think all these porn things are UE, this is more notable then most of the others MadCow257 00:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Madcow, it seems like a popular site, I better sign up to ensure it is encyclopedic however!
Mike (
T
C)
00:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC) - Keep There are many other pornography related articles of much less merit that have been kept. Kate has been around for longer than most others serving as her own webmaster for the past few years, for the Playground and numerous other tgp type webpages. The fact that she recently appeared in a Playboy special just makes her more searched, and just allows for extra reason to keep the article. Albeit a person more familiar with her should come through and polish the article to a higher standard. Das Nerd 00:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No significant fact in the article is verified (the "model" doesn't even claim the Playboy appearance mentioned in the article, as far as I can tell), and even if she manages to squeak through the notability screen, her website doesn't. Monicasdude 01:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep this site is popular people will want to know more about it here Yuckfoo 01:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - a bit notable. I never noticed that her foot was deformed...oops
Nobunaga24 01:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -- She doesn't show her feet much in the pictures, and the deformed foot is a rumor based on several blurry pictures. If she does have a foot with two toes on it, she generally hides it very well -- very rarely do you see her feet at all, and if you do they're usually in shoes. Haikupoet 03:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I realize our nom was just being prudent rather than prudish when making this nom, but Ms. Kate has achieved a fair amount of visibility in her chosen profession as demonstrated by an alexa in the 3,700s [1] and crossover work in mainstream mags like Playboy. She is therefore a real up-and-comer who merits inclusion here. I would also indicate that the correct terminology is "internet model" as used in our article. Camwhore is far more derogatory, but perhaps more effective when trying to shock those of the prudish persuasion to slavishly hit the NN button on their keyboards. -- JJay 01:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm normally pretty against pornography sites getting articles, but I would personally have no quals with keeping this article at this time.
Alexa says ranking of 3765 and 89 inbound links. According to the article, she's appeared in one Playboy special mag.
Weak Keep, although I reserve the right to completely change this if this comes up at a later date. -- Saberwyn 02:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)- Abstaining at this point in time. -- Saberwyn 09:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep ZornArmand 03:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)zornarmand
- Keep. If I say "Kate has a hoof" every single one of you is going to know exactly who I'm talking about and why I say it. And I don't think she's a camwhore per se -- "amateur model" might be more appropriate. Haikupoet 03:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Very, very weak keep due to her Playboy appearance. Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 03:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Hyphen5 07:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JJay. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 14:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable enough in her field. Warpstar Rider 14:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notable because of her Playboy appearence. -- Ter e nc e Ong 14:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Of no value except as advertising. CalJW 16:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unencyclopedic, vanity. Playboy newstand special does not noteworty make and even if it does the website doesn't Dakota ~ ° 17:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete The website isn't notable (even though I'm sure it does get a lot of traffic) and she isn't notable by being in Playboy or possibly having a 'hoof'. kotepho 18:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete, sorta-appearance in a Playboy spinoff not quite notable. ProhibitOnions 20:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete just another porn site. Everythig there is to be known about this subject is already out there is vast and equally unverifiable detail. Just zis Guy you know? 22:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Jeez we keep far crappier articles than this.
Jcuk 22:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Bring them here, and we'll consider them on their merits, or lack thereof. -- Saberwyn 09:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mostly Rainy 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable for the genre. Wording of the nom is a bit too POV, in my opinion. Has survived previous AFD as well. 23skidoo 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: per MadCow. — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: Porn/Playboy models as well as porn websites are 13 to a dozen. Merely being one is not notable, and the article claims no more than that. Henning Makholm 03:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Might be interesting. -- Masssiveego 07:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Alexa ranking. Expand to include this bit of evidence of notability so article won't be vulnerable to "doesn't claim to be more than just another porn website" argument. Barno 20:48, 20 March 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. Flower party■ 02:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Vuela
Delete - article created by owner of label. A google search reveals few relevant results. Wickethewok 01:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Advert, non-notable. Bucketsofg 03:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete as nn advert. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Khoikhoi 03:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete in conjunction with Decibel (band). Feezo (Talk) 03:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable label --
TBC
???
???
??? 07:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete per nom -- Focoe 08:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 10:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- MaNeMeBasat 14:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 14:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity, non-notable, ad, etc. Ifnord 15:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 20:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep' Notable -- Masssiveego 08:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Ummm, Massiveego, rationale? Wickethewok 08:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect someplace Are any of their bands listed here? If more than one, keep and crosslink. If one, reidrect there. If none, redirect to List of electronic music record labels, which should contain a single link to their official site. JeffBurdges 16:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Flower party■ 02:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
American Idol controversy
Superfluous. Delete or Merge with
American Idol --
Zpb52 01:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am changing my initial suggestion. The information is relevant, but does it deserve its own article? I don't think so. -- Zpb52 03:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Looks like a perfectly legitimate fork of American Idol. Grandmasterka File:Blend Flag.jpg Impart wisdom 01:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Come on! it doesnt get any more relevant than this! ZornArmand 03:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)zornarmand
- Keep,notable controversy, large enough to deserve its own article--
TBC
???
???
??? 06:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Reasonable fork of a long AI article. However as it stands the article is POV and OR, cites few sources, and largely ignores notable controversies from prior years. Needs expansion, cleanup and NPOV. Thatcher131 06:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with American Idol per nom. Nobody is going to search for "American Idol controvery". This information properly belongs in the main article. Hyphen5 07:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Hyphen5. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 14:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, needs cleanup, citation of sources and remove POV text. -- Ter e nc e Ong 14:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as notable fork of what would otherwise be a mammoth AI article. However, article needs lots of work, especially sourcing. ProhibitOnions 20:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge after cleanup. Just zis Guy you know? 22:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep no merge. Definitely needs its own article just like Microsoft controversy or anything else halfway important. -- JJay 22:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Hyphen5 and trim. These are just footnotes in the grand scheme of American Idol things MLA 10:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Granted American Idol is hardly an important issue on a larger scale, but I'm all for anything that exposes and discusses how hateful "reality" television is, as allegedly American Idol is "reality" television. -- Andrew Parodi 12:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep With the show bound to last a decade, the controversy is yet to come. Hang onto it!-- DodgerOfZion 17:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Tom Filsinger
He created Legends of Wrestling Card Game, but is he notable enough? He only gets 592 Google hits. -- Khoikhoi 03:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep as he created two notable card games and wrote a few notable books --
TBC
???
???
??? 05:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep His games appear to be highly notable, which makes up for a lack of google hits. -- Vary | Talk 05:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep clearly an interesting fellow with notable achievements. Gratned, being interesting is not sufficient for inclusion, but bigoraphical info on the creator of something notable is of interest to any reader who is familiar with the creation...and to simply merge it into the article about the notable creation wouldn't really work in this case. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 13:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Sometimes notable behind-the-scenes creative talent lacks public recognition, despite clear notability; too many Wikipedia articles on animated projects, for example, go into ridiculous details on the fictional miniuniverses and ignore the animators altogether. Game designers should be recognized for similar notability. Monicasdude 14:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- Ter e nc e Ong 16:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep as above. ProhibitOnions 23:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable -- Masssiveego 08:08, 19 March 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. Mailer Diablo 04:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Dave Rudy
Non-notable character from a comic strip that the creator of the article admits is virtually unknown. A google search on "Dave Rudy" with Afterparty as search terms gets just 4 unique hits.
Francs
2000
03:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable and unlikely to become notable at this point. Daniel Case 04:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. From "a virtually unknown comic strip" by "an equally obscure animator" ( The Afterparty). GeorgeStepanek\ talk 04:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable comic strip -- TBC ??? ??? ??? 05:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Vary | Talk 05:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Brim 06:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn comic character. -- Ter e nc e Ong 16:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, self-admitted non-notable comic character. JIP | Talk 18:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 22:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The article says it all. ProhibitOnions 00:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Masssiveego 08:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep i am one of the only people who have probably ever read the comic strip. I enjoyed it's short lived run, unfortunately there aren't any websites on this comic strip.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.85.104.108 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 March 2006
- Delete per nom. ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 01:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I can tell you for a fact that Dave Rudy is not a comic character, but a real person, as I know him myself. This is a gag article about him, made by someone from my school. -- CrazyLegsKC 22:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I definately think it should be deleted. gregbee
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Harr o 5 07:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Diohny
Non-notable person - this content belongs on a userpage, not an article Fabricationary 04:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. See User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. Feezo (Talk) 04:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP. Here's the thing, he may not be a notable person now, but with the help of wikipedia he will be soon. Diohny 04:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Unfortunately, one cannot user WP to promote a person to notability status. Please wait until this person becomes notable outside of WP if you wish to repost this article. -- TML1988 05:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as vanity and nonsense. Daniel Case 05:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable and vanity -- TBC ??? ??? ??? 05:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete With your help we can keep crap like this out of wikipedia.
Mike (
T
C)
06:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: A7, no assertion of notability per WP:BIO in the article. -- Kinu t/ c 06:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 22:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Phone Losers of America
Vanity, non-notable. Previous vote IMHO was to delete. Delete Ardenn 04:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Delete nn. -- Deville ( Talk) 05:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable webpage, has an Alexa ranking of 78,069 -- TBC ??? ??? ??? 05:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete again as nn. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Staxringold 16:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 22:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Ranks top of an Alexa category. Might have Alexa ranking of 78,069 - how many other articles on Wikipedia have a website about them? Probably over 500,000, most with clearly lower Alexa rankings. This is well above some articles that are kept on Wikipedia. Andymc 23:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable -- Masssiveego 08:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep GNAA, et al. have pages. -- Tokachu 10:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - (Disclosure: I'm the Rob T Firefly mentioned in the article, and make no claim to neutrality in this matter.) - This article survived a deletion attempt exactly four weeks ago. If all five "delete" votes from last month somehow outrank the well-over five distinct keep votes by verifiable users, why was it not deleted as part of the normal deletion process instead of having a new AFD nomination? The administrator, Sjakkalle, concluded that AFD nomination by keeping it. I really doubt it's in the spirit of Wikipedia to completely ignore and discount the administrator's decision from no more than four weeks ago simply because you disagree with it. Rob T Firefly 05:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Didn't we go through this about a month ago? As far as I know, it survived. -- Murd0c516 14:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - same reasons as before. -- Myles Long 18:19, 20 March 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 all. Angr ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The Forgotten Onez
Delete - I don't see why they are notable. Also clearly vanity. Wickethewok 05:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Also nominating:
Wickethewok 05:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, a non-notable hiphop group that owns a non-notable media corporation --
TBC
???
???
??? 05:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as clearly nn. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete According to articles, they are working on their debut album. At such time as the album is released, the article can be remade. -- Xyzzyplugh 16:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - sure looks like vanity. If their album is somewhat successful, put them back. Till then they're NN. ProhibitOnions 01:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable -- Masssiveego 08:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - massiveego, why are they notable? Wickethewok 08:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Inserting nominations dumped on the top of the page here. --
Saberwyn 10:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE I did a story on The Forgotten Onez last year and I have been a die hard fan ever since. They were also part of a research paper I did on the impact of young black men in the music industry (I am a media management major). I didn't even know they had a wikipedia page until like five minutes ago when I was called and told that people wanted to delete it. I will just tell you now, they are really loved in and around Chicago and if you delete it someone will always start another one. You can't suppress knowledge and if people want to know about The Forgotten Onez, and they do, then they will always find a way! It is also worth noting that TBC has commented on a musical knowledge when his personal page says he doesnt even listen to music. So tell me, how is he qualified to even be in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandyGirl21 ( talk • contribs)
- Do not Delete I represent the said parties and they are prominent underground hip hop figures in the United States Midwest. At the young ages of 19 they have moved an impressive number of mixtapes and have done writing and production work on mainstream projects. The artists themselves did not create this entry and before you continue to paint them as unnotable I think it would be to your benefit to tell us all your qualifications to judge what is noteworthy and what isnt. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
The Forgotten Onez (
talk •
contribs)
- Comment to author of articles. See this article WP:MUSIC, it explains wikipedia's notability guidelines for music articles. It doesn't appear that The Forgotten Onez meets these guidelines (yet). -- Xyzzyplugh 01:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, I forgot what I was going to say... Anyway, I will vote keep if the group makes notability as per WP:MUSIC, which I am not sure they do. Roodog2k 15:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC at this time. Also without the album being released this artical is crystalballism. Nigelthefish 17:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. JIP | Talk 10:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Josh mcroberts
Not notable (enough) college basketball player. Article's previous prod was removed. At the very least needs to be moved to capitalize the last name properly. Gwernol 05:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete, borderline notability.After hearing the arguments below, I've decided to switch my vote to weak keep -- TBC
???
???
??? 06:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)- Strong keep. Multiple claims to notability, not the least of which is winning the McDonald's All-America Player of the Year award in 2005. He gets 102,000 hits on google. The article is kinda poor right now, but the notability is there. Grandmasterka File:Blend Flag.jpg Impart wisdom 06:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - but man, that's a poorly written article. needs a lot of work Nobunaga24 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep per Grandmasterka. And, what Nobunaga said. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep due to high-profile, recognized award. Monicasdude 14:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - notable enough (does need to be moved to Josh McRoberts, though. -- DMG413 19:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Cleanup - just notable enough, but that is one messy article. -- Arnzy ( Talk) 22:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, move to Josh McRoberts, and write it better. Looks notable enough. ProhibitOnions 01:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable -- Masssiveego 08:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable Nigelthefish 20:34, 20 March 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. JIP | Talk 10:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thomas Wilfred Mulryne OBE
DELETE. Vanity page.
- Delete - no assertion of notability. Also vanity. Wickethewok 06:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable person --
TBC
???
???
??? 06:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - will investigate later, but
OBE in the title is an assertion of notability. Only a few are awarded every year - a public service honour. The article is useless at the moment however.
Blnguyen |
Have your say!!! 11:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep did some googling, and I found this about Mulryne and the OBE:
[10]...his name is on there as an honoree. I'm going to say the guy is notable and needs an improved article/stub.
Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Here's a link more amenable to the verification process: [11] (a gov.uk link of new honorees) Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep did some googling, and I found this about Mulryne and the OBE:
[10]...his name is on there as an honoree. I'm going to say the guy is notable and needs an improved article/stub.
Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - will investigate later, but
OBE in the title is an assertion of notability. Only a few are awarded every year - a public service honour. The article is useless at the moment however.
Blnguyen |
Have your say!!! 11:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; an OBE is indeed a British honour, but we award about 500 a year so its not the best guide to notability. Also, I'm concerned that the page was started by Wilfredmulyrne and this is the only contribution by this user. Blatant vanity, I'm afraid. JGF Wilks 18:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Contentless vanity. Note the OBE in the title. ProhibitOnions 01:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep awarded is enough to be notable --
Masssiveego 08:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If the decision is to keep this then the 'OBE' part of the title should be removed. I assume it's part of the Style Manual somewhere that we do not include honours in the page title (except in redirects, such as Sir Harrison Birtwistle). JGF Wilks 15:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Retired headmaster gets an OBE at retirement as a tribute. As JGF Wilks commented, they give out a lot of these (it's not like a knighthood). If he were American he might get a nice resolution of commendation from Congress, and it would mean about as much, Fan1967 00:18, 20 March 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 redirect to Effeminacy. Angr ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Fauxmosexual
prodded and deprodded twice. reason was dicdef, already in wiktionary Thatcher131 06:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Wickethewok 06:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Slight merge with Effeminacy, as this article's text dovetails in many cases with the latter one. If not possible, blank and redirect.-- み使い Mitsukai 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Effeminacy. youngamerican ( talk) 06:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect and merge per above --
TBC
???
???
??? 06:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per others -- Khoikhoi 07:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to effeminacy. Capitalistroadster 09:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect w/ slight merge per Mitsukai. If we're just blanking and redirecting, something should be added into the Effeminacy article Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Word made up by two non notable linguists. Wikipedia shouldn't be for made up words by nn people. I could do that on my own. -- Pal5017 00:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge or redirect. Yes, the top Google hit is Urban Dictionary, but there are some more reliable uses aWebMD article, [www.cafepress.com/morphinenation.37639035 the inevitable T-shirt], comment on Gawker post that may be where it was coined, a reference at AskOxrod.com ... I think it's not a neologism. Daniel Case 05:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Metrosexual, as it is a similar term.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 22:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine DVDs
Wikipedia is
NOT a place to list a bunch of DVDs. Any alternatives, such as merging it into a
Star Trek episode guide will be kept in mind, otherwise I'll be voting Delete
-- Arnzy (
Talk) 06:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Untill I get the chance to review the content of the DVDs to see if its notable enough or not,
I'll abstain from voting, How the neutral authors or DS9 fans see it is their opinion -No Vote-- Arnzy ( Talk) 13:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)- Delete - as per Eivind. Perhaps merge the notable DVD extras into the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine article. -- Arnzy ( Talk) 22:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I second that Betacommand 06:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I'll change my vote if someone can allow me to review the content of the dvds to see if they are notable enough to be here =)
Mike (
T
C)
06:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - The huge Star Trek: Deep Space Nine page can't contain all the info on DVD releases that would be of interest to readers. A separate page is clearly needed, and the DVD releases of a popular show are notable. Besides, if you piss off the Trek people, they might go on strike; Wikipedia would collapse. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Detailed, verifiable, factual information that somebody might quite reasonably want to look up, and would bloat the "main" article. Monicasdude 14:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This doesn't actually add anything to a discussion of the DVDs or of ST:DS9. You may as well merge the DVD extras in to Deep Space Nine page if they are notable. The remainder of this page is a list of links to episode articles, something that already exists. (aeropagitica) 14:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unencyclopedic fandom. Brian G. Crawford 15:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete per Brian -- Oscar Arias 16:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete it's basicly the same as List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes, and Wikipedia isn't amazon.com. Eivind t @ c 20:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. How is it any different to The Simpsons DVDs or South Park DVDs? -- Rebelstrike2005 21:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not Amazon, and does not have to cater to obsessive fans of a TV series. I'd vote delete on the other DVDs as well. 81.96.151.236 22:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Eivind - also delete The Simpsons DVDs -- Khoikhoi 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Rebelstrike2005 Jcuk 23:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for the great reasons above such as Monicasdude. -- JJay 01:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with the main DS9 article or the episode article. See List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes for an example of how to roll DVD releases into an episode list. 23skidoo 02:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: It's DVDs, with Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes. Nothing remarkable. Borders on advertising. Peter Grey 04:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Reference -- Masssiveego 08:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per rebelstrike -- pm_shef 19:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Monicasdude. If we're going to get uppity about large articles then let's be accommodating about the inevitable overflows. Carlossuarez46 00:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Angr ( talk • contribs) 13:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Desert Combat Extended
I prodded this article as non-notable for being about a game mod that "appealed to a small niche of Desert Combat players". The anonymous user who challenged the PROD simply changed "small niche" to "large group". But I still find no convincing indications of notability, or sources. Anyone care to comment? No vote from me. Sandstein 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable game mod --
TBC
???
???
??? 06:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just because a whole ton of people didn't play it doesn't mean it's not a noteworthy addition. The original website went down because of internal conflict between the development team and the webspace sponsor as far as i know. DCX was awesome, it deserves to have its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.28.238 ( talk • contribs) 07:15, 18 March 2006
- keep-the original forums had well over 5000 registered users. however the forums were lost meaning that there is no record of this. 07:15, 18 March 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.89.55 ( talk • contribs) 07:32, 18 March 2006
Delete nn.-- Arnzy ( Talk) 08:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)- Redirect to Battlefield 1942 - Feezo had outlined the large amount of google hits, but not really sure if thats notable enough to have its own artcle. Perhaps some of the information from this article can be moved onto the main article of Battlefield 1942. -- Arnzy ( Talk) 08:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks notable enough — 56000 Google hits. Feezo (Talk) 08:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - or merge into Desert Combat. Either is fine. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge - Into Desert Combat-- Zxcvbnm 14:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - if you check the
Comparisons_of_Battlefield_1942_mods and then consider the fact that DCX was one of the very few mods with a good Single Player base (that therefore didn't get listed on online servers), you'll see that it's very worthy of having it's own page, there's many smaller mods that also have one. AI
212.238.155.158 19:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- - seems that the page I referred to was moved, it's now located here: [ [12]] AI 212.238.155.158 13:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge somewhat notable -- Masssiveego 08:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Mergewith Desert Combat MLA 10:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, or Merge with Desert Combat. Kraf 15:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, or at worse merge with signifigance into the main DC article. At last count, Fieplanet shows 64,635 downloads for DCX .9 [13]
- Keep, or at worse merge with signifigance into the main DC article. I belive that this article is a good article. those who know nothing of the games would ask for it to be removed and those who know nothing of mods would merge it with battlefield 1942. as i said earlyer Keep this article or Merge it with Desert Combat as a "Similar Mod" although thats simply not the case. At last count, Fieplanet shows 64,748 downloads for DCX .9 [14] MediaRocker 16:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge - with its own section into the main DC article.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 22:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Imad Latheef
Delete - does not seem to be notable. Google search returns 2 results. Wickethewok 06:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable journalist of a non-notable newspaper --
TBC
???
???
??? 06:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Google search returns 2 results, because he is from Maldives a small country, where most of the articles are published in local language so Google may not return with so many pages. And those 2 pages also says he is Foreign News Editor. imad@haveeru.com.mv - Haveeru is a notable newspaper and the most leading newspaper in the Maldives. deviathancy 06:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - NN. Delete as per nom. -- Oblivious 12:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Why not make a Haveeru article, and put this guy in it? If his only notability comes from his association with the paper, and the paper is notable in the Maldives, why not go that route? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- That would be a good idea. The news paper is notable in the Maldives. -- Oblivious 12:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per deviathancy. Monicasdude 14:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Keep in mind some countries still don't have much computer access. -- Masssiveego 08:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Foreign Editor of a national newspaper infers notability. Humansdorpie 20:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable editor of a national newspaper. Nigelthefish 19:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Foreign News Editor of a national news paper, and one of the famous and popular writer among locals. Ayersalisa 11:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Nigelthefish. Iyaaz 17:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep a notable and award wining journalist, and Foreign News editor of a national news paper, a commentator in National TV. Indhira 10:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Foreign Editor of a national news paper. Mohamed Afeef 10:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep An award wining and a notable Editor of a national news paper Kalhihaaru 17:14, 22 March 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. Mailer Diablo 22:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Xtrnl
This is a "a web series developed by 5Films to be released in late 2006 - early 2007". In other words, non-notable crystal-ballistic vanity. PROD contested by the author. Sandstein 06:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. NO (and I do mean NO) hits on Google whatsoever, so if not a crystal ball issue, possibly one of a hoax.-- み使い Mitsukai 06:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above, non-notable and possibly a hoax --
TBC
???
???
??? 06:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. My prod removed. Grandmasterka File:Blend Flag.jpg Impart wisdom 06:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious hoax. Feezo (Talk) 07:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- MaNeMeBasat 14:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Delete as original speedie tag adder. (Article was deleted under db-empty, but was expanded after being recreated). -- light darkness ( talk) 16:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 18:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Masssiveego 08:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Wh e re (talk) Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife 00:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:24, 20 March 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. Mailer Diablo 22:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Planet Battlefield
Gaming website of no apparent notability ( WP:WEB); Alexa rank 3,089,099. Sandstein 06:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable website, fails
WP:WEB --
TBC
???
???
??? 06:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - doesn't even need to be merged into GameSpy, really, except possibly as a sentence along the lines of "GameSpy maintains sites relating to a number of popular games, such as..." etc. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Planet * is already mentioned in the GameSpy article. If someone expands this though it is worth keeping. kotepho 19:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Masssiveego 08:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge, the GameSpy article mentions other Planet*'s but not this one. Wh e re (talk) Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete there is a Planet Somegame for every major game MLA 10:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to GameSpy or Battlefield, but just a small note of it. Kraf 15:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harr o 5 07:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Akhilesh Pillalamarri
Vanity bio of non-notable student ( WP:BIO); his "religion" is also up for deletion. PRODded twice, so to AfD it goes. Sandstein 06:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harr o 5 07:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Jeremiah Winans
Delete nn bio nonsense - author deleted speedy tag Wickethewok 06:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete Harr o 5 07:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Mike Andersen
Speedy delete - nn nonsense bio - listed here as speedy tag deleted. Wickethewok 06:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep party service; redirect all others thither. Angr ( talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Party Services
Delete - this article has been created in three different places. Not sure why (noobishness? advertising?). Maybe just keep one. Wickethewok 06:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC) The related articles are:
Wickethewok 06:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep at least one variation--this is a valid topic for an article. It's a (small) industry. Redirect the others to the kept version. Meelar (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. Remove the linkspam-- Meelar
- redirect It's linkspam. Redirect to Party.
- Comment - author keeps creating these articles. Maybe ban if this keeps up, will add articles as they are written... Wickethewok 07:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect and merge content to
Party --
TBC
???
???
??? 07:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all What's not advertisement is so awfully written that I wouldn't wish it on any article. Redirect to Party, though. Sandstein 07:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect all to Party. Feezo (Talk) 07:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or revise Too much of an advertisement. The Ungovernable Force 08:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - recommend IP-block for the creator of these articles. This user continues intentionally inserting their advertisements into other articles as well as creating these. Wickethewok 09:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and fix. Turn all but one ( Party services) into redirects. Per Meelar, this is a valid article topic, and not just part of Party. The Party article should link to the Party services article, which should be about that industry. So, keep Party services, remove the link, possibly give the creator some sort of ban or discipline, rewrite it a bit (stub-ize it), and redirect all the variants. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep one, and turn the rest to redirects, per Mr. Smith. I'm afraid this is going to be one big, fat spam magnet, but it seems like a valid topic. Kuru talk 15:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete them all. You can't polish turds. Brian G. Crawford 15:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have heavily edited the Party service article so that it is NPOV, reads decently well, is formatted correctly, contains accurate and working links, and is less confusing overall. If this survives AfD (and, given that it is now a legitimate article about an existing industry, it really should), we can turn "Party services" and so on into redirects to the new Party service article. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 15:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The accompanying image is still an ad, but since it doesn't carry a company name and the external link has been removed, it's basically neutralized. The spelling error makes it rather unencyclopedic, however. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 15:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- What about the party service industry, though? Shouldn't we have an article about it? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and Keep as appropriate per Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr.'s rewrite Jcuk 23:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I've requested a block on this user, as he/she continues to insert advertisements into articles, even after final warning Wickethewok 23:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Good idea. This is a bad-faith user who is repeatedly violating policy for (rather pathetic) personal gain. I hate that. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Somewhat useful -- Masssiveego 08:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate of party service. Vegaswikian 06:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep, nomination withdrawn. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Marc Davis (disambiguation)
Delete. Disambiguation page containing only a link to the main
Marc Davis article and two redlinks to Berkeley professors of dubious notability.
BryanG 07:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nomination Withdrawn as the articles have been created and appear to be somewhat notable after all. BryanG 02:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
...And created by a UC Berkeley student. Unless both the redlinks get keepable articles I say delete. Grandmasterka File:Blend Flag.jpg Impart wisdom 07:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above --
TBC
???
???
??? 07:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Deletepending real articles for other Marc Davises, per Grandmasterka Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep given stated intention of author to create those articles. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Somewhat notable people -- Masssiveego 08:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I created the article. Both the professors are quite notable in their fields and I had planned to start both articles sometime soon. I guess I should start them now. -- Joebeone ( Talk) 23:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. Since there's some disagreement on where to merge (Arny makes good points), I've slapped three different merge tags on the article page. You guys can work out a consensus on what to do privately. Johnleemk | Talk 15:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Cacofiend
An article about a move ("spell") in a video game. No hint of notability, unlikely to expand. Harr o 5 07:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into
Baldur's Gate 2 --
TBC
???
???
??? 07:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've created this article not primarily for the spell itself, but for the creature the spell calls, and which is named exactly the same, and inspired by the Cacodemon article. I can simply rearrange the sentences to reflect that if you wish, and Keep the article. BTW, I'm not sure if it should be merged with BG2 article, because there may be other games based on the D&D ruleset which may also use the same spell, but I am unaware of that. If the consensus would be to merge, I'd suggest to Merge it to Cacodemon or Fiend (Dungeons & Dragons) whichever seems more appropriate. There are other "fiends" described there, so this one could fit too. Instead of jumping to delete this article, the more constuctive thing would be to give some help with it, wouldn't it? (See also Talk:Cacofiend) I made this a stub because I wasn't sure where to put it. I sure was hoping someone would eventually put that info where it belongs if it doesn't deserve its own article, not erase it completely! Not very nice... -- Arny 07:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge -- Masssiveego 08:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per TBC Wh e re (talk) Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife 00:28, 20 March 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. Mailer Diablo 23:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Funkysexycool
Ad page for a minor hotornot.com clone site
- Delete as a non-notable web page, fails
WP:WEB --
TBC
???
???
??? 07:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Grandmasterka File:Blend Flag.jpg Impart wisdom 07:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as totally nn. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Advertisment. -- Arnzy ( Talk) 13:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, spam ad per nom. Kuru talk 15:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn, spam Bucketsofg 17:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I prefer Crazysexycool :p -- Khoikhoi 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Masssiveego 08:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - Duhhhhh Cyde Weys 01:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete advert, WP:WEB. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Spam Nigelthefish 17:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as hoaxes, creator now blocked, enough time wasted already. Just zis Guy you know? 13:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Clan Haruson, Haruson, Praedicatum, The Haruson Gazette, Duke of Britain
Delete user appears to have created a series of hoax pages. Google doesn't turn up anything to support the claims in the article or linked articles. Appears to be borderline nonsense unless someone can supply better evidence? User has removed previous prod on this page Gwernol 07:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
In response to the above adverse notice that was posted on the Clan Haruson page on the 18th of March 2006, the attention of those who would freely edit that page or consider deleting it is drawn to the matter that only the Earl Marshal has the "power to order, judge, and determine all matters touching arms, ensigns of nobility, honour, and chivalry; to make laws, ordinances, and statutes for the good government of the Officers of Arms; to nominate Officers to fill vacancies in the College of Arms; to punish and correct Officers of Arms for misbehaviour in the execution of their places".
As The Prince Haruson is forever sacred and inviolable in law, who makes his assertions under the device of his Coat of Arms (hence these matters 'touch arms') and has exercised his right of direct access to Her Majesty, those who would contest the right of the existence of Clan Haruson under both Scottish Law and English Law should first consult with the Court of the Lord Lyon, and the Royal College of Arms, before considering making adverse comments, or prejudicing The Prince Haruson by making the public suggestion that it could be a hoax
The Prince Haruson considers that anyone who makes adverse judgements against his sacred, heritable rights, without first getting verification of The Prince Haruson's identity and ancient rights, are prejudicial by their very act of acting against the Earl Marshall's own vested right to judge matters that 'touch' Arms of England, which in the jurisdiction of the United Kindom is criminal in its prospect, which in other jurisdiction prejudices native rights
Accordingly, The Prince Haruson holds the Directors and Management of Wikipedia accountable for any prejudice that would be forced against The Prince haruson, such as the deletion of this article prior to Wikipedia approaching The Earl Marshall and seeking the Earl Marshall's judgement.
Wikipedia staff should contact The Prince Haruson via haruson@haruson.com, or telephone him directly on +61424013804 prior to making any deletions.
Furthermore, that unless H.R.G. The Prince Haruson recieves an apology from user: Gwernol for making judgements of English Coats of Arms that in England come under the authority of The Earl Marshall, that The Prince will be applying for a Court Order to require that user: Gwernol's identity is surrendered so that The Prince can press criminal charges.
And Furthermore, that Wikipedia would have a policy that allows anyone to recommend for deletion matters that come under The Earl Marshall's authority (hence Wikipedia is not protracted a right to make judgements without first approaching the Earl Marshall's Office), then Wikipedia itself becomes publically liable for any offence that is commited against those who rightfully bear their arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haruson ( talk • contribs)
- Delete - I suggest blocking this user from Wikipedia if this continues or until his edits/article creations are cleaned up. He has created a series of hoax articles as well as made a mess of several others. I am in the process of listing all other pages this user has created for group deletion Wickethewok 08:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax, seems to be vanity too as the user who started the articles calls himself Haruson --
TBC
???
???
??? 08:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I am nominating the following articles in conjunction with this one:
I really have no idea what to make of them. Clearly vanity, but perplexing vanity. Also note, much of this user's vandalism to other articles must be undone as well. Wickethewok 08:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with deletion of all articles mentioned here - probably contravene "original research" policy as well as other reasons given. Much of the material would be impossible to substantiate. Possibly part of a personal vision, and not hoax in the usual sense. -- HJMG 09:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The Prince Haruson raised to Wikepedia staff the issue of being ethnicly abused by user Wickethewok.
The following is the email that he just sent to Wikipedia staff:
This document is presented under the device of the author's Coat of Arms and the assertion that the author is forever sacred and inviolable in law (binding the recipient over to the jurisdiction of The Earl Marshall in all matters that 'touch arms' under The Law of Arms) which device is available to be viewed at http://www.haruson.com/images/coa.jpg
From H.R.G. The Prince Haruson
To the Director, Directors, and Shareholders of Wikipedia,
I have today been subject to ethnic (racial) abuse by Wikipedia User Wickethewok, and shall be submitting my report to you next week, as time permits.
Please find below a copy of the email that I have just sent to user Wickethewok, who if not making an apology and withdrawing his claims, I shall be approaching Wikipedia in connection to the prospect of me laying criminal charges against the user.
May I in the first instance request your confirmation of receiving my prelimminary complaint against User Wickethewok, the nature of my complaint being that which is is expounded in the attached email that I sent to that user.
Sincerely,
H.R.G. The Prince Haruson
Body of Email sent to User Wickethewok----------------------------------------
I draw your attention to the matter that you have made assertions, both that my contributions are nonsense, and that they are an act of vandalism.
You shall observe on Wikipedia's entry for Earl Marshall that the prerogative to judge matters that 'touch' arms (of England) is vested with The Earl Marshall and not with you, and that by making judgements of matters that 'touch' (English) arms without first seeking the counsel of The Earl Marshall, that you prejudice both the Earl Marshall (in the matter that the right to judge matters that 'touch' English Arms is vested with he), and you prejudice me in the matter that I assert such (native) rights under the matter that the right to judge them is not vested with you but with the Earl Marshall.
If you take the time to read some of the documents at www.haruson.com you will notice that I am presently engaged in asserting criminal charges against the Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia, and that the case proceeds to Court next week, that my open strategy in those documents is to hold the Federal Magistrates Court to its obligation of approaching the Earl Marshall so that the Earl Marshall can indeed verify that I am as who I have asserted.
If your assertions are not immediately withdrawn and an aplogy made, you will understand that it is already my prerogative to assert that you have pierced the veil of my forever sacred and inviolable honour, which upon them not being withdrawn I shall be able to raise criminal charges against you that at the minimum, will prevent you from ever travelling freely in the British Commonwealth without criminal charges first being heard against you.
As you have both abused and violated my native ethnicity, I shall in any case be presenting my case to the Wikipedia abuse department.
Sincerely,
His Royal Grace The Prince Haruson
- Comment Please keep this page emptier. Please discuss on the talk page Computerjoe 's talk 09:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all as patent crankery and exhort The Prince Haruson to take his medication. I've added AfD tags to these pages and added them to the heading. Sandstein 09:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - just fyi, he really did send me that email... 0_o Wickethewok 10:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- He's also made nonsense or suspicious additions to various Britain-related articles; I think I have cleaned them all up. Some of the stuff may even have been true, but that will be for the editors of these articles to decide. Sandstein 10:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Burninate all, per above. Just zis Guy you know? 12:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 23:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Tubcat
This article could never be expanded upon beyond the tiny stub that it is. Completely un-noteworthy Matt 08:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep, seems to be a popular
Internet meme --
TBC
???
???
??? 08:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Just see the bluelinks in Internet meme. Feezo (Talk) 09:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Feezo. Article needs no improvement and documents existing mini-phenomenon. Notable in the way that contagious memes are. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable internet memes. -- badlydrawnjeff ( WP:MEME?) 14:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as not encyclopedic. Brian G. Crawford 15:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - I'm not sure there is more than you can say than it is a site about a very large cat. -- waffle iron 17:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, just a stupid joke picture on a few websites. No real notability. Though the expression on the cat's face is pretty funny. Andrew Levine 20:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Oversize felines category. -- Masssiveego 08:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep as a popular internet meme, per above. Roodog2k 15:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Within the realm of meme, notable. -- Zanimum 17:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Popular internet meme. Poor cat. Nigelthefish 18:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Well known meme. Is that frikkin' cat smiling or am I imagining it? Jtmichcock 03:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as copyvio from [15]. Harr o 5 00:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Elibrary
Contested PROD. Blatant spam. Site itself is non-notable per WP:WEB. Can't see a way to speedy this, but do so if possible. Delete. -- Kinu t/ c 08:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable website and advertisement --
TBC
???
???
??? 08:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per TBC. Alexa ranking 146,000+. Feezo (Talk) 08:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn website. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ad for crummy site Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, bad ad per nom. Will need to clean up all the other pages he's linked to this one assuming delete consensus is reached. Kuru talk 15:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn website, spam. -- Ter e nc e Ong 16:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable -- Masssiveego 08:31, 19 March 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. If/when they become notable, then we include them. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Engineers_with_a_Mission
Delete This is a charity/group of missionaries at Baylor university. All google references to them are on the baylor.edu website. Non-notable, perhaps could be merged with Baylor_University. Xyzzyplugh 08:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable organization --
TBC
???
???
??? 08:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Invoking
WP:IAR here to protect a verifiable charitable organization. The article should be improved to de-POV it a bit, and to make the connection to Baylor clear. I'm willing to do that.
Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 11:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- This really is a tiny group of people, I think, based on their website.
http://www3.baylor.edu/EngineerswithaMission/index.htm It appears that they have sent a few teams of students off to help build water pumps or install lighting in christian schools in Kenya and New Guinea, in conjunction with Baylor(a baptist university)'s charitable/missionary work. The question is whether EVERY charitable group/group of missionaries in the world should qualify for a wikipedia article. There must be a million of them, if you include every muslim, buddhist, etc group. As Baylor does lots of missionary work, trains missionaries (see
http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/5_12/pages/nurse.html), perhaps the content of this article could be retained as part of some sort of overall Baylor Missionary Work article. --
Xyzzyplugh 13:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I guess we could just merge; it's reasonable if they really are that tiny Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- This really is a tiny group of people, I think, based on their website.
http://www3.baylor.edu/EngineerswithaMission/index.htm It appears that they have sent a few teams of students off to help build water pumps or install lighting in christian schools in Kenya and New Guinea, in conjunction with Baylor(a baptist university)'s charitable/missionary work. The question is whether EVERY charitable group/group of missionaries in the world should qualify for a wikipedia article. There must be a million of them, if you include every muslim, buddhist, etc group. As Baylor does lots of missionary work, trains missionaries (see
http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/5_12/pages/nurse.html), perhaps the content of this article could be retained as part of some sort of overall Baylor Missionary Work article. --
Xyzzyplugh 13:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. -- Ter e nc e Ong 16:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn -- Khoikhoi 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep The group is apparently interested in starting new chapters at other college campuses next year, it may become more notable by then. -- Schzmo 22:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. If they become notable, the article can easily be restarted. Henning Makholm 04:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge -- Masssiveego 08:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep as per Bobby Smith.
- Keep, it's a notable organization. It is not tied toa a specific university so it can't be merged.
Wh
e
re
(talk)
Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife 00:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Question: what makes them notable? -- Xyzzyplugh 15:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, just another student organization. We shouldn't be biased toward them just because they do charity work. Friday (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 22:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
WarCry (website)
I don't feel this establishes notability. Seems like just another fan website. Talrias ( t | e | c) 15:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and improve. This site has an alexa ranking of about 11,000. That's plenty notable. It just needs to be cleaned up. -- BWD ( talk) 19:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep Warcry is highly notable, on the same level as Allakhazam or Stratics: it covers multiple games, highly notable alexa ranking etc.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC) - Keep per BWD. It is quite notable and an important source of information for many MMO gamers. - Dawson 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as above. This is a far cry (sorry) from a "fan" website. — Wrathchild ( talk) 04:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable -- Masssiveego 08:43, 19 March 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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/talk:Meade Skelton
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy keep -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Blue Screen of Death
Non-notable. We have not a article about Microsoft Windows start-menu or control panel - so why should Wikipedia have a article about blue screen of death? This is a obvious attack page. A alternative is merging into Microsoft Windows, but i propose deletion. —This unsigned comment was added by 1() ( talk • contribs) .
- Strong keep - the "blue screen of death" is legendary and a well-known computing term. Unlike the Start menu or control panel, it is not an "official" part of Windows, and is thus more difficult to insert into the main article. Possibly we could NPOV it by inserting something about similar problems in other OS's, but I dunno if that's neccessary. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment is that the right capitalization for the article name? No idea. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Microsoft Windows. -- Off! 16:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge that. Fdp 16:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Just wandered on to here - why would an encyclopaedia not have an article about the way Windows computers crash? Windows computers crashing have a great impact on the economy. The Golux 16:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable characteristic of Windows, and explains the difference between the various blue screenas. It's been specifically mocked/referenced in many places. The article could possibly be trimmed a bit, but there's probably too much useful information here for a straight merge into Microsoft Windows. — TKD:: Talk 16:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Relevent information about the Winodws OS. Could be renamed to remove the possible attack on Windows, however the current name needs to be mentioned somewhere. -- Scohoust 16:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The BSOD is well-established in computing circles, and certainly not an unimportant, esoteric phenomenon. Besides, the article is "ecumenical" enough to list similar error screens for other operating systems. -- Tachikoma 16:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Didn't see that. Excellent. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't know about everyone else, but there are lots of occasions when I come to wikipedia for a quick explanation of some phrase or allusion that I've never heard before and don't quite understand. I can see a 'blue screen of death' article being useful to users. And that is the ultimate justification. Bucketsofg 16:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - The Blue Screen of Death is certainly in the social consciousness. Certainly as notable as the related concept of Control-Alt-Delete. -- waffle iron 17:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - All of the above. Should probably be named Blue screen of death, though. -- Egil 17:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Common enough expression whose meaning is not self-evident and shouldn't be reduced to a dicdef. Monicasdude 18:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- strong keep. the lack of an article on the specified topics can hardly be used as a basis for the deletion of an article good enough to be a FAC. Firestorm 18:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This phenomenon is so famous it has created its own verb - "to bluescreen". Calling this an "attack article" is ridiculous and makes the nominator sound like he's working for Microsoft. JIP | Talk 18:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Per just about everyone. Even the media mentions it by this name [22]. kotepho 19:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep article, strong keep separate; everyone knows about this, and by name at that. Regarding merge into parent, Microsoft Windows is *far* too large a subject area to include every notable fact (of this level of importance) in a single article. If it's an attack point, revert the attacks. I keep reverting the addition of "Digital Restrictions Management" to the "Digital Rights Management" entry in DRM, but that doesn't mean the entry itself is invalid. Same here. Fourohfour 19:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, important and well-known. Punkmorten 19:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This screen is famous in its own right, and has a very good article. Tinyboy21 20:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep got two of them
bastardstoday. Eivind t @ c 21:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC) - Strong keep for all reasons mentioned above. This has been a part of computer culture for ages. This article has been around long enough for two FA nominations. Nominator should also be cautioned about making frivolous nominations. Daniel Case 21:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per the dogpile. Warrens 22:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep I had one today. Keep.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep although since I have a Mac I don't have to worry about this kind of stuff. :p -- Khoikhoi 22:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep, as it's clearly an important meme in society, far more well-known than, say, YTMND or " All your base are belong to us". wikipediatrix 01:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep, nothing more to say here. Dan, the CowMan 01:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY REDIRECT. Henning Makholm 07:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Schadenfreuden
This topic already exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneill ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 March 2006
- Which is why I redirected it as a common variant spelling of the existing article. I don't understand why you decided to remove the redirect, place an afd template on it, and create this page. --
Francs
2000
18:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as a redirect to Schadenfreude; this is obviously an erroneous AfD. The article was a stub-fork of Schadenfreude until it was properly redirected thence; then it was inexplicably slapped with an AfD by the creator of the stub-fork. Sandstein 18:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Possible misspelling and this isn't RFD anyways. kotepho 19:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect as per Sandstein
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as redirect. Take a look at the close race in the page history: Moneil had blanked the page before Francs2000 redirected it, so under WP:AGF it would appear that she was researching how to properly request deletion of her misspelled article at that time, and then the redirect got lost when she added the {{subst:afd1}}. She is a new user, may not have seen the redirect syntax before and assumed it was vandalism. Henning Makholm 05:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep and redirect per Francs2000. There is no problem here, or wasn't until it was listed for deletion. -- Hyphen5 06:48, 19 March 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 all. Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
British Wrestling Alliance
Non-notable. 212 Google hits, first is Wikipedia, many are mirrors. Then appears their own website and myspace.com. Ifnord 19:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am also nominating the following related pages because they are two liners about persons non-notable, only being involved with the wrestling club above:
- Note: This is the proper way to bundle articles together under an AfD. It saves time rather than voting on them all piece by piece. Ifnord 19:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete Note: speedy deletes on some were removed by admins.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Henning Makholm 05:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete wrestler profiles... though i would like to see the British Wrestling Alliance article expanded instead of removed (note: i added the speedy deletes on these articles) --- Paulley 13:55, 19 March 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. Shanel 04:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
76777
Limited value, anyone could guess that it comes before 76778 and after 76776. Unnecessary. haz ( user talk) e 19:24, 18 March 2006
- Delete, beyond possible usefulness. — Mar. 18, '06 [19:24] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
- Delete - doesn't say anything and opens the way to literally millions of pointless articles. - Runcorn 20:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Kindly Obliterate Before it makes me so mad that I do something that'll land me back in prison. -- D- Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 20:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Let's not open up the floodgates unto ∞ . -- Fuhghettaboutit 20:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete no need.
⇒ I placed this u
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per Swatjester -- Khoikhoi 22:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete — clearly new user experimenting; was never meant to be useful. Lambiam Talk 02:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as above. Cool3 02:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. -- Hyphen5 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. un-encyclopaedic.-- Blue520 07:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, per nom. +
Hexagon1 (
talk)
08:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC) - Speedy delete as above. If this a joke, it's missing the punchline. ProhibitOnions 10:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Apparently, there's nothing of extraordinarie about 76777. It's just a number. Unless someone points a reason, the article should be deleted, otherwise we will reach 2,000,000,000 articles in one week. Afonso Silva 14:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete linas 21:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per above. Optionally, first move it to 76777 (number) and then delete. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. JIP | Talk 10:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Ron Magers
Moving from speedy-delete here to AfD. As (apparently) a prominant newsreader in a major city, no way is this guy a speedy. Does he meet WP:BIO as a "Widely recognized entertainment personality"? He's a pretty face who reads the news, I suppose. I dunno, he's probably on the bubble. I'm sending this to AfD out of respect for the original speedier, but I'm not gonna vote. Herostratus 20:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral as nominator. Herostratus 20:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As speedier. Article was one of a group of about 10-12 completely non-notable tv anchors. Original articles didn't make any effort to explain who they were, what station (and location) they were from, or why they were in any way significant to the project. The entries were all 1-2 sentences, with one that topped out at about 4. Get rid of it, when they ahve something useful to add they can come back and re-write it
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 20:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Point taken, but still, articles shouldn't be speedy deleted if they assert a notability that is reasonably believable, see WP:CSD. Speedy delete of bio articles is for "Joe Smith is the coolest kid at XYZ High" or "Joe Smith is King of the Universe" or whatever. Herostratus
- Keep stubhood(?) is not a reason to delete, tv personality from major tv market. good google count [24]. Eivind t @ c 21:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep We keep much less well known people. Osomec 22:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep he's on a major network in the #3 Nielsen market. I think he's notable. Roodog2k 14:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep He's the main anchor on the ABC station in Chicago. That's probably worth more than channel 57 in Wichita Falls. Sounds reasonably notable. Fan1967 00:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The Yanis Theory of Influence
Delete. There is no such thing as the Yanis theory of influence and the author of the article is probably himself Eric Yanis. Mostafa Hussein 20:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. 0 Google hits. Wikipedia is not for philisophical musing made up in school one day. -- Fuhghettaboutit 20:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
(merged from the other entry on this) Sorry Mostafa, I accidentaly voted on this before you finished creating the AFD, and it made two sectons. Merging that one into here.
Delete Non-notable, hoax (comes up with 0 google hits related to the subject).
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 19:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. — Mar. 18, '06 [20:00] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
- Delete this -- Khoikhoi 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- BJAODN. I don't want to insult the author, who seems to be a productive member of the community, but have you seen the graph at the bottom? Melchoir 04:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- BJAODN. Melchoir, you nailed it. I saw the graph and thought Time cube. Roodog2k 14:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as original research. linas 21:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete OR ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as OR, even if it were not nonsense. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:33, 21 March 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. Shanel 04:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
List of religions that accept homosexuality
Prod removed by author. This article appears to have no prospects but remaining a short and subjective list, and a breeding ground for controversy. I can't see any encyclopedic function it could ever serve.-- Fuhghettaboutit 20:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as it stands. Any recreation would need a tight definition: are we talking about religions (Islam Christianity etc) denominations or individual congregations? And what does 'accept' mean: official proouncement? Hopeless as it stands. -- Doc ask? 20:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; as Doc suggests, "accept" is too vague to make a simple list meaningful. This list's title and content are better covered by full articles on Religion and sexual orientation and by List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality. Nothing to merge and no point to redirect. Melchoir 21:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete doubtful this ever will be NPOV, and the article name is wrong since it lists sects rather than religions. Eivind t @ c 21:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom + the title is pov. Osomec 22:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete too strongly pov
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Khoikhoi 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. People within sects don't agree on this, let alone religions. Grandmasterka File:Blend Flag.jpg Impart wisdom 03:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: First, it lists sects, not religions. Second, you can't establish notability of "religions that accept homosexualitiy" without violating NPOV. Peter Grey 04:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Hyphen5 06:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:30, 20 March 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. Mailer Diablo 22:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
List of alternative hip hop musicians
This was on prod, but it seems to me to be controversial. User:Urthogie's prod said: "An alternative hip hop musician cannot be defined. Who is alternative? Mainstream rappers often have a live band. Mainstream rappers have talked about politics and personal issues. It's impossible to define alternative." But we have an article on alternative hip hop and a Category:Hip hop musicians. And the article has a decently long history with various contributors and some incoming links. No vote from me as yet. NickelShoe ( Talk) 20:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The article on Alternative hip hop is completely inaccurate in its current state(hence the {{ totallydisputed}}). An accurate article would admit that it can't be defined. I defy anyone to give a concrete rule so as to tell if someone is an alternative hip hop musician-- Urthogie 22:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete If you can't define it, then you can't list it.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ill-defined scope for list MLA 10:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 01:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. (aeropagitica) 23:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Leo Humphries
Hello? What? Absolutely useless nn-bio of a newgrounds Flash animator. Awesome! - Hahnchen 21:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. -- DMG413 21:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. If it is really felt that this article must be merged, AfD is not the place for it. We have this thing called a talk page, you know... Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Rush in popular culture
A list of references to the band Rush in sundry movies and TV shows, often limited to single appearances of a Rush t-shirt or something. I'm a big Rush fan myself, but despite Wikipedia's systematic bias towards Rush fandom, I think we can all agree this is pure fancruft. — Phil Welch ( t) ( c) 21:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge back into Rush. This is a well-meaning spinoff in support of its current FA nomination. However, I think it's too short to merit a separate article. Daniel Case 21:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Definitely do not agree with nom. This was just spun-out of main article because of length. The material is vital because it demonstrates this band's impact on popular culture. It shows that Rush was more than some hack band that had a few moments of glory back in the 70s. --
JJay 21:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please explain how it's "vital" to have a list of times a Rush t-shirt appears on TV. —
Phil Welch (
t) (
c) 23:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The material is vital because it demonstrates this band's impact on popular culture. It shows that Rush was more than some hack band that had a few moments of glory back in the 70s. Seems pretty clear to me and I think if Rush has had even more of an impact the info should be added to the article --
JJay 01:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think Rush (band) makes it perfectly clear that Rush was more than some hack band that had a few moments of glory back in the 70's. And I quote: "Rush's three decades of continued success under their current lineup of Lee, Lifeson, and Peart has earned the band the respect of their musical peers, and their supporters are often cited as one of the most intensely loyal fanbases in the history of rock. Rush have also had a profound musical influence on such artists as Dream Theater, Symphony X, Shadow Gallery, Primus, Metallica, Smashing Pumpkins, and fellow Canadian rockers The Barenaked Ladies.", ""Rush has been awarded the Juno Award[1] several times and were inducted into the Canadian Music Hall of Fame in 1994[2] (For a complete awards list see the "see also" section below). Additionally, Lee, Lifeson, and Peart are all Officers of the Order of Canada.", "As a whole, the band boasts 23 gold records and 14 platinum (3 multi-platinum) records making them one of the best selling rock artists in history." In contrast, "Rush in popular culture" includes such enlightening information as: "A Nightmare on Elm Street, Nov. 1984. In the bedroom of one of the teenage characters (played by Johnny Depp), a Grace Under Pressure album cover poster can be seen on the wall above his bed." If you consider *that* vital information about Rush, I don't know what I can say. — Phil Welch ( t) ( c) 02:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- The material is vital because it demonstrates this band's impact on popular culture. It shows that Rush was more than some hack band that had a few moments of glory back in the 70s. Seems pretty clear to me and I think if Rush has had even more of an impact the info should be added to the article --
JJay 01:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please explain how it's "vital" to have a list of times a Rush t-shirt appears on TV. —
Phil Welch (
t) (
c) 23:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly, this article gives cold, hard facts about what TV shows and movies have used their music. Secondly, much of what you quote is unsourced such as the lines regarding their influence. I don't see why the info is not complementary. If they truly had the reach you claim, this article can probably be greatly expanded.-- JJay 02:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's unencyclopedic fandom. Brian G. Crawford 21:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Smerge trivia never deserves an article for itself, because by definition it's nn. Eivind t @ c 21:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge Not quite good enough on its own, but not bad enough to be deleted
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, this is trivia, not an article. Whatever content here is useful can certainly be included in Rush (band). Friday (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Rush (band). The group is notable but hardly pervasive enough in popular culture to warrant an entire article on pop culture references to it. 23skidoo 02:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- merge as per above. Roodog2k 14:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- 'merge back into Rush (band). 66.57.87.50 17:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per the above MLA 10:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge back and keep only 4 or 5 bits. — Deckill e r 00:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I think this is a valid subarticle, containing useful information, and there is no need to clutter the main article with this type of list. Skeezix1000 13:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Valid (and useful) sub-article of Rush (band). -- maclean25 01:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge back to Rush (band) and omit insignificant bits Wisdom89 15:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, else merge. Samaritan 01:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge, merge, merge! Let's preserve this encyclopedia's credibility by not letting it become bloated with unnecessary articles that would be laughed at if they showed up in a print encyclopedia! Proving that a person or group or whatever is relevant to popular culture does not require an exhaustive list of every time they show up - some noteworthy examples that prove the point are sufficient.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 04:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Order of the Boy who Kissed the Sun
No Google hits. Website linked to is under construction; this secret society is apparently so successful at being secret it isn't even verfiable, much less notable. Daniel Case 21:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as hoaxy. No Guru 21:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The Order of the Boy who Kissed the Sun is a young secret society in Slovakia, some members live in Czechia (Chzech Republic) maybe. Do not delete this page. The Order is really secret. This community do not present the Order and Tarsus, their teaching. I think that this little information about the Order is very important and verification... only time please!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.103.194 ( talk • contribs)
- It is up to you, then, if you want to see this article kept, to offer not only verification but verification that this organization is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. You have the requisite week here, but given that the page the article links to is "under construction," I'm not optimistic that we will see this proof. Daniel Case 21:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I am a student of religionistics only and also new in the Wikipedia. I will try more relevant information about the Order of the Boy who Kissed the Sun and about its Conception called Tarsus. And I study terms for writing articles to the Wikipedia more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.103.194 ( talk • contribs)
- Please do not remove the unsigned tags. It is not a demonstration of good faith. Remember to sign your posts. Daniel Case 05:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete Shh...I acn't tell you why, it's a secret.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, looks like hoax unless details can be "de-classified" and some notability established. Otherwise, please feel free to re-add the data when it can be shared. Kuru talk 05:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Right out of Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas. Henning Makholm 05:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I would say BJAODN if it were funny. Smacks of a hoax. Roodog2k 14:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - If it is secret, how can we verify it? And everyone can have a secret organization. Afonso Silva 14:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The Order is a local secret organization. Please do not joke about it. Freemansonry is also secret organization and we kknow about it, also another religious societies. What degree you have that you speak about it? Oh, absolutely dilletantism!!!!!!!— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
158.195.103.194 (
talk •
contribs)
- delete As a hoax....or just a really good seceret. Nigelthefish 15:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus; editorial decision taken to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Ommelebommelestien
I intended to put the cleanup-tag on this, but it is more or less nonsense. Not notable and googlesearch returns nothing Franglais or Spanglish, in the least. I also hope it goes to BJAODN; unlike most of this stuff, it's actually funny, although nonencylo'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4836.03 ( talk • contribs)
- Comment Believe it or not there seems to be a real stone [25] and [26], and a real legend [27]. Is it notable? who knows, maybe the Dutch... Eivind t @ c 22:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete Delete. Or better yet, add into dutch wikipedia?
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. First Google hit: Met informatie over de kennel en de labrador retriever. Feezo (Talk) 22:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge in condensed form into Urk#Folktales This is not nonsense, but neither is it notable enough to merit a separate article. Lambiam Talk 02:23, 19 March 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. Shanel 04:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Jordans Law
Nothing on Google for this aphorism, which sounds awfully similar to Godwin's Law in any event. Article is unlikely to grow beyond its present size anyway. Daniel Case 21:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per non-existant. Any sort of respected law is published in many journals, and this one doesn't even show on google. -- Ton y St 22:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete godwins law wannabe
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax. Feezo (Talk) 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete attempted protologism. Bobby1011 00:34, 19 March 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; where could we possibly transwiki this?. Johnleemk | Talk 15:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I love you in various languages
The latest completion of the popular phrase " Wikipedia is not ..." ... a phrasebook. Just because some variant of this has been floating around the Internet for years does not make this encylopedic. Daniel Case 21:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. Delete
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Feezo (Talk) 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Bobby1011 00:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: would Wikisource, Wiktionary, or Wikiquote be a better home for this material? Smerdis of Tlön 06:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki is has to be appropriate somewhere... it is interesting, would be sad to see it go. Roodog2k 14:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki to wherever this material is appropriate, and create a soft redirect leading there. BD2412 T 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. In High School, I remember one kid who translated "kiss my ass" into 11 different languages. I'd rather not see that listed here. Jtmichcock 03:37, 23 March 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. Shanel 04:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Ainsley Brooks
This has been speedied four times as utterly unverifiable. No IMDB entry for him or the alleged upcoming films, no evidence to support the sundry speculations. Complete bollocks, frankly. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Re-creating a speedied article is also vandalism. -- Ton y St 22:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this. Rob Church 22:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Craziness. -- Fuzzie ( talk) 22:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- DONT DELETE This person is a real person and has been in these TV titles, please do not delete this article, as there is not enough data yet.. User:Becky-RE-fan 22:34, 18 March 2006
- Dont Delete - i just found some stuff of him on www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders about him as an extra.
emtry2004 22:39— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.28.16 ( talk • contribs) 22:32, March 18, 2006 (same IP as the above entry signed by article creator and reincarnator Becky-REfan) Just zis Guy you know? 22:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete per jzg
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Do delete per above - and you can't vote twice -- Khoikhoi 22:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Joe 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC) (I also removed a second vote by User:Becky-RE-fan, inamsuch as the vote didn't add anything to the discussion; it simply restated the position already expressed above).
- Delete per my reasons at talk:Ainsley Brooks. -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 22:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:V unless sources can be added to the article. — orion eight ( talk) 23:22, 18 March 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. Shanel 04:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Economisation
Apparently original research, nothing like the usual definition. User has some history of promoting protologisms. Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as original research. Feezo (Talk) 22:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as original research. It actually says This concept is theoretical at best. Plus it's POV since economic issues are the traditional political/military considerations. Peter Grey 04:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete what is at best a protoogism but is more likely to be nonsense MLA 11:02, 20 March 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
68k Macintosh Liberation Army
Non-notable webforum. Non-encyclopediodic.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Against Deletion (Vote #1 - Do Not Delete)
- I recommend not deleting this entry. I googled for sites pertaining to old macintosh hardware and software and this is about the only site that is updated regularly and has an active community. Just because a site doesn't have x amount of users doesn't mean it isn't noteworthy. Notability is a highly subjective term. Also, there is a similar entry for a group calling themselves Fairlight which has been up for about a year now and no one has deleted it. The Lightning Stalker 07:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Do not delete
Caso 24:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, first "per nom" means based on the reasoning of the nominator, which was for deletion. Second of all, these edits were made by 162.40.139.40 (if I am reading the history correctly). So what exactly is going on here? JoshuaZ 06:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. For those who are voting to Delete, please note: Google has 46,100 results for '68k Macintosh Liberation Army'. It is certainly notable and worthy. — Wackymacs 09:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Do not delete, allow for modifications to structure first. /
IMac600 03:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You can modify the structure all you want, it's the content that's non-notable, and for the foreseeable future will not be.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 04:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You can modify the structure all you want, it's the content that's non-notable, and for the foreseeable future will not be.
⇒
SWATJester
- Honestly, i've seen worse articles here. You documented Uncyclopedia, doesn't that say something? And, before you give us the Google chat, that organisation has more base system than this place does, so if it's not valid then this place 'aint either. I know I placed my Wikipedia membership at risk here, but if it's to uphold the dignity of the 68kMLA then I would put my entire career on the line.
Another thing to note is that a standard click of your provided link (to Google) turned up many links, all of them are different, each from one of the 30 system servers, past and present, of the 68k Macintosh Liberation Army.
Oh, but my response, don't take it personally, as stated by your rules. / IMac600 13:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
For Deletion (Vote #1 - Delete Per Nom)
- delete per nom Bucketsofg 23:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
Cool3 02:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete There isn't an issue of not liking it. Wikipedia has guidelines about Notability and websites which this article does not fit.
- Comment above is incorrect Actually, it only has two pages worth. See "
[28]", which only shows 2 pages, and the rest "results omitted". And the majority of those two pages are forum posts. In fact there are only 20 links to it on google, the remaining slew of them are links to individual posts on the forums. Nice try though.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 09:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment above is incorrect Actually, it only has two pages worth. See "
[28]", which only shows 2 pages, and the rest "results omitted". And the majority of those two pages are forum posts. In fact there are only 20 links to it on google, the remaining slew of them are links to individual posts on the forums. Nice try though.
⇒
SWATJester
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Inappropriate use of abbreviation MLA
MLA 11:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- MLA has been the abbreviation for Macintosh Liberation Army for many years now, well over 6-7 years. Generally the base of your argument would require the 68k Macintosh Liberation Army forums would also modify its system, and i've said it plenty of times, it 'aint gonna' happen. iMac600
- Delete Notability and usefulness aren't the same. I voted to delete a page that I had in my bookmarks. Useful for me; but non-notable in general. -- Mmx1 22:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 04:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The Afterparty
"A virtually unknown comic strip" by "an equally obscure animator" says not notable to me. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\ talk 22:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per author's assertion of non-notability.-- Fuhghettaboutit 23:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete if it says it's NN, it's NN. ProhibitOnions 00:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. NickelShoe ( Talk) 02:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Why do they even bother making this sort of thing? JoshuaZ 15:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep you just have to be from the small town of schober to truelly understand the significance of this company and what it means to our community. —This
unsigned comment was added by
68.85.104.108 (
talk •
contribs) .
- Since this isn't a company, I don't understand that comment. NickelShoe ( Talk) 00:18, 22 March 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. Flower party■ 05:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Luca DiCorso
non notable.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. John Holmes is notable. This guy is a working stiff. -- Fuhghettaboutit 23:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete! Worst article I have ever seen on wikipedia. This isn't even homophobia talking. It's biased, has poor spelling, and was obviously written by a fan. Usually I try to clean up grammatical mistakes and lack of neutrality, but this is so ugly I'm not even foing to bother. -- Pal5017 00:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, I couldn't handle the temptation. I just could not let this article embarass us wikipedians anymore. -- Pal5017 00:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, lacks even assertion of notability. Henning Makholm 06:07, 19 March 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. Shanel 03:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Lombby
non-notable. What is special about this artist?
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone can provide evidence of a major international exhibition of their work taking place. Google has nothing to show they even exist. Average Earthman 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Average Earthman. (Google search.)
- Delete per above.-- Fuhghettaboutit 23:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or possibly speedy delete since there is no real information in the article. No full real name is given.
No nationality. No dob. No place of birth. No era, style or list of artworks. It doesn't even say what branch or art he creates (sculptures, painting, etc.). Bobby1011 03:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. Shanel 06:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Oprah Effect
nn unsourced neologism. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 22:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm sure Oprah has many effects and effects, but this isn't a dictionary. Brian G. Crawford 23:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.-- Fuhghettaboutit 23:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete neologism. Bobby1011 00:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Tons of sources for this and well-known phenomenon since she started her book club. [29]. -- JJay 01:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Oprah's Book Club. I think if it caused notable, verifiable economic impacts, it might have a place in Wikipedia, otherwise doesn't belong in its own article. Peter Grey 04:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Oprah's Book Club. Even if effect may not exist, the claims of it are widespread. Not neologism; has been out there for years. Google for "oprah effect" bestseller will produce many sources. Henning Makholm 06:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Oprah's Book Club. As per Peter and Henning. Jfing ers 88 23:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge Per above. Nigelthefish 15:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per above.
Roy
boy
crash
fan
22:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC) - Merge per above. I've personally read this many times before in major publications; it isn't an unnotable neologism. Crystallina 03:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge for the reasons listed above. CloudNine 10:30, 25 March 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. Mailer Diablo 01:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Brazilian bikini
Delete or merge into bikini with heavy rewrite. Currently pretty nn advertising, IMO. Definetly not worded encyclopedically. Google test gets a lot of hits, but I don't think it's anywhere near notable or different enough to warrant a seperate article. The merge suggestion was reverted by the article's sole writer without discussion. Staxringold 15:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- After reading the article, I still don't know the difference between a Brazilian bikini and a regular bikini. I did notice, though, that the girl in the picture is showing some ribs, and I think she needs a sammich. Delete unless the article can be rewritten to explain what makes Brazilian bikinis unique. -- E lkman - (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, advertisement. Pavel Vozenilek 17:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. is currently complete spam from a bikini merchant. Could be possible to clean up the article, but I'm still not sure that the difference between the subject and a normal bikini is all that great. Probably worth keeping as a redirect, and insertion of a paragraph's material into the bikini article. Kuru talk 17:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, blatant advertisement. JIP | Talk 18:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete this advertising. Possibly redirect, though unlikely search term. ProhibitOnions 20:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 20:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete spam, then create a redirect. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I marked this up as merge with Bikini but as the author of the article doesn't appear to want to do such a thing and there is not enough notable material about the subject to justify a separate article of its own, delete is the order of the day. (aeropagitica) 23:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Elkman -- Pal5017 00:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. What is there to merge? Henning Makholm 03:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Advertising. Not even very good advertising. Peter Grey 04:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and delete its image too. JoshuaZ 04:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge Interesting design -- Masssiveego 07:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Advertising!
V
i
r
tual
Steve 10:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete advert ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete Out damn spam out! Nigelthefish 15:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Kate's Playground
Website for a Cam whore with an allegedly deformed right foot. I contend that it's not encyclopedic, but debate will probably concern whether her appearance in a Playboy Newstand Special makes her notable or not. Brian G. Crawford 00:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as much as I think all these porn things are UE, this is more notable then most of the others MadCow257 00:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Madcow, it seems like a popular site, I better sign up to ensure it is encyclopedic however!
Mike (
T
C)
00:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There are many other pornography related articles of much less merit that have been kept. Kate has been around for longer than most others serving as her own webmaster for the past few years, for the Playground and numerous other tgp type webpages. The fact that she recently appeared in a Playboy special just makes her more searched, and just allows for extra reason to keep the article. Albeit a person more familiar with her should come through and polish the article to a higher standard. Das Nerd 00:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No significant fact in the article is verified (the "model" doesn't even claim the Playboy appearance mentioned in the article, as far as I can tell), and even if she manages to squeak through the notability screen, her website doesn't. Monicasdude 01:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep this site is popular people will want to know more about it here Yuckfoo 01:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - a bit notable. I never noticed that her foot was deformed...oops
Nobunaga24 01:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -- She doesn't show her feet much in the pictures, and the deformed foot is a rumor based on several blurry pictures. If she does have a foot with two toes on it, she generally hides it very well -- very rarely do you see her feet at all, and if you do they're usually in shoes. Haikupoet 03:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I realize our nom was just being prudent rather than prudish when making this nom, but Ms. Kate has achieved a fair amount of visibility in her chosen profession as demonstrated by an alexa in the 3,700s [1] and crossover work in mainstream mags like Playboy. She is therefore a real up-and-comer who merits inclusion here. I would also indicate that the correct terminology is "internet model" as used in our article. Camwhore is far more derogatory, but perhaps more effective when trying to shock those of the prudish persuasion to slavishly hit the NN button on their keyboards. -- JJay 01:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm normally pretty against pornography sites getting articles, but I would personally have no quals with keeping this article at this time.
Alexa says ranking of 3765 and 89 inbound links. According to the article, she's appeared in one Playboy special mag.
Weak Keep, although I reserve the right to completely change this if this comes up at a later date. -- Saberwyn 02:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)- Abstaining at this point in time. -- Saberwyn 09:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep ZornArmand 03:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)zornarmand
- Keep. If I say "Kate has a hoof" every single one of you is going to know exactly who I'm talking about and why I say it. And I don't think she's a camwhore per se -- "amateur model" might be more appropriate. Haikupoet 03:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Very, very weak keep due to her Playboy appearance. Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 03:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Hyphen5 07:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JJay. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 14:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable enough in her field. Warpstar Rider 14:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notable because of her Playboy appearence. -- Ter e nc e Ong 14:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Of no value except as advertising. CalJW 16:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unencyclopedic, vanity. Playboy newstand special does not noteworty make and even if it does the website doesn't Dakota ~ ° 17:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete The website isn't notable (even though I'm sure it does get a lot of traffic) and she isn't notable by being in Playboy or possibly having a 'hoof'. kotepho 18:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete, sorta-appearance in a Playboy spinoff not quite notable. ProhibitOnions 20:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete just another porn site. Everythig there is to be known about this subject is already out there is vast and equally unverifiable detail. Just zis Guy you know? 22:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Jeez we keep far crappier articles than this.
Jcuk 22:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Bring them here, and we'll consider them on their merits, or lack thereof. -- Saberwyn 09:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mostly Rainy 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable for the genre. Wording of the nom is a bit too POV, in my opinion. Has survived previous AFD as well. 23skidoo 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: per MadCow. — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: Porn/Playboy models as well as porn websites are 13 to a dozen. Merely being one is not notable, and the article claims no more than that. Henning Makholm 03:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Might be interesting. -- Masssiveego 07:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Alexa ranking. Expand to include this bit of evidence of notability so article won't be vulnerable to "doesn't claim to be more than just another porn website" argument. Barno 20:48, 20 March 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. Flower party■ 02:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Vuela
Delete - article created by owner of label. A google search reveals few relevant results. Wickethewok 01:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Advert, non-notable. Bucketsofg 03:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete as nn advert. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Khoikhoi 03:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete in conjunction with Decibel (band). Feezo (Talk) 03:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable label --
TBC
???
???
??? 07:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Focoe 08:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 10:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- MaNeMeBasat 14:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 14:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity, non-notable, ad, etc. Ifnord 15:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 20:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep' Notable -- Masssiveego 08:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Ummm, Massiveego, rationale? Wickethewok 08:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect someplace Are any of their bands listed here? If more than one, keep and crosslink. If one, reidrect there. If none, redirect to List of electronic music record labels, which should contain a single link to their official site. JeffBurdges 16:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Flower party■ 02:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
American Idol controversy
Superfluous. Delete or Merge with
American Idol --
Zpb52 01:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am changing my initial suggestion. The information is relevant, but does it deserve its own article? I don't think so. -- Zpb52 03:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Looks like a perfectly legitimate fork of American Idol. Grandmasterka File:Blend Flag.jpg Impart wisdom 01:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Come on! it doesnt get any more relevant than this! ZornArmand 03:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)zornarmand
- Keep,notable controversy, large enough to deserve its own article--
TBC
???
???
??? 06:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Reasonable fork of a long AI article. However as it stands the article is POV and OR, cites few sources, and largely ignores notable controversies from prior years. Needs expansion, cleanup and NPOV. Thatcher131 06:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with American Idol per nom. Nobody is going to search for "American Idol controvery". This information properly belongs in the main article. Hyphen5 07:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Hyphen5. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 14:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, needs cleanup, citation of sources and remove POV text. -- Ter e nc e Ong 14:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as notable fork of what would otherwise be a mammoth AI article. However, article needs lots of work, especially sourcing. ProhibitOnions 20:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge after cleanup. Just zis Guy you know? 22:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep no merge. Definitely needs its own article just like Microsoft controversy or anything else halfway important. -- JJay 22:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Hyphen5 and trim. These are just footnotes in the grand scheme of American Idol things MLA 10:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Granted American Idol is hardly an important issue on a larger scale, but I'm all for anything that exposes and discusses how hateful "reality" television is, as allegedly American Idol is "reality" television. -- Andrew Parodi 12:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep With the show bound to last a decade, the controversy is yet to come. Hang onto it!-- DodgerOfZion 17:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Tom Filsinger
He created Legends of Wrestling Card Game, but is he notable enough? He only gets 592 Google hits. -- Khoikhoi 03:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep as he created two notable card games and wrote a few notable books --
TBC
???
???
??? 05:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep His games appear to be highly notable, which makes up for a lack of google hits. -- Vary | Talk 05:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep clearly an interesting fellow with notable achievements. Gratned, being interesting is not sufficient for inclusion, but bigoraphical info on the creator of something notable is of interest to any reader who is familiar with the creation...and to simply merge it into the article about the notable creation wouldn't really work in this case. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 13:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Sometimes notable behind-the-scenes creative talent lacks public recognition, despite clear notability; too many Wikipedia articles on animated projects, for example, go into ridiculous details on the fictional miniuniverses and ignore the animators altogether. Game designers should be recognized for similar notability. Monicasdude 14:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- Ter e nc e Ong 16:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep as above. ProhibitOnions 23:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable -- Masssiveego 08:08, 19 March 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. Mailer Diablo 04:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Dave Rudy
Non-notable character from a comic strip that the creator of the article admits is virtually unknown. A google search on "Dave Rudy" with Afterparty as search terms gets just 4 unique hits.
Francs
2000
03:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable and unlikely to become notable at this point. Daniel Case 04:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. From "a virtually unknown comic strip" by "an equally obscure animator" ( The Afterparty). GeorgeStepanek\ talk 04:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable comic strip -- TBC ??? ??? ??? 05:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Vary | Talk 05:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Brim 06:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn comic character. -- Ter e nc e Ong 16:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, self-admitted non-notable comic character. JIP | Talk 18:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 22:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The article says it all. ProhibitOnions 00:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Masssiveego 08:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep i am one of the only people who have probably ever read the comic strip. I enjoyed it's short lived run, unfortunately there aren't any websites on this comic strip.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.85.104.108 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 March 2006
- Delete per nom. ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 01:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I can tell you for a fact that Dave Rudy is not a comic character, but a real person, as I know him myself. This is a gag article about him, made by someone from my school. -- CrazyLegsKC 22:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I definately think it should be deleted. gregbee
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Harr o 5 07:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Diohny
Non-notable person - this content belongs on a userpage, not an article Fabricationary 04:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. See User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. Feezo (Talk) 04:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP. Here's the thing, he may not be a notable person now, but with the help of wikipedia he will be soon. Diohny 04:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Unfortunately, one cannot user WP to promote a person to notability status. Please wait until this person becomes notable outside of WP if you wish to repost this article. -- TML1988 05:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as vanity and nonsense. Daniel Case 05:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable and vanity -- TBC ??? ??? ??? 05:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete With your help we can keep crap like this out of wikipedia.
Mike (
T
C)
06:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: A7, no assertion of notability per WP:BIO in the article. -- Kinu t/ c 06:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 22:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Phone Losers of America
Vanity, non-notable. Previous vote IMHO was to delete. Delete Ardenn 04:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Delete nn. -- Deville ( Talk) 05:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable webpage, has an Alexa ranking of 78,069 -- TBC ??? ??? ??? 05:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete again as nn. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Staxringold 16:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 22:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Ranks top of an Alexa category. Might have Alexa ranking of 78,069 - how many other articles on Wikipedia have a website about them? Probably over 500,000, most with clearly lower Alexa rankings. This is well above some articles that are kept on Wikipedia. Andymc 23:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable -- Masssiveego 08:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep GNAA, et al. have pages. -- Tokachu 10:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - (Disclosure: I'm the Rob T Firefly mentioned in the article, and make no claim to neutrality in this matter.) - This article survived a deletion attempt exactly four weeks ago. If all five "delete" votes from last month somehow outrank the well-over five distinct keep votes by verifiable users, why was it not deleted as part of the normal deletion process instead of having a new AFD nomination? The administrator, Sjakkalle, concluded that AFD nomination by keeping it. I really doubt it's in the spirit of Wikipedia to completely ignore and discount the administrator's decision from no more than four weeks ago simply because you disagree with it. Rob T Firefly 05:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Didn't we go through this about a month ago? As far as I know, it survived. -- Murd0c516 14:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - same reasons as before. -- Myles Long 18:19, 20 March 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 all. Angr ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The Forgotten Onez
Delete - I don't see why they are notable. Also clearly vanity. Wickethewok 05:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Also nominating:
Wickethewok 05:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, a non-notable hiphop group that owns a non-notable media corporation --
TBC
???
???
??? 05:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as clearly nn. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete According to articles, they are working on their debut album. At such time as the album is released, the article can be remade. -- Xyzzyplugh 16:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - sure looks like vanity. If their album is somewhat successful, put them back. Till then they're NN. ProhibitOnions 01:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable -- Masssiveego 08:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - massiveego, why are they notable? Wickethewok 08:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Inserting nominations dumped on the top of the page here. --
Saberwyn 10:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE I did a story on The Forgotten Onez last year and I have been a die hard fan ever since. They were also part of a research paper I did on the impact of young black men in the music industry (I am a media management major). I didn't even know they had a wikipedia page until like five minutes ago when I was called and told that people wanted to delete it. I will just tell you now, they are really loved in and around Chicago and if you delete it someone will always start another one. You can't suppress knowledge and if people want to know about The Forgotten Onez, and they do, then they will always find a way! It is also worth noting that TBC has commented on a musical knowledge when his personal page says he doesnt even listen to music. So tell me, how is he qualified to even be in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandyGirl21 ( talk • contribs)
- Do not Delete I represent the said parties and they are prominent underground hip hop figures in the United States Midwest. At the young ages of 19 they have moved an impressive number of mixtapes and have done writing and production work on mainstream projects. The artists themselves did not create this entry and before you continue to paint them as unnotable I think it would be to your benefit to tell us all your qualifications to judge what is noteworthy and what isnt. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
The Forgotten Onez (
talk •
contribs)
- Comment to author of articles. See this article WP:MUSIC, it explains wikipedia's notability guidelines for music articles. It doesn't appear that The Forgotten Onez meets these guidelines (yet). -- Xyzzyplugh 01:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, I forgot what I was going to say... Anyway, I will vote keep if the group makes notability as per WP:MUSIC, which I am not sure they do. Roodog2k 15:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC at this time. Also without the album being released this artical is crystalballism. Nigelthefish 17:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. JIP | Talk 10:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Josh mcroberts
Not notable (enough) college basketball player. Article's previous prod was removed. At the very least needs to be moved to capitalize the last name properly. Gwernol 05:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete, borderline notability.After hearing the arguments below, I've decided to switch my vote to weak keep -- TBC
???
???
??? 06:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)- Strong keep. Multiple claims to notability, not the least of which is winning the McDonald's All-America Player of the Year award in 2005. He gets 102,000 hits on google. The article is kinda poor right now, but the notability is there. Grandmasterka File:Blend Flag.jpg Impart wisdom 06:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - but man, that's a poorly written article. needs a lot of work Nobunaga24 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep per Grandmasterka. And, what Nobunaga said. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep due to high-profile, recognized award. Monicasdude 14:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - notable enough (does need to be moved to Josh McRoberts, though. -- DMG413 19:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Cleanup - just notable enough, but that is one messy article. -- Arnzy ( Talk) 22:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, move to Josh McRoberts, and write it better. Looks notable enough. ProhibitOnions 01:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable -- Masssiveego 08:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable Nigelthefish 20:34, 20 March 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. JIP | Talk 10:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thomas Wilfred Mulryne OBE
DELETE. Vanity page.
- Delete - no assertion of notability. Also vanity. Wickethewok 06:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable person --
TBC
???
???
??? 06:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - will investigate later, but
OBE in the title is an assertion of notability. Only a few are awarded every year - a public service honour. The article is useless at the moment however.
Blnguyen |
Have your say!!! 11:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep did some googling, and I found this about Mulryne and the OBE:
[10]...his name is on there as an honoree. I'm going to say the guy is notable and needs an improved article/stub.
Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Here's a link more amenable to the verification process: [11] (a gov.uk link of new honorees) Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep did some googling, and I found this about Mulryne and the OBE:
[10]...his name is on there as an honoree. I'm going to say the guy is notable and needs an improved article/stub.
Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - will investigate later, but
OBE in the title is an assertion of notability. Only a few are awarded every year - a public service honour. The article is useless at the moment however.
Blnguyen |
Have your say!!! 11:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; an OBE is indeed a British honour, but we award about 500 a year so its not the best guide to notability. Also, I'm concerned that the page was started by Wilfredmulyrne and this is the only contribution by this user. Blatant vanity, I'm afraid. JGF Wilks 18:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Contentless vanity. Note the OBE in the title. ProhibitOnions 01:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep awarded is enough to be notable --
Masssiveego 08:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If the decision is to keep this then the 'OBE' part of the title should be removed. I assume it's part of the Style Manual somewhere that we do not include honours in the page title (except in redirects, such as Sir Harrison Birtwistle). JGF Wilks 15:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Retired headmaster gets an OBE at retirement as a tribute. As JGF Wilks commented, they give out a lot of these (it's not like a knighthood). If he were American he might get a nice resolution of commendation from Congress, and it would mean about as much, Fan1967 00:18, 20 March 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 redirect to Effeminacy. Angr ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Fauxmosexual
prodded and deprodded twice. reason was dicdef, already in wiktionary Thatcher131 06:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Wickethewok 06:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Slight merge with Effeminacy, as this article's text dovetails in many cases with the latter one. If not possible, blank and redirect.-- み使い Mitsukai 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Effeminacy. youngamerican ( talk) 06:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect and merge per above --
TBC
???
???
??? 06:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per others -- Khoikhoi 07:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to effeminacy. Capitalistroadster 09:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect w/ slight merge per Mitsukai. If we're just blanking and redirecting, something should be added into the Effeminacy article Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Word made up by two non notable linguists. Wikipedia shouldn't be for made up words by nn people. I could do that on my own. -- Pal5017 00:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge or redirect. Yes, the top Google hit is Urban Dictionary, but there are some more reliable uses aWebMD article, [www.cafepress.com/morphinenation.37639035 the inevitable T-shirt], comment on Gawker post that may be where it was coined, a reference at AskOxrod.com ... I think it's not a neologism. Daniel Case 05:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Metrosexual, as it is a similar term.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 22:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine DVDs
Wikipedia is
NOT a place to list a bunch of DVDs. Any alternatives, such as merging it into a
Star Trek episode guide will be kept in mind, otherwise I'll be voting Delete
-- Arnzy (
Talk) 06:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Untill I get the chance to review the content of the DVDs to see if its notable enough or not,
I'll abstain from voting, How the neutral authors or DS9 fans see it is their opinion -No Vote-- Arnzy ( Talk) 13:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)- Delete - as per Eivind. Perhaps merge the notable DVD extras into the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine article. -- Arnzy ( Talk) 22:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I second that Betacommand 06:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I'll change my vote if someone can allow me to review the content of the dvds to see if they are notable enough to be here =)
Mike (
T
C)
06:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - The huge Star Trek: Deep Space Nine page can't contain all the info on DVD releases that would be of interest to readers. A separate page is clearly needed, and the DVD releases of a popular show are notable. Besides, if you piss off the Trek people, they might go on strike; Wikipedia would collapse. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Detailed, verifiable, factual information that somebody might quite reasonably want to look up, and would bloat the "main" article. Monicasdude 14:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This doesn't actually add anything to a discussion of the DVDs or of ST:DS9. You may as well merge the DVD extras in to Deep Space Nine page if they are notable. The remainder of this page is a list of links to episode articles, something that already exists. (aeropagitica) 14:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unencyclopedic fandom. Brian G. Crawford 15:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete per Brian -- Oscar Arias 16:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete it's basicly the same as List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes, and Wikipedia isn't amazon.com. Eivind t @ c 20:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. How is it any different to The Simpsons DVDs or South Park DVDs? -- Rebelstrike2005 21:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not Amazon, and does not have to cater to obsessive fans of a TV series. I'd vote delete on the other DVDs as well. 81.96.151.236 22:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Eivind - also delete The Simpsons DVDs -- Khoikhoi 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Rebelstrike2005 Jcuk 23:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for the great reasons above such as Monicasdude. -- JJay 01:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with the main DS9 article or the episode article. See List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes for an example of how to roll DVD releases into an episode list. 23skidoo 02:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: It's DVDs, with Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes. Nothing remarkable. Borders on advertising. Peter Grey 04:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Reference -- Masssiveego 08:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per rebelstrike -- pm_shef 19:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Monicasdude. If we're going to get uppity about large articles then let's be accommodating about the inevitable overflows. Carlossuarez46 00:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Angr ( talk • contribs) 13:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Desert Combat Extended
I prodded this article as non-notable for being about a game mod that "appealed to a small niche of Desert Combat players". The anonymous user who challenged the PROD simply changed "small niche" to "large group". But I still find no convincing indications of notability, or sources. Anyone care to comment? No vote from me. Sandstein 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable game mod --
TBC
???
???
??? 06:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just because a whole ton of people didn't play it doesn't mean it's not a noteworthy addition. The original website went down because of internal conflict between the development team and the webspace sponsor as far as i know. DCX was awesome, it deserves to have its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.28.238 ( talk • contribs) 07:15, 18 March 2006
- keep-the original forums had well over 5000 registered users. however the forums were lost meaning that there is no record of this. 07:15, 18 March 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.89.55 ( talk • contribs) 07:32, 18 March 2006
Delete nn.-- Arnzy ( Talk) 08:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)- Redirect to Battlefield 1942 - Feezo had outlined the large amount of google hits, but not really sure if thats notable enough to have its own artcle. Perhaps some of the information from this article can be moved onto the main article of Battlefield 1942. -- Arnzy ( Talk) 08:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks notable enough — 56000 Google hits. Feezo (Talk) 08:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - or merge into Desert Combat. Either is fine. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge - Into Desert Combat-- Zxcvbnm 14:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - if you check the
Comparisons_of_Battlefield_1942_mods and then consider the fact that DCX was one of the very few mods with a good Single Player base (that therefore didn't get listed on online servers), you'll see that it's very worthy of having it's own page, there's many smaller mods that also have one. AI
212.238.155.158 19:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- - seems that the page I referred to was moved, it's now located here: [ [12]] AI 212.238.155.158 13:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge somewhat notable -- Masssiveego 08:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Mergewith Desert Combat MLA 10:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, or Merge with Desert Combat. Kraf 15:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, or at worse merge with signifigance into the main DC article. At last count, Fieplanet shows 64,635 downloads for DCX .9 [13]
- Keep, or at worse merge with signifigance into the main DC article. I belive that this article is a good article. those who know nothing of the games would ask for it to be removed and those who know nothing of mods would merge it with battlefield 1942. as i said earlyer Keep this article or Merge it with Desert Combat as a "Similar Mod" although thats simply not the case. At last count, Fieplanet shows 64,748 downloads for DCX .9 [14] MediaRocker 16:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge - with its own section into the main DC article.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 22:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Imad Latheef
Delete - does not seem to be notable. Google search returns 2 results. Wickethewok 06:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable journalist of a non-notable newspaper --
TBC
???
???
??? 06:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Google search returns 2 results, because he is from Maldives a small country, where most of the articles are published in local language so Google may not return with so many pages. And those 2 pages also says he is Foreign News Editor. imad@haveeru.com.mv - Haveeru is a notable newspaper and the most leading newspaper in the Maldives. deviathancy 06:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - NN. Delete as per nom. -- Oblivious 12:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Why not make a Haveeru article, and put this guy in it? If his only notability comes from his association with the paper, and the paper is notable in the Maldives, why not go that route? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- That would be a good idea. The news paper is notable in the Maldives. -- Oblivious 12:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per deviathancy. Monicasdude 14:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Keep in mind some countries still don't have much computer access. -- Masssiveego 08:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Foreign Editor of a national newspaper infers notability. Humansdorpie 20:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable editor of a national newspaper. Nigelthefish 19:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Foreign News Editor of a national news paper, and one of the famous and popular writer among locals. Ayersalisa 11:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Nigelthefish. Iyaaz 17:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep a notable and award wining journalist, and Foreign News editor of a national news paper, a commentator in National TV. Indhira 10:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Foreign Editor of a national news paper. Mohamed Afeef 10:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep An award wining and a notable Editor of a national news paper Kalhihaaru 17:14, 22 March 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. Mailer Diablo 22:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Xtrnl
This is a "a web series developed by 5Films to be released in late 2006 - early 2007". In other words, non-notable crystal-ballistic vanity. PROD contested by the author. Sandstein 06:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. NO (and I do mean NO) hits on Google whatsoever, so if not a crystal ball issue, possibly one of a hoax.-- み使い Mitsukai 06:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above, non-notable and possibly a hoax --
TBC
???
???
??? 06:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. My prod removed. Grandmasterka File:Blend Flag.jpg Impart wisdom 06:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious hoax. Feezo (Talk) 07:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- MaNeMeBasat 14:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Delete as original speedie tag adder. (Article was deleted under db-empty, but was expanded after being recreated). -- light darkness ( talk) 16:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 18:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Masssiveego 08:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Wh e re (talk) Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife 00:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:24, 20 March 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. Mailer Diablo 22:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Planet Battlefield
Gaming website of no apparent notability ( WP:WEB); Alexa rank 3,089,099. Sandstein 06:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable website, fails
WP:WEB --
TBC
???
???
??? 06:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - doesn't even need to be merged into GameSpy, really, except possibly as a sentence along the lines of "GameSpy maintains sites relating to a number of popular games, such as..." etc. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Planet * is already mentioned in the GameSpy article. If someone expands this though it is worth keeping. kotepho 19:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Masssiveego 08:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge, the GameSpy article mentions other Planet*'s but not this one. Wh e re (talk) Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete there is a Planet Somegame for every major game MLA 10:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to GameSpy or Battlefield, but just a small note of it. Kraf 15:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harr o 5 07:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Akhilesh Pillalamarri
Vanity bio of non-notable student ( WP:BIO); his "religion" is also up for deletion. PRODded twice, so to AfD it goes. Sandstein 06:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harr o 5 07:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Jeremiah Winans
Delete nn bio nonsense - author deleted speedy tag Wickethewok 06:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete Harr o 5 07:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Mike Andersen
Speedy delete - nn nonsense bio - listed here as speedy tag deleted. Wickethewok 06:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep party service; redirect all others thither. Angr ( talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Party Services
Delete - this article has been created in three different places. Not sure why (noobishness? advertising?). Maybe just keep one. Wickethewok 06:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC) The related articles are:
Wickethewok 06:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep at least one variation--this is a valid topic for an article. It's a (small) industry. Redirect the others to the kept version. Meelar (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. Remove the linkspam-- Meelar
- redirect It's linkspam. Redirect to Party.
- Comment - author keeps creating these articles. Maybe ban if this keeps up, will add articles as they are written... Wickethewok 07:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect and merge content to
Party --
TBC
???
???
??? 07:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all What's not advertisement is so awfully written that I wouldn't wish it on any article. Redirect to Party, though. Sandstein 07:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect all to Party. Feezo (Talk) 07:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or revise Too much of an advertisement. The Ungovernable Force 08:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - recommend IP-block for the creator of these articles. This user continues intentionally inserting their advertisements into other articles as well as creating these. Wickethewok 09:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and fix. Turn all but one ( Party services) into redirects. Per Meelar, this is a valid article topic, and not just part of Party. The Party article should link to the Party services article, which should be about that industry. So, keep Party services, remove the link, possibly give the creator some sort of ban or discipline, rewrite it a bit (stub-ize it), and redirect all the variants. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep one, and turn the rest to redirects, per Mr. Smith. I'm afraid this is going to be one big, fat spam magnet, but it seems like a valid topic. Kuru talk 15:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete them all. You can't polish turds. Brian G. Crawford 15:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have heavily edited the Party service article so that it is NPOV, reads decently well, is formatted correctly, contains accurate and working links, and is less confusing overall. If this survives AfD (and, given that it is now a legitimate article about an existing industry, it really should), we can turn "Party services" and so on into redirects to the new Party service article. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 15:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The accompanying image is still an ad, but since it doesn't carry a company name and the external link has been removed, it's basically neutralized. The spelling error makes it rather unencyclopedic, however. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 15:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- What about the party service industry, though? Shouldn't we have an article about it? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and Keep as appropriate per Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr.'s rewrite Jcuk 23:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I've requested a block on this user, as he/she continues to insert advertisements into articles, even after final warning Wickethewok 23:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Good idea. This is a bad-faith user who is repeatedly violating policy for (rather pathetic) personal gain. I hate that. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Somewhat useful -- Masssiveego 08:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate of party service. Vegaswikian 06:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep, nomination withdrawn. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Marc Davis (disambiguation)
Delete. Disambiguation page containing only a link to the main
Marc Davis article and two redlinks to Berkeley professors of dubious notability.
BryanG 07:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nomination Withdrawn as the articles have been created and appear to be somewhat notable after all. BryanG 02:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
...And created by a UC Berkeley student. Unless both the redlinks get keepable articles I say delete. Grandmasterka File:Blend Flag.jpg Impart wisdom 07:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above --
TBC
???
???
??? 07:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Deletepending real articles for other Marc Davises, per Grandmasterka Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep given stated intention of author to create those articles. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Somewhat notable people -- Masssiveego 08:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I created the article. Both the professors are quite notable in their fields and I had planned to start both articles sometime soon. I guess I should start them now. -- Joebeone ( Talk) 23:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. Since there's some disagreement on where to merge (Arny makes good points), I've slapped three different merge tags on the article page. You guys can work out a consensus on what to do privately. Johnleemk | Talk 15:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Cacofiend
An article about a move ("spell") in a video game. No hint of notability, unlikely to expand. Harr o 5 07:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into
Baldur's Gate 2 --
TBC
???
???
??? 07:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've created this article not primarily for the spell itself, but for the creature the spell calls, and which is named exactly the same, and inspired by the Cacodemon article. I can simply rearrange the sentences to reflect that if you wish, and Keep the article. BTW, I'm not sure if it should be merged with BG2 article, because there may be other games based on the D&D ruleset which may also use the same spell, but I am unaware of that. If the consensus would be to merge, I'd suggest to Merge it to Cacodemon or Fiend (Dungeons & Dragons) whichever seems more appropriate. There are other "fiends" described there, so this one could fit too. Instead of jumping to delete this article, the more constuctive thing would be to give some help with it, wouldn't it? (See also Talk:Cacofiend) I made this a stub because I wasn't sure where to put it. I sure was hoping someone would eventually put that info where it belongs if it doesn't deserve its own article, not erase it completely! Not very nice... -- Arny 07:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge -- Masssiveego 08:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per TBC Wh e re (talk) Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife 00:28, 20 March 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. Mailer Diablo 23:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Funkysexycool
Ad page for a minor hotornot.com clone site
- Delete as a non-notable web page, fails
WP:WEB --
TBC
???
???
??? 07:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Grandmasterka File:Blend Flag.jpg Impart wisdom 07:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as totally nn. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Advertisment. -- Arnzy ( Talk) 13:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, spam ad per nom. Kuru talk 15:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn, spam Bucketsofg 17:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I prefer Crazysexycool :p -- Khoikhoi 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Masssiveego 08:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - Duhhhhh Cyde Weys 01:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete advert, WP:WEB. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Spam Nigelthefish 17:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as hoaxes, creator now blocked, enough time wasted already. Just zis Guy you know? 13:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Clan Haruson, Haruson, Praedicatum, The Haruson Gazette, Duke of Britain
Delete user appears to have created a series of hoax pages. Google doesn't turn up anything to support the claims in the article or linked articles. Appears to be borderline nonsense unless someone can supply better evidence? User has removed previous prod on this page Gwernol 07:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
In response to the above adverse notice that was posted on the Clan Haruson page on the 18th of March 2006, the attention of those who would freely edit that page or consider deleting it is drawn to the matter that only the Earl Marshal has the "power to order, judge, and determine all matters touching arms, ensigns of nobility, honour, and chivalry; to make laws, ordinances, and statutes for the good government of the Officers of Arms; to nominate Officers to fill vacancies in the College of Arms; to punish and correct Officers of Arms for misbehaviour in the execution of their places".
As The Prince Haruson is forever sacred and inviolable in law, who makes his assertions under the device of his Coat of Arms (hence these matters 'touch arms') and has exercised his right of direct access to Her Majesty, those who would contest the right of the existence of Clan Haruson under both Scottish Law and English Law should first consult with the Court of the Lord Lyon, and the Royal College of Arms, before considering making adverse comments, or prejudicing The Prince Haruson by making the public suggestion that it could be a hoax
The Prince Haruson considers that anyone who makes adverse judgements against his sacred, heritable rights, without first getting verification of The Prince Haruson's identity and ancient rights, are prejudicial by their very act of acting against the Earl Marshall's own vested right to judge matters that 'touch' Arms of England, which in the jurisdiction of the United Kindom is criminal in its prospect, which in other jurisdiction prejudices native rights
Accordingly, The Prince Haruson holds the Directors and Management of Wikipedia accountable for any prejudice that would be forced against The Prince haruson, such as the deletion of this article prior to Wikipedia approaching The Earl Marshall and seeking the Earl Marshall's judgement.
Wikipedia staff should contact The Prince Haruson via haruson@haruson.com, or telephone him directly on +61424013804 prior to making any deletions.
Furthermore, that unless H.R.G. The Prince Haruson recieves an apology from user: Gwernol for making judgements of English Coats of Arms that in England come under the authority of The Earl Marshall, that The Prince will be applying for a Court Order to require that user: Gwernol's identity is surrendered so that The Prince can press criminal charges.
And Furthermore, that Wikipedia would have a policy that allows anyone to recommend for deletion matters that come under The Earl Marshall's authority (hence Wikipedia is not protracted a right to make judgements without first approaching the Earl Marshall's Office), then Wikipedia itself becomes publically liable for any offence that is commited against those who rightfully bear their arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haruson ( talk • contribs)
- Delete - I suggest blocking this user from Wikipedia if this continues or until his edits/article creations are cleaned up. He has created a series of hoax articles as well as made a mess of several others. I am in the process of listing all other pages this user has created for group deletion Wickethewok 08:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax, seems to be vanity too as the user who started the articles calls himself Haruson --
TBC
???
???
??? 08:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I am nominating the following articles in conjunction with this one:
I really have no idea what to make of them. Clearly vanity, but perplexing vanity. Also note, much of this user's vandalism to other articles must be undone as well. Wickethewok 08:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with deletion of all articles mentioned here - probably contravene "original research" policy as well as other reasons given. Much of the material would be impossible to substantiate. Possibly part of a personal vision, and not hoax in the usual sense. -- HJMG 09:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The Prince Haruson raised to Wikepedia staff the issue of being ethnicly abused by user Wickethewok.
The following is the email that he just sent to Wikipedia staff:
This document is presented under the device of the author's Coat of Arms and the assertion that the author is forever sacred and inviolable in law (binding the recipient over to the jurisdiction of The Earl Marshall in all matters that 'touch arms' under The Law of Arms) which device is available to be viewed at http://www.haruson.com/images/coa.jpg
From H.R.G. The Prince Haruson
To the Director, Directors, and Shareholders of Wikipedia,
I have today been subject to ethnic (racial) abuse by Wikipedia User Wickethewok, and shall be submitting my report to you next week, as time permits.
Please find below a copy of the email that I have just sent to user Wickethewok, who if not making an apology and withdrawing his claims, I shall be approaching Wikipedia in connection to the prospect of me laying criminal charges against the user.
May I in the first instance request your confirmation of receiving my prelimminary complaint against User Wickethewok, the nature of my complaint being that which is is expounded in the attached email that I sent to that user.
Sincerely,
H.R.G. The Prince Haruson
Body of Email sent to User Wickethewok----------------------------------------
I draw your attention to the matter that you have made assertions, both that my contributions are nonsense, and that they are an act of vandalism.
You shall observe on Wikipedia's entry for Earl Marshall that the prerogative to judge matters that 'touch' arms (of England) is vested with The Earl Marshall and not with you, and that by making judgements of matters that 'touch' (English) arms without first seeking the counsel of The Earl Marshall, that you prejudice both the Earl Marshall (in the matter that the right to judge matters that 'touch' English Arms is vested with he), and you prejudice me in the matter that I assert such (native) rights under the matter that the right to judge them is not vested with you but with the Earl Marshall.
If you take the time to read some of the documents at www.haruson.com you will notice that I am presently engaged in asserting criminal charges against the Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia, and that the case proceeds to Court next week, that my open strategy in those documents is to hold the Federal Magistrates Court to its obligation of approaching the Earl Marshall so that the Earl Marshall can indeed verify that I am as who I have asserted.
If your assertions are not immediately withdrawn and an aplogy made, you will understand that it is already my prerogative to assert that you have pierced the veil of my forever sacred and inviolable honour, which upon them not being withdrawn I shall be able to raise criminal charges against you that at the minimum, will prevent you from ever travelling freely in the British Commonwealth without criminal charges first being heard against you.
As you have both abused and violated my native ethnicity, I shall in any case be presenting my case to the Wikipedia abuse department.
Sincerely,
His Royal Grace The Prince Haruson
- Comment Please keep this page emptier. Please discuss on the talk page Computerjoe 's talk 09:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all as patent crankery and exhort The Prince Haruson to take his medication. I've added AfD tags to these pages and added them to the heading. Sandstein 09:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - just fyi, he really did send me that email... 0_o Wickethewok 10:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- He's also made nonsense or suspicious additions to various Britain-related articles; I think I have cleaned them all up. Some of the stuff may even have been true, but that will be for the editors of these articles to decide. Sandstein 10:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Burninate all, per above. Just zis Guy you know? 12:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 23:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Tubcat
This article could never be expanded upon beyond the tiny stub that it is. Completely un-noteworthy Matt 08:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep, seems to be a popular
Internet meme --
TBC
???
???
??? 08:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Just see the bluelinks in Internet meme. Feezo (Talk) 09:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Feezo. Article needs no improvement and documents existing mini-phenomenon. Notable in the way that contagious memes are. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable internet memes. -- badlydrawnjeff ( WP:MEME?) 14:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as not encyclopedic. Brian G. Crawford 15:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - I'm not sure there is more than you can say than it is a site about a very large cat. -- waffle iron 17:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, just a stupid joke picture on a few websites. No real notability. Though the expression on the cat's face is pretty funny. Andrew Levine 20:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Oversize felines category. -- Masssiveego 08:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep as a popular internet meme, per above. Roodog2k 15:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Within the realm of meme, notable. -- Zanimum 17:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Popular internet meme. Poor cat. Nigelthefish 18:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Well known meme. Is that frikkin' cat smiling or am I imagining it? Jtmichcock 03:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as copyvio from [15]. Harr o 5 00:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Elibrary
Contested PROD. Blatant spam. Site itself is non-notable per WP:WEB. Can't see a way to speedy this, but do so if possible. Delete. -- Kinu t/ c 08:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable website and advertisement --
TBC
???
???
??? 08:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per TBC. Alexa ranking 146,000+. Feezo (Talk) 08:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn website. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ad for crummy site Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 12:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, bad ad per nom. Will need to clean up all the other pages he's linked to this one assuming delete consensus is reached. Kuru talk 15:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn website, spam. -- Ter e nc e Ong 16:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable -- Masssiveego 08:31, 19 March 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. If/when they become notable, then we include them. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Engineers_with_a_Mission
Delete This is a charity/group of missionaries at Baylor university. All google references to them are on the baylor.edu website. Non-notable, perhaps could be merged with Baylor_University. Xyzzyplugh 08:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable organization --
TBC
???
???
??? 08:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 11:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Invoking
WP:IAR here to protect a verifiable charitable organization. The article should be improved to de-POV it a bit, and to make the connection to Baylor clear. I'm willing to do that.
Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 11:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- This really is a tiny group of people, I think, based on their website.
http://www3.baylor.edu/EngineerswithaMission/index.htm It appears that they have sent a few teams of students off to help build water pumps or install lighting in christian schools in Kenya and New Guinea, in conjunction with Baylor(a baptist university)'s charitable/missionary work. The question is whether EVERY charitable group/group of missionaries in the world should qualify for a wikipedia article. There must be a million of them, if you include every muslim, buddhist, etc group. As Baylor does lots of missionary work, trains missionaries (see
http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/5_12/pages/nurse.html), perhaps the content of this article could be retained as part of some sort of overall Baylor Missionary Work article. --
Xyzzyplugh 13:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I guess we could just merge; it's reasonable if they really are that tiny Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- This really is a tiny group of people, I think, based on their website.
http://www3.baylor.edu/EngineerswithaMission/index.htm It appears that they have sent a few teams of students off to help build water pumps or install lighting in christian schools in Kenya and New Guinea, in conjunction with Baylor(a baptist university)'s charitable/missionary work. The question is whether EVERY charitable group/group of missionaries in the world should qualify for a wikipedia article. There must be a million of them, if you include every muslim, buddhist, etc group. As Baylor does lots of missionary work, trains missionaries (see
http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/5_12/pages/nurse.html), perhaps the content of this article could be retained as part of some sort of overall Baylor Missionary Work article. --
Xyzzyplugh 13:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. -- Ter e nc e Ong 16:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn -- Khoikhoi 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep The group is apparently interested in starting new chapters at other college campuses next year, it may become more notable by then. -- Schzmo 22:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. If they become notable, the article can easily be restarted. Henning Makholm 04:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge -- Masssiveego 08:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep as per Bobby Smith.
- Keep, it's a notable organization. It is not tied toa a specific university so it can't be merged.
Wh
e
re
(talk)
Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife 00:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Question: what makes them notable? -- Xyzzyplugh 15:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, just another student organization. We shouldn't be biased toward them just because they do charity work. Friday (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 22:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
WarCry (website)
I don't feel this establishes notability. Seems like just another fan website. Talrias ( t | e | c) 15:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and improve. This site has an alexa ranking of about 11,000. That's plenty notable. It just needs to be cleaned up. -- BWD ( talk) 19:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep Warcry is highly notable, on the same level as Allakhazam or Stratics: it covers multiple games, highly notable alexa ranking etc.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per BWD. It is quite notable and an important source of information for many MMO gamers. - Dawson 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as above. This is a far cry (sorry) from a "fan" website. — Wrathchild ( talk) 04:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable -- Masssiveego 08:43, 19 March 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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/talk:Meade Skelton
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy keep -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Blue Screen of Death
Non-notable. We have not a article about Microsoft Windows start-menu or control panel - so why should Wikipedia have a article about blue screen of death? This is a obvious attack page. A alternative is merging into Microsoft Windows, but i propose deletion. —This unsigned comment was added by 1() ( talk • contribs) .
- Strong keep - the "blue screen of death" is legendary and a well-known computing term. Unlike the Start menu or control panel, it is not an "official" part of Windows, and is thus more difficult to insert into the main article. Possibly we could NPOV it by inserting something about similar problems in other OS's, but I dunno if that's neccessary. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment is that the right capitalization for the article name? No idea. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Microsoft Windows. -- Off! 16:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge that. Fdp 16:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Just wandered on to here - why would an encyclopaedia not have an article about the way Windows computers crash? Windows computers crashing have a great impact on the economy. The Golux 16:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable characteristic of Windows, and explains the difference between the various blue screenas. It's been specifically mocked/referenced in many places. The article could possibly be trimmed a bit, but there's probably too much useful information here for a straight merge into Microsoft Windows. — TKD:: Talk 16:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Relevent information about the Winodws OS. Could be renamed to remove the possible attack on Windows, however the current name needs to be mentioned somewhere. -- Scohoust 16:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The BSOD is well-established in computing circles, and certainly not an unimportant, esoteric phenomenon. Besides, the article is "ecumenical" enough to list similar error screens for other operating systems. -- Tachikoma 16:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Didn't see that. Excellent. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't know about everyone else, but there are lots of occasions when I come to wikipedia for a quick explanation of some phrase or allusion that I've never heard before and don't quite understand. I can see a 'blue screen of death' article being useful to users. And that is the ultimate justification. Bucketsofg 16:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - The Blue Screen of Death is certainly in the social consciousness. Certainly as notable as the related concept of Control-Alt-Delete. -- waffle iron 17:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - All of the above. Should probably be named Blue screen of death, though. -- Egil 17:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Common enough expression whose meaning is not self-evident and shouldn't be reduced to a dicdef. Monicasdude 18:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- strong keep. the lack of an article on the specified topics can hardly be used as a basis for the deletion of an article good enough to be a FAC. Firestorm 18:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This phenomenon is so famous it has created its own verb - "to bluescreen". Calling this an "attack article" is ridiculous and makes the nominator sound like he's working for Microsoft. JIP | Talk 18:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Per just about everyone. Even the media mentions it by this name [22]. kotepho 19:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep article, strong keep separate; everyone knows about this, and by name at that. Regarding merge into parent, Microsoft Windows is *far* too large a subject area to include every notable fact (of this level of importance) in a single article. If it's an attack point, revert the attacks. I keep reverting the addition of "Digital Restrictions Management" to the "Digital Rights Management" entry in DRM, but that doesn't mean the entry itself is invalid. Same here. Fourohfour 19:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, important and well-known. Punkmorten 19:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This screen is famous in its own right, and has a very good article. Tinyboy21 20:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep got two of them
bastardstoday. Eivind t @ c 21:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC) - Strong keep for all reasons mentioned above. This has been a part of computer culture for ages. This article has been around long enough for two FA nominations. Nominator should also be cautioned about making frivolous nominations. Daniel Case 21:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per the dogpile. Warrens 22:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep I had one today. Keep.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep although since I have a Mac I don't have to worry about this kind of stuff. :p -- Khoikhoi 22:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep, as it's clearly an important meme in society, far more well-known than, say, YTMND or " All your base are belong to us". wikipediatrix 01:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep, nothing more to say here. Dan, the CowMan 01:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY REDIRECT. Henning Makholm 07:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Schadenfreuden
This topic already exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneill ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 March 2006
- Which is why I redirected it as a common variant spelling of the existing article. I don't understand why you decided to remove the redirect, place an afd template on it, and create this page. --
Francs
2000
18:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as a redirect to Schadenfreude; this is obviously an erroneous AfD. The article was a stub-fork of Schadenfreude until it was properly redirected thence; then it was inexplicably slapped with an AfD by the creator of the stub-fork. Sandstein 18:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Possible misspelling and this isn't RFD anyways. kotepho 19:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect as per Sandstein
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as redirect. Take a look at the close race in the page history: Moneil had blanked the page before Francs2000 redirected it, so under WP:AGF it would appear that she was researching how to properly request deletion of her misspelled article at that time, and then the redirect got lost when she added the {{subst:afd1}}. She is a new user, may not have seen the redirect syntax before and assumed it was vandalism. Henning Makholm 05:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep and redirect per Francs2000. There is no problem here, or wasn't until it was listed for deletion. -- Hyphen5 06:48, 19 March 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 all. Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
British Wrestling Alliance
Non-notable. 212 Google hits, first is Wikipedia, many are mirrors. Then appears their own website and myspace.com. Ifnord 19:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am also nominating the following related pages because they are two liners about persons non-notable, only being involved with the wrestling club above:
- Note: This is the proper way to bundle articles together under an AfD. It saves time rather than voting on them all piece by piece. Ifnord 19:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete Note: speedy deletes on some were removed by admins.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Henning Makholm 05:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete wrestler profiles... though i would like to see the British Wrestling Alliance article expanded instead of removed (note: i added the speedy deletes on these articles) --- Paulley 13:55, 19 March 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. Shanel 04:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
76777
Limited value, anyone could guess that it comes before 76778 and after 76776. Unnecessary. haz ( user talk) e 19:24, 18 March 2006
- Delete, beyond possible usefulness. — Mar. 18, '06 [19:24] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
- Delete - doesn't say anything and opens the way to literally millions of pointless articles. - Runcorn 20:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Kindly Obliterate Before it makes me so mad that I do something that'll land me back in prison. -- D- Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 20:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Let's not open up the floodgates unto ∞ . -- Fuhghettaboutit 20:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete no need.
⇒ I placed this u
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per Swatjester -- Khoikhoi 22:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete — clearly new user experimenting; was never meant to be useful. Lambiam Talk 02:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as above. Cool3 02:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. -- Hyphen5 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. un-encyclopaedic.-- Blue520 07:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, per nom. +
Hexagon1 (
talk)
08:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as above. If this a joke, it's missing the punchline. ProhibitOnions 10:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Apparently, there's nothing of extraordinarie about 76777. It's just a number. Unless someone points a reason, the article should be deleted, otherwise we will reach 2,000,000,000 articles in one week. Afonso Silva 14:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete linas 21:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per above. Optionally, first move it to 76777 (number) and then delete. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. JIP | Talk 10:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Ron Magers
Moving from speedy-delete here to AfD. As (apparently) a prominant newsreader in a major city, no way is this guy a speedy. Does he meet WP:BIO as a "Widely recognized entertainment personality"? He's a pretty face who reads the news, I suppose. I dunno, he's probably on the bubble. I'm sending this to AfD out of respect for the original speedier, but I'm not gonna vote. Herostratus 20:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral as nominator. Herostratus 20:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As speedier. Article was one of a group of about 10-12 completely non-notable tv anchors. Original articles didn't make any effort to explain who they were, what station (and location) they were from, or why they were in any way significant to the project. The entries were all 1-2 sentences, with one that topped out at about 4. Get rid of it, when they ahve something useful to add they can come back and re-write it
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 20:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Point taken, but still, articles shouldn't be speedy deleted if they assert a notability that is reasonably believable, see WP:CSD. Speedy delete of bio articles is for "Joe Smith is the coolest kid at XYZ High" or "Joe Smith is King of the Universe" or whatever. Herostratus
- Keep stubhood(?) is not a reason to delete, tv personality from major tv market. good google count [24]. Eivind t @ c 21:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep We keep much less well known people. Osomec 22:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep he's on a major network in the #3 Nielsen market. I think he's notable. Roodog2k 14:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep He's the main anchor on the ABC station in Chicago. That's probably worth more than channel 57 in Wichita Falls. Sounds reasonably notable. Fan1967 00:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The Yanis Theory of Influence
Delete. There is no such thing as the Yanis theory of influence and the author of the article is probably himself Eric Yanis. Mostafa Hussein 20:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. 0 Google hits. Wikipedia is not for philisophical musing made up in school one day. -- Fuhghettaboutit 20:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
(merged from the other entry on this) Sorry Mostafa, I accidentaly voted on this before you finished creating the AFD, and it made two sectons. Merging that one into here.
Delete Non-notable, hoax (comes up with 0 google hits related to the subject).
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 19:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. — Mar. 18, '06 [20:00] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
- Delete this -- Khoikhoi 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- BJAODN. I don't want to insult the author, who seems to be a productive member of the community, but have you seen the graph at the bottom? Melchoir 04:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- BJAODN. Melchoir, you nailed it. I saw the graph and thought Time cube. Roodog2k 14:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as original research. linas 21:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete OR ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as OR, even if it were not nonsense. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:33, 21 March 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. Shanel 04:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
List of religions that accept homosexuality
Prod removed by author. This article appears to have no prospects but remaining a short and subjective list, and a breeding ground for controversy. I can't see any encyclopedic function it could ever serve.-- Fuhghettaboutit 20:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as it stands. Any recreation would need a tight definition: are we talking about religions (Islam Christianity etc) denominations or individual congregations? And what does 'accept' mean: official proouncement? Hopeless as it stands. -- Doc ask? 20:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; as Doc suggests, "accept" is too vague to make a simple list meaningful. This list's title and content are better covered by full articles on Religion and sexual orientation and by List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality. Nothing to merge and no point to redirect. Melchoir 21:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete doubtful this ever will be NPOV, and the article name is wrong since it lists sects rather than religions. Eivind t @ c 21:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom + the title is pov. Osomec 22:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete too strongly pov
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Khoikhoi 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. People within sects don't agree on this, let alone religions. Grandmasterka File:Blend Flag.jpg Impart wisdom 03:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: First, it lists sects, not religions. Second, you can't establish notability of "religions that accept homosexualitiy" without violating NPOV. Peter Grey 04:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Hyphen5 06:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:30, 20 March 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. Mailer Diablo 22:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
List of alternative hip hop musicians
This was on prod, but it seems to me to be controversial. User:Urthogie's prod said: "An alternative hip hop musician cannot be defined. Who is alternative? Mainstream rappers often have a live band. Mainstream rappers have talked about politics and personal issues. It's impossible to define alternative." But we have an article on alternative hip hop and a Category:Hip hop musicians. And the article has a decently long history with various contributors and some incoming links. No vote from me as yet. NickelShoe ( Talk) 20:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The article on Alternative hip hop is completely inaccurate in its current state(hence the {{ totallydisputed}}). An accurate article would admit that it can't be defined. I defy anyone to give a concrete rule so as to tell if someone is an alternative hip hop musician-- Urthogie 22:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete If you can't define it, then you can't list it.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ill-defined scope for list MLA 10:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 01:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. (aeropagitica) 23:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Leo Humphries
Hello? What? Absolutely useless nn-bio of a newgrounds Flash animator. Awesome! - Hahnchen 21:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. -- DMG413 21:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. If it is really felt that this article must be merged, AfD is not the place for it. We have this thing called a talk page, you know... Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Rush in popular culture
A list of references to the band Rush in sundry movies and TV shows, often limited to single appearances of a Rush t-shirt or something. I'm a big Rush fan myself, but despite Wikipedia's systematic bias towards Rush fandom, I think we can all agree this is pure fancruft. — Phil Welch ( t) ( c) 21:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge back into Rush. This is a well-meaning spinoff in support of its current FA nomination. However, I think it's too short to merit a separate article. Daniel Case 21:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Definitely do not agree with nom. This was just spun-out of main article because of length. The material is vital because it demonstrates this band's impact on popular culture. It shows that Rush was more than some hack band that had a few moments of glory back in the 70s. --
JJay 21:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please explain how it's "vital" to have a list of times a Rush t-shirt appears on TV. —
Phil Welch (
t) (
c) 23:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The material is vital because it demonstrates this band's impact on popular culture. It shows that Rush was more than some hack band that had a few moments of glory back in the 70s. Seems pretty clear to me and I think if Rush has had even more of an impact the info should be added to the article --
JJay 01:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think Rush (band) makes it perfectly clear that Rush was more than some hack band that had a few moments of glory back in the 70's. And I quote: "Rush's three decades of continued success under their current lineup of Lee, Lifeson, and Peart has earned the band the respect of their musical peers, and their supporters are often cited as one of the most intensely loyal fanbases in the history of rock. Rush have also had a profound musical influence on such artists as Dream Theater, Symphony X, Shadow Gallery, Primus, Metallica, Smashing Pumpkins, and fellow Canadian rockers The Barenaked Ladies.", ""Rush has been awarded the Juno Award[1] several times and were inducted into the Canadian Music Hall of Fame in 1994[2] (For a complete awards list see the "see also" section below). Additionally, Lee, Lifeson, and Peart are all Officers of the Order of Canada.", "As a whole, the band boasts 23 gold records and 14 platinum (3 multi-platinum) records making them one of the best selling rock artists in history." In contrast, "Rush in popular culture" includes such enlightening information as: "A Nightmare on Elm Street, Nov. 1984. In the bedroom of one of the teenage characters (played by Johnny Depp), a Grace Under Pressure album cover poster can be seen on the wall above his bed." If you consider *that* vital information about Rush, I don't know what I can say. — Phil Welch ( t) ( c) 02:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- The material is vital because it demonstrates this band's impact on popular culture. It shows that Rush was more than some hack band that had a few moments of glory back in the 70s. Seems pretty clear to me and I think if Rush has had even more of an impact the info should be added to the article --
JJay 01:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please explain how it's "vital" to have a list of times a Rush t-shirt appears on TV. —
Phil Welch (
t) (
c) 23:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly, this article gives cold, hard facts about what TV shows and movies have used their music. Secondly, much of what you quote is unsourced such as the lines regarding their influence. I don't see why the info is not complementary. If they truly had the reach you claim, this article can probably be greatly expanded.-- JJay 02:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's unencyclopedic fandom. Brian G. Crawford 21:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Smerge trivia never deserves an article for itself, because by definition it's nn. Eivind t @ c 21:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge Not quite good enough on its own, but not bad enough to be deleted
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, this is trivia, not an article. Whatever content here is useful can certainly be included in Rush (band). Friday (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Rush (band). The group is notable but hardly pervasive enough in popular culture to warrant an entire article on pop culture references to it. 23skidoo 02:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- merge as per above. Roodog2k 14:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- 'merge back into Rush (band). 66.57.87.50 17:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per the above MLA 10:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge back and keep only 4 or 5 bits. — Deckill e r 00:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I think this is a valid subarticle, containing useful information, and there is no need to clutter the main article with this type of list. Skeezix1000 13:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Valid (and useful) sub-article of Rush (band). -- maclean25 01:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge back to Rush (band) and omit insignificant bits Wisdom89 15:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, else merge. Samaritan 01:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge, merge, merge! Let's preserve this encyclopedia's credibility by not letting it become bloated with unnecessary articles that would be laughed at if they showed up in a print encyclopedia! Proving that a person or group or whatever is relevant to popular culture does not require an exhaustive list of every time they show up - some noteworthy examples that prove the point are sufficient.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 04:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Order of the Boy who Kissed the Sun
No Google hits. Website linked to is under construction; this secret society is apparently so successful at being secret it isn't even verfiable, much less notable. Daniel Case 21:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as hoaxy. No Guru 21:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The Order of the Boy who Kissed the Sun is a young secret society in Slovakia, some members live in Czechia (Chzech Republic) maybe. Do not delete this page. The Order is really secret. This community do not present the Order and Tarsus, their teaching. I think that this little information about the Order is very important and verification... only time please!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.103.194 ( talk • contribs)
- It is up to you, then, if you want to see this article kept, to offer not only verification but verification that this organization is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. You have the requisite week here, but given that the page the article links to is "under construction," I'm not optimistic that we will see this proof. Daniel Case 21:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I am a student of religionistics only and also new in the Wikipedia. I will try more relevant information about the Order of the Boy who Kissed the Sun and about its Conception called Tarsus. And I study terms for writing articles to the Wikipedia more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.103.194 ( talk • contribs)
- Please do not remove the unsigned tags. It is not a demonstration of good faith. Remember to sign your posts. Daniel Case 05:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete Shh...I acn't tell you why, it's a secret.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, looks like hoax unless details can be "de-classified" and some notability established. Otherwise, please feel free to re-add the data when it can be shared. Kuru talk 05:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Right out of Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas. Henning Makholm 05:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I would say BJAODN if it were funny. Smacks of a hoax. Roodog2k 14:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - If it is secret, how can we verify it? And everyone can have a secret organization. Afonso Silva 14:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The Order is a local secret organization. Please do not joke about it. Freemansonry is also secret organization and we kknow about it, also another religious societies. What degree you have that you speak about it? Oh, absolutely dilletantism!!!!!!!— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
158.195.103.194 (
talk •
contribs)
- delete As a hoax....or just a really good seceret. Nigelthefish 15:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus; editorial decision taken to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Ommelebommelestien
I intended to put the cleanup-tag on this, but it is more or less nonsense. Not notable and googlesearch returns nothing Franglais or Spanglish, in the least. I also hope it goes to BJAODN; unlike most of this stuff, it's actually funny, although nonencylo'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4836.03 ( talk • contribs)
- Comment Believe it or not there seems to be a real stone [25] and [26], and a real legend [27]. Is it notable? who knows, maybe the Dutch... Eivind t @ c 22:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete Delete. Or better yet, add into dutch wikipedia?
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. First Google hit: Met informatie over de kennel en de labrador retriever. Feezo (Talk) 22:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge in condensed form into Urk#Folktales This is not nonsense, but neither is it notable enough to merit a separate article. Lambiam Talk 02:23, 19 March 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. Shanel 04:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Jordans Law
Nothing on Google for this aphorism, which sounds awfully similar to Godwin's Law in any event. Article is unlikely to grow beyond its present size anyway. Daniel Case 21:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per non-existant. Any sort of respected law is published in many journals, and this one doesn't even show on google. -- Ton y St 22:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete godwins law wannabe
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax. Feezo (Talk) 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete attempted protologism. Bobby1011 00:34, 19 March 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; where could we possibly transwiki this?. Johnleemk | Talk 15:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I love you in various languages
The latest completion of the popular phrase " Wikipedia is not ..." ... a phrasebook. Just because some variant of this has been floating around the Internet for years does not make this encylopedic. Daniel Case 21:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. Delete
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Feezo (Talk) 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Bobby1011 00:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: would Wikisource, Wiktionary, or Wikiquote be a better home for this material? Smerdis of Tlön 06:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki is has to be appropriate somewhere... it is interesting, would be sad to see it go. Roodog2k 14:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki to wherever this material is appropriate, and create a soft redirect leading there. BD2412 T 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. In High School, I remember one kid who translated "kiss my ass" into 11 different languages. I'd rather not see that listed here. Jtmichcock 03:37, 23 March 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. Shanel 04:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Ainsley Brooks
This has been speedied four times as utterly unverifiable. No IMDB entry for him or the alleged upcoming films, no evidence to support the sundry speculations. Complete bollocks, frankly. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Re-creating a speedied article is also vandalism. -- Ton y St 22:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this. Rob Church 22:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Craziness. -- Fuzzie ( talk) 22:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- DONT DELETE This person is a real person and has been in these TV titles, please do not delete this article, as there is not enough data yet.. User:Becky-RE-fan 22:34, 18 March 2006
- Dont Delete - i just found some stuff of him on www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders about him as an extra.
emtry2004 22:39— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.28.16 ( talk • contribs) 22:32, March 18, 2006 (same IP as the above entry signed by article creator and reincarnator Becky-REfan) Just zis Guy you know? 22:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete per jzg
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Do delete per above - and you can't vote twice -- Khoikhoi 22:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Joe 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC) (I also removed a second vote by User:Becky-RE-fan, inamsuch as the vote didn't add anything to the discussion; it simply restated the position already expressed above).
- Delete per my reasons at talk:Ainsley Brooks. -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 22:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:V unless sources can be added to the article. — orion eight ( talk) 23:22, 18 March 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. Shanel 04:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Economisation
Apparently original research, nothing like the usual definition. User has some history of promoting protologisms. Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as original research. Feezo (Talk) 22:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as original research. It actually says This concept is theoretical at best. Plus it's POV since economic issues are the traditional political/military considerations. Peter Grey 04:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete what is at best a protoogism but is more likely to be nonsense MLA 11:02, 20 March 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
68k Macintosh Liberation Army
Non-notable webforum. Non-encyclopediodic.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Against Deletion (Vote #1 - Do Not Delete)
- I recommend not deleting this entry. I googled for sites pertaining to old macintosh hardware and software and this is about the only site that is updated regularly and has an active community. Just because a site doesn't have x amount of users doesn't mean it isn't noteworthy. Notability is a highly subjective term. Also, there is a similar entry for a group calling themselves Fairlight which has been up for about a year now and no one has deleted it. The Lightning Stalker 07:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Do not delete
Caso 24:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, first "per nom" means based on the reasoning of the nominator, which was for deletion. Second of all, these edits were made by 162.40.139.40 (if I am reading the history correctly). So what exactly is going on here? JoshuaZ 06:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. For those who are voting to Delete, please note: Google has 46,100 results for '68k Macintosh Liberation Army'. It is certainly notable and worthy. — Wackymacs 09:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Do not delete, allow for modifications to structure first. /
IMac600 03:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You can modify the structure all you want, it's the content that's non-notable, and for the foreseeable future will not be.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 04:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You can modify the structure all you want, it's the content that's non-notable, and for the foreseeable future will not be.
⇒
SWATJester
- Honestly, i've seen worse articles here. You documented Uncyclopedia, doesn't that say something? And, before you give us the Google chat, that organisation has more base system than this place does, so if it's not valid then this place 'aint either. I know I placed my Wikipedia membership at risk here, but if it's to uphold the dignity of the 68kMLA then I would put my entire career on the line.
Another thing to note is that a standard click of your provided link (to Google) turned up many links, all of them are different, each from one of the 30 system servers, past and present, of the 68k Macintosh Liberation Army.
Oh, but my response, don't take it personally, as stated by your rules. / IMac600 13:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
For Deletion (Vote #1 - Delete Per Nom)
- delete per nom Bucketsofg 23:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
Cool3 02:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete There isn't an issue of not liking it. Wikipedia has guidelines about Notability and websites which this article does not fit.
- Comment above is incorrect Actually, it only has two pages worth. See "
[28]", which only shows 2 pages, and the rest "results omitted". And the majority of those two pages are forum posts. In fact there are only 20 links to it on google, the remaining slew of them are links to individual posts on the forums. Nice try though.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 09:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment above is incorrect Actually, it only has two pages worth. See "
[28]", which only shows 2 pages, and the rest "results omitted". And the majority of those two pages are forum posts. In fact there are only 20 links to it on google, the remaining slew of them are links to individual posts on the forums. Nice try though.
⇒
SWATJester
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Inappropriate use of abbreviation MLA
MLA 11:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- MLA has been the abbreviation for Macintosh Liberation Army for many years now, well over 6-7 years. Generally the base of your argument would require the 68k Macintosh Liberation Army forums would also modify its system, and i've said it plenty of times, it 'aint gonna' happen. iMac600
- Delete Notability and usefulness aren't the same. I voted to delete a page that I had in my bookmarks. Useful for me; but non-notable in general. -- Mmx1 22:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 04:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The Afterparty
"A virtually unknown comic strip" by "an equally obscure animator" says not notable to me. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\ talk 22:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per author's assertion of non-notability.-- Fuhghettaboutit 23:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete if it says it's NN, it's NN. ProhibitOnions 00:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. NickelShoe ( Talk) 02:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) 05:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Why do they even bother making this sort of thing? JoshuaZ 15:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep you just have to be from the small town of schober to truelly understand the significance of this company and what it means to our community. —This
unsigned comment was added by
68.85.104.108 (
talk •
contribs) .
- Since this isn't a company, I don't understand that comment. NickelShoe ( Talk) 00:18, 22 March 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. Flower party■ 05:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Luca DiCorso
non notable.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. John Holmes is notable. This guy is a working stiff. -- Fuhghettaboutit 23:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete! Worst article I have ever seen on wikipedia. This isn't even homophobia talking. It's biased, has poor spelling, and was obviously written by a fan. Usually I try to clean up grammatical mistakes and lack of neutrality, but this is so ugly I'm not even foing to bother. -- Pal5017 00:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, I couldn't handle the temptation. I just could not let this article embarass us wikipedians anymore. -- Pal5017 00:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, lacks even assertion of notability. Henning Makholm 06:07, 19 March 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. Shanel 03:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Lombby
non-notable. What is special about this artist?
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone can provide evidence of a major international exhibition of their work taking place. Google has nothing to show they even exist. Average Earthman 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Average Earthman. (Google search.)
- Delete per above.-- Fuhghettaboutit 23:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or possibly speedy delete since there is no real information in the article. No full real name is given.
No nationality. No dob. No place of birth. No era, style or list of artworks. It doesn't even say what branch or art he creates (sculptures, painting, etc.). Bobby1011 03:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. Shanel 06:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Oprah Effect
nn unsourced neologism. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 22:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm sure Oprah has many effects and effects, but this isn't a dictionary. Brian G. Crawford 23:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.-- Fuhghettaboutit 23:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete neologism. Bobby1011 00:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Tons of sources for this and well-known phenomenon since she started her book club. [29]. -- JJay 01:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Oprah's Book Club. I think if it caused notable, verifiable economic impacts, it might have a place in Wikipedia, otherwise doesn't belong in its own article. Peter Grey 04:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Oprah's Book Club. Even if effect may not exist, the claims of it are widespread. Not neologism; has been out there for years. Google for "oprah effect" bestseller will produce many sources. Henning Makholm 06:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Oprah's Book Club. As per Peter and Henning. Jfing ers 88 23:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge Per above. Nigelthefish 15:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per above.
Roy
boy
crash
fan
22:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per above. I've personally read this many times before in major publications; it isn't an unnotable neologism. Crystallina 03:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge for the reasons listed above. CloudNine 10:30, 25 March 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.