Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 12

Then why the hell do Guitar Center and Sam Ash still have pages. They are also normal guitar stores.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  (aeropagitica)  09:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BMC Capital, LP

I suspect it probably fails WP:CORP, possibly WP:VAIN as well Dalamori 03:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn ad. Eivind 04:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn company and most probaly vantiy. --Terence Ong 05:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete definitely fails WP:CORP, and is also an Advertisement. Crzrussian 07:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 03:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boudoir

Delete: Nothing more than a dictionary definition, and boudoir already has an entry in Wiktionary. Ljlego 16:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 18:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; stub notice indicates non-trivial potential for expansion. Monicasdude 19:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No it doesn't. Delete dicdef. Eivindspeak! 23:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Since it's already in wiktionary, nothing will be lost by deleting it and it can be recreated if further expansion is possible. Stub notice could just as easily mean that someone thought the article was too short as opposed to a carefully-placed notice of future expansion plans (that will likely never occur considering the original notice was placed upon creation almost eleven months ago). —Wknight94 (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Category:Rooms should be comprehensive. Hawkestone 02:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. (wiktionary already) --MaNeMeBasat 08:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 08:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can't countenance discriminating against this room when we have around 80 articles in category:rooms. -- JJay 11:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yeah but it looks like quite a few of those are already real articles with content outside of a simple definition. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of them have extensive content now and some of them do not. Of course, none of them started life that way, a fine example being kitchen, which began like this [5] and survived in that state for some months. I would not have argued for the deletion of kitchen, which would have then made it a candidate for csd, any more than I will seek the removal of other verifiable rooms, such as boudoir, all of which can eventually make fine articles. -- JJay 21:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- I would like to respond to some people who say that this article can be expanded. I say more power to you all. If you can find some information making this article worthy of an encyclopedic entry, then, by all means, post it here. I'm not against this article, I simply believe that, as of this moment, there is nothing that can salvage this article as a room. A Google Search reveals nothing pertaining to the room boudoir, simply many antiquity/room furnishing sites.--Ljlego 01:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• UPDATE: A quick count of the votes indicates that the "score" is 5-3 in favor of deletion, plus one comment leaning towards deletion. Final score is 5 ${\displaystyle {\begin{matrix}{\frac {1}{2}}\end{matrix}}}$-3.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 10:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btcartoons

It was prodded (for promoting article creator's website). Original editor simultaneously deprodded, vandalized and said it could be deleted. I reverted it for vandalism to before the prod because the origianl author has the right to deprod, and listed it here. But the prev comment by the orig author could be considered grounds for G7 speedy. RJFJR 05:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --CrypticBacon 05:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN. Vanity. Slowmover 06:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. Monkeyman^(talk) 06:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn, vanity. --Terence Ong 06:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn Computerjoe 11:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Sandstein 20:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems to be NN. ProhibitOnions 21:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Khoikhoi 03:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Larsinio 20:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. I'll leave you guys to rename the article as how you deem fit. :) Mailer Diablo 11:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bugging the UN

• Delete or Merge...somewhere...The article is essentially a fork. Jersey Devil 16:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with something (I don't know quite what). It is notable, but only within the context of another UN article with more meat. --BWD ^(talk) 17:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename. The episode is probably complex enough that if it were merged elsewhere it would bloat it unreasonably. But the name 'bugging the UN' is absurd. Bucketsofg 18:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Yes the name needs addressing. — RJH 19:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If bugging the UN isn't meaty, what is? But it could be renamed to Bugging the Security Council or similar for precision. 80.62.76.227 01:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this is a major event for UN-US/UK relations. It shows that NSA is used to spy on much more than just enemy activity, and that no morale apparently is applied since spying was used to further political agendaes. We should NOT hide this major incident in obscure subsections in other articles. A human 03:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It sounds a little sensationalized. And surveillance of diplomats is not really unexpected, although I imagine it's a violation of something. And the title is awful; maybe NSA UN diplomat electronic surveillance? Does the media have a catchy name for it? Peter Grey 08:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - not the best name ever --Larsinio 21:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Keep" & '"Rename'" - some thing like 'Electronic Surveillance of UN 2002' it's an important part of history -PLawrence99cx 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Electra Aerobic Striptease

Article's creator is affiliated with the product/company and is spamming Wikipedia with this, other product articles, and product pictures. Crumbsucker 08:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating these related pages for spam from the same person:

• Paula Abdul Cardio Cheer.
• Envy Series

Delete all. Crumbsucker 08:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Request Sasperilla provide free copies of DVDs to all WP users who request them (to better the article, natch), and userfy Carmen Electra herself to my house if she's willing. As for the article, I had actually seen the product advertised on TV and/or maybe one of the late night hosts showed clips and commented on it. It has gotten some coverage e.g. http://www.maxim-magazine.co.uk/maximgirls/covergirls/59/carmen_electra.html It is on IMDb. I wish there were a WP policy on movies/videos, in the absence of one, I'm not sure. At a minimum smerge to Carmen Electra, possibly keep. The Envy Series, at most smerge and redirect to Kara Monaco (not on IMDb, three ghits[6]). Esquizombi 10:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I second the motion and would be willing to review the DVDs for notability on behalf of Wikipedia. I am an admin, after all! I look forward to receiving them shortly. Thank you. --kingboyk 11:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Your devotion to duty is nothing short of remarkable, so I will remark on it (later). Also I will point out that while I'm not an admin, I too am willing to sacrifice my free time in this onerous review duty if it would help matters any. ++Lar: t/c 20:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 11:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, advertising. "Uploaded by copywrite holder. www.cardiocheer.com" says Image:Carmen Wiki.jpg which I was of course checking only for technical reasons (cough). Smerge She is notable, of course, but the article doesn't have much going for it. A small section in her article ought to cover it. Wait, there's more? Delete the other two; cheerleaders are generally not notable, nor is a DVD by a Playmate. --kingboyk 11:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, advertising. Bhoeble 16:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as ad. --Terence Ong 16:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (Electra only). Heavy publicized and reported, especially on TV talk shows, seems to be consistently high-selling (top 500) at Amazon, apparently notable commercial product. And Electra wasn't a Playmate, but a protege of Prince with a modestly but clearly notable career before her immodestly notable career. Notable trash remains notable. As for the other two, delete, salvaging a minimal Cardio mention for the Abdul article. Monicasdude 19:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Until a more careful review of the evidence has been carried out in a darkened room, I'm going to have to go with merge though. The thrust of these articles seems to be to get a rise out of buyers. As another editor said, "a small section ought to cover it"... Keep the important bits, drop the naughty bits and update the star articles directly. Leave a redirect behind where it makes sense. ++Lar: t/c 20:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per terence ong --Khoikhoi 04:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Elektra and Abdul articles. Notable video series, widely available, by notable performers. If there's too much ad copy, be bold and revise it. No vote regarding Envy as I've never heard of it before. 23skidoo 04:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the small percentage of non-advertising content of this page with the Carmen Electra article.
• Delete as ad. All content already in bio page. Ghosts&empties 09:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. This is an ad. --mmeinhart 23:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. All useful content is already in the bio pages. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 14:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all as verifiable products from known personalities. -- JJay 14:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all.--Hooperbloob 16:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  09:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Arps

This person seems, to me, very non-notable. There were over 3500 Nazi female guards, and the first line seems to say it all: "Little is known about Charlotte Arps". If all that is known is her birthdate, occupation and jail service, then she seems nn, even if a lot of other seemingly minor female nazis are listed under the category. Also note zero relevant Google hits.Bayberrylane 02:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A Google search only brings back this wikipedia entry and many mirrors. There is no way to expand this biography. As such, she is non-notable. --BWD ^(talk) 03:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn-bio--Looper5920 05:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep first time I've heard of a female nazi before. --Masssiveego 05:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You've never heard of Eva_Braun? Monkeyman^(talk) 05:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole list at Category:Female Nazis, if you're interested. Some of these, btw, may be candidates for deletion under nn as well. Bayberrylane 15:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article doesn't state notability. Eivind Speak! 07:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable bio. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.--Jersey Devil 16:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn-bio. AndyZ 19:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Go gently, people; AfDs on highly charged topics, like Nazis, can really ruffle people's feathers. Some of the above votes assert non-notability based on no information whatsoever; that's probably inappropriate. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there were lots of such cases. She is not listed in the German Wikipedia. I think someone started with the category "Personnel of Nazi concentration camps" and then filled out the biographies with what little was known. ProhibitOnions 21:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn --Khoikhoi 03:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete potentially interesting with more sources howver. --Larsinio 20:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Although there were hundreds or thousands of women who worked in the camps, the fact that she was arrested for those crimes makes her notable. I say keep and expand. ExRat 08:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Christianity. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 12:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian-ism

Neologism: christian-ism is a religion loosely based on the teachings of Jesus, but doesn't necessary adhere to all of the teachings of Jesus. possible attack. per a note on the author's talk page, this has been deleted twice already, so this time it's delete and protect. bikeable (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this changes my opinion. Unless referances can be found, I agree with the delete and protect vote. 66.236.0.12 22:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (registering as Grinnblade when I get off school computers)[reply]

Just for reference, here's my original comment on the talk page.

I don't think this needs to be SD'd -- while it is by no means a decent article right now, it sounds plausible -- that is, this article does not sound like patent nonsense to me. I added the cleanup and stub tags, though. 66.236.0.12 22:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (will register as Grinnblade when I get home).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian-ism"

Comments by 66.236.0.12 above are by Grinnblade.

Redirect to Christianity. Google does return a large number of results on this term; but as far as I can see, it's usually used synonymously with Christianity. ~ Booyabazooka 23:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A large number? Google for "christian-ism" gets me just over 100 unique results, which is pretty paltry, and there does not appear to be much logic to their use in the way described. bikeable (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad, without a hyphen it's quite popular -- for some reason I missed that. Looks like a synonym for Christianity, so redirect is ok. bikeable (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Christianity per Booyabazooka. --Terence Ong 06:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article doesn't currently establish the notability of subject or the importance of the particular suggested interpretation of Christian-ism. Googling on this topic failed to challenge my personal view that this patricular interpretation of Christian-ism is of limited importance and currency. Politepunk 09:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per politepunk. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Having investigated the top 30 Google results for Christianism there's too much variety in the way this word is being used for a coherent article to be written. That some people are trying to coin this word to parallel Islamism is clear enough, but the article doesn't report that. I don't see this establishing itself, but if it does that will become clear in due course. For the moment, delete. JGF Wilks 16:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect As per Bikeable --Larsinio
• Redirect and protect as per nom. Sandstein 10:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect per nom. This is a neologism, no matter how you slice the pie. --Hyphen5 09:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, per above - While googling does not necessarily indicate that "Christianism" is precisely the same as "Christianity," I still feel that the redirect is appropriate.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Clemson University without prejudice against this article getting cleaned up at this location eventually. W.marsh 02:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clemson University Football

Prodded, deprodded, improperly reprodded. Moving here as contested. User:JPD says "Nothing but a report from the NCAA, which isn't an approrpriate article whether it's copyrighted or not" No vote NickelShoe 20:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean notable, but the article should be more about the history of Clemson football, not just a press release. Eivindspeak! 23:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A good article could be written about this. However, we have at the moment a media release. It would be better to redirect to Clemson University until such time as someone writes an article or even a stub. Would vote to keep even a decent stub.Capitalistroadster 02:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The reason the article was "improperly" reprodded, rather than brought here, was because the notice was removed because the reasoning wasn't understood. I think it's fairly clear that the article as it is should be deleted, but if/when it is replaced by something decent (even a stub), there's no point even thinnking of deleting, which actually makes PROD a good place for it. The only question is: Is there anyone who will put something decent there? JPD (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this version, which is probably a copyvio, without prejudice to a proper article being created. Stifle 01:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Well, it's not a copyvio, at least it says it's not; however, it's still just a blatant copy-and-paste job from what looks like a press release. Needs a complete rewrite in order to be kept. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 21:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commitmentphobia

del nonnotable neologism, meaning simply fear of personal commitment. Only 289 unique google hits. mikka (t) 22:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable. Even if it was, it's a dicdef. --djrobgordon 00:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, WP:WINAD Esquizombi 01:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Kind of a useful concept, but 1) neologism and 2) the current content is wrong, fear of commitment is not the same as ambivalence, which is how the term mostly gets used. Peter Grey 07:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect and merge to Commitment Phobia (which needs a cleanup BTW). Commitment Phobia gets 485,000 hits on google. --Midnighttonight 08:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep, as we have a Wikipedia:Speedy keep guideline that specifically discourages using AfDs to suggest renaming things- or merging or redirecting things, for that matter. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 20:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Youth Movement

There are, or have been, Communist youth movements in many countries and there is no reason why the Dutch one should hog the name. Suggest rename to 'Communist Youth Movement (Dutch)'. --Smerus 20:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Uh, why don't you just move the article, then? --Rory096 20:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, can I do that without all hell breaking loose? --Smerus 20:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Yes, you can. But I just did. I'll leave it to you to figure out what's best done with the redirect page. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not like it's a popular article like George W. Bush or anything. There's a reason we have the move button at the top of the page (and no, it's not so Willy can move things to "On Wheels!") --Rory096 20:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus tending towards delete. bainer (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coppi's

I could be wrong, but this strikes me as Just Some Restaurant. I don't see anything particularly notable about this one, as opposed to any restaurant down the street. Joyous | Talk 23:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:N. JHMM13 (T | C) 23:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. A Google search brings up over 13,000 hits. Apparently it's important enough to be thoroughly reviewed by a number of publications. --BWD ^(talk) 02:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with clean-up. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• They is praised all over the web. Keep 'em. Yo y'all, a google-around tells me 'em fellas are notable. --Ezeu 03:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 13,000 is meaningless. Google returns 415 unique hits [7]. --Fuhghettaboutit 03:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for a restaurant, wouldnt you reckon? --Ezeu 03:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just googled a crappy restaurant around the corner from me as a test-->22,000 hits, 310 unique hits. So I reckon not:-)> --Fuhghettaboutit 03:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I give in.--Ezeu 03:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 03:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clean up and expand--Looper5920 05:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep cycling history museum. --Masssiveego 05:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is the seafood joint down the street decorated with old pictures of fisherman now a naval history museum?- Rynne 19:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. Monkeyman^(talk) 05:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with Fuhghettaboutit. Bucketsofg 15:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep no inherent problems. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. If there is nothing more of interest to say about this restaurant, then delete per nn. However, I could see myself changing my mind if it was expanded. --Cymsdale 15:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per User:Cymsdale. JIP | Talk 17:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. I've lived in the DC region for 9 years, frequently visited the U Street Corridor, and have never heard of this place. I see no assertions which indicate I've somehow overlooked a notable establishment. - Rynne 19:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since it fails WP:CORP. ---J.Smith 20:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep for now, if there'S something to the organic movement it mentions. Otherwise NN. ProhibitOnions 20:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertising. not notable. Newyorktimescrossword 09:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apparently the only thing notable about it is its location to other notable resteraunts. --Larsinio 19:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Opened in 1993, organic food, and bicycle theme; does not seem very notable to me. Note that searching for "Coppi's" yields very little in the way of the restaurant (they're about the bicyclist, mostly); "Coppi's Organic" gives about 167, most of which are your typical city guide/restaurant review sites. The chef's name gets about 120 relevant results as well. Doesn't cut it for me. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication of notability, per above. Sandstein 09:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, failing any stars in Fodor's. Denni ☯ 00:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just another restaurant. Cursive 20:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  13:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms Of Reiki

• Delete. Not even enough information to be considered a stub, plus: the user already wrote about the scientific criticism of Reiki at the Reiki entry itself, where it belongs. "Criticisms Of Reiki" is not really worth an extra encyclopedic entry, IMHO. N-true 15:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Reiki is another bit of quackery, but it is better to keep that on the same page. Midgley 16:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-article and POV fork. No obvious speedy cat, though Just zis Guy you know? 16:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 08:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, empty. Pavel Vozenilek 22:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, even after sockpuppet voting is taken into consideration. Mailer Diablo 22:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cubetoons

Non-notable webcomic (WP:WEB), Alexa rank 1,035,119. Sandstein 08:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Admits it's non-notable. Case closed, delete. - Randwicked Alex B 08:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable... you had me at launched in February of 2006. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per, er, article. -- Mithent 15:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn webcomic. --Terence Ong 16:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Okay, what the? First you come and ask me to change the page to make it say it's non-notable, and then you want it deleted when I do that! Sure Cubetoons.com only recieves 4000 hits a say, but that's because most people read it on IGN which ranks much higher on Alexa.com!ComKeen 05:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstood: I proposed it for deletion as non-notable. This doesn't mean the article must say it's non-notable. If the article is kept, it would be good if you could clean it up a little; compare PvP for a good webcomic article. Best, Sandstein 11:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see how surviving for over a year on a large well known website, and remaining a front page feature does not imply notability. If Cubetoons did not get enough views IGN would have stopped posting it as a special feature by now. - D_X 03:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 18:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

• Weak keep They do appear to be a regular feature on IGN [8], at least for now. Considering the kind of viewship IGN carries I think that is enough to be notable. kotepho 01:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per terence ong --Khoikhoi 03:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Regular feature on IGN (thus getting the same audience as IGN [9]. Only reason the site said non-notable was because they were told to put non-notable in after the first edit. It could use a little exapnding, but I don't think it should be deleted. --Boss 04:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep If a regular feature on IGN (one of the biggest sites on the internet) that has spawned enough popularity to become an entire official website is not included in the biggest online encyclopedia, it is hard to say what IS worth mention. The actual comic had been shown on IGN for a year before the official comic site launched, and there are no plans to end the IGN feature anytime soon. --CtC 12:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:]] (talk • contribs) .
• Keep a notable (if not very funny) webcomic. JoshuaZ 07:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite as it's a press release. I'll take y'all's word for it on notability. ProhibitOnions 12:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as unclean I think the article should exist but it is a really bad article for wikipedia standards. --anonomous 5:51 3/13/06
• Keep per ProhibitOnions -- Zaron 02:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup/rewrite: A regular feature on IGN, meet non-trivial publishing of WP:WEB. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Terrence Ong. Kuzaar 17:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Alexa results not impressive, but the IGN connection means it passes WP:WEB, if only by a hair. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As Boss pointed out, the IGN connection is the reason why the Alexa rank is so low. Having the comic on IGN is going to cost the comic's main site most of its hits. -- Zaron 20:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 10:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting Edge Ministries

I don't believe this is a particularly notable group. Various permutations of the title get large numbers of Google hits, but most are not relevent. The article has the feel of an advert for the site and the group. Joyous | Talk 13:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; agree with nom, most search results are irrelevant and/or are of a similar spammy goodness. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN. The GHits generally don't seem to apply to these people. Very few conspiracy theorists are notable, and these are not the exceptions. Linking the Illuminati to the Patriot Act is mildly original, but not notable. Fan1967 23:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn --Khoikhoi 08:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN and unverifiable. ProhibitOnions 12:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Carlossuarez46 22:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 10:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Leebrock

Non-notable or hoax. No Google hits for "Denny Leebrock". No sign on BBC News of a report into an ITV newsreader dying in a road accident. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 13:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I stumbled across this article and rewrote it using the information already in the article. After I'd finished, I googled for the name and got zero results. Tried several varations e.g. Danny Leebrock, Danny Lebrock, all no results. Also not listed as a presenter/former presenter at [10]. --vortex ^talk 13:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax unless some kind of verification shows up. Edgar181 15:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as unverifiable or hoax Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above; likely hoax; WP:NOT a memorial seems like it would apply otherwise. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax or so NN that he's under the Google horizon. ProhibitOnions 21:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax --Khoikhoi 08:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - one of many poor articles by James Cooke or what looks like his alter ego James2 Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 13:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Raper

stub bio on non-notable person AdamJacobMuller 01:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Again. Moe ε 01:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I recommend that {{deletedpage}} be applied to this page if it is reposted after this AfD. --TML1988 02:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A google search doesn't turn up enough information to expand this bio beyond what already exists. Non-notable. --BWD ^(talk) 02:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I google searched it and it pulled up one exact result for Dick Raper which the article is about. That one page is also an external link on the article. Moe ε 02:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do as TML1988 suggested--inks^T 02:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete The CEO of Masterfoods is NOT someone named Dick Raper; the name is an inappropriate hoax, including male genitalia and the act of rape.
  • That is incorrect, you are lying. Clearly you have made an assertion without correctly researching the facts. I suggest you swiftly retract your lie. CEO DR 14:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Way outta here! Crzrussian 07:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, was it written by Mike Rotch? -- Samir (the scope) 07:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per excellent argument raised by Politepunk. I couldn't find the names of managers on the Mars Inc. website, though -- Samir (the scope) 08:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Dick Raper does appear to be CEO of Masterfoods [11] who imo are a notable company and are adjudged to be worthy of an article. I think that we should avoid making a judgement about this article on the basis of Mr Raper's name and try and make it on the basis of his notability for an article. I suspect that someone who is CEO of a company with a 14 billion USD turnover is of sufficient standing within the business world to merit an article. In view of the scatalogical and sexual nature of many of the episodes of vandalism that appear on Wikipedia it is perhaps natural that we should assume that the article is a hoax, but in this case it appears not to be the case. I agree that it does need to be expanded at some point, but I thought it was important that the consensus on this one should be challenged. Politepunk 08:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think that Thatcher131's research has now shown that he probably isn't (atm) sufficiently notable to warrant an article and I'm happy to change my vote accordingly. Other than his name, there is unlikely to be a good deal of public interest in him and thus he doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. (Tangentially: a case could be made that the WP:BIO criteria should be slightly expanded to include notable businesspeople.) Despite amending my vote I'm pleased that we considered the merits of Mr Raper's inclsion on the basis of his notability rather than on the basis of his name. Politepunk 08:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I know we live in the internet age, but couldn't somebody (who is in the US) do something old fashioned like walk into a library and check this out? Or call whoever keeps corporate records in the USA? Mr Raper's name comes up top in a Google for "masterfoods ceo" but most results are old, I'd think the most likely answer is that he's former CEO. --kingboyk 09:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have access to Bloomberg People Directory. Mr Raper is indeed the current CEO of Masterfoods, and has been for the last several years, and prior to that had a successful career. This page shows the problem of consensus being deemed more important than knowledge of the matter. Just because someone doesn't come up in Google, doesn't mean they are not notable. Raper is interviewed in national magazines on a near-monthly basis, it's just that they don't reproduce all their articles onto Google. CEO DR 14:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Uhh.. reproduce all thier articles onto Google? Google is a search engine. If Dick Raper's name was that important and he was featured monthly in articles, he would probably get more than 1 google hit. Besides, there isn't enough information on Dick Raper to produce more than there already is. The only external link we have on him is from 2001. I suggest recreating the page when you have more information on him. Moe ε 15:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • By "reproduce" I meant there being an online version of the paper edition, eg reproduced online. Whilst newspapers may archive everything online, the business magazines Raper is featured in are more exclusive, like IFR magazine which costs $100 a copy, so obviously they won't put content up for free online. CEO DR 16:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Relooked and he has 64 total as shown in a link above. But there still isn't enough information there to sustain an article. Moe ε 15:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said above Moe, not everything is on the net. It's quite possible indeed that this guy is featured in who's who books and business magazines which are not archived on the net. It's very worrying if Wikipedia editors think no net presence = does not exist. One word: library. --kingboyk 05:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep notable, per above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable as shown by politepunk. Bucketsofg 15:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per politepunk. However, this article is in serious need of expansion if anyone is going to take it seriously. The start of the article should use his proper name (I'm assuming Richard) as the article on Bill Gates (and many others) does. I think we need a good dose of WP:AGF on this one. --Cymsdale 15:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Thatcher131's comments below. I felt he barely deserved an article as a non-notable CEO. Now he's apparently a non-notable, mid-level executive. --Cymsdale 10:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This guy appears to be notable only because of his name. It must be amusing to some to think "Hey, this guy really is named Dick Raper", but other than that, he's just another CEO. JIP | Talk 17:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Verified true, perhaps remove the last line, and expand on the rest.
  • Delete in light of recent info. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A search of Google proves Politepunk's point. While it is true that there is not enough information, perhaps it should instead be merged with Masterfoods until more information (perhaps from Mr. Raper (heheheheheh- sorry) himself) can be garnered. Also, obviously, the last line must be taken out.--Ljlego 18:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was borderline to begin with, the only thing keeping me on was one article. However, I was thinking, and it doesn't seem correct to do so. Off with their heads!
• Partial verification Dick Raper was named European president of Masterfoods Europe in 2001, per Lexis/Nexis, after some time as president of Pedigree Masterfoods, Mars' pet food divison. Not the president of the entire Masterfoods/Mars empire. Thatcher131 20:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though borderline case. Good name. ProhibitOnions 21:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE For what its worth, Raper is no longer president of Masterfoods Europe. He seems to have been reassigned to the US office of Mars to be in charge of personnel as of Jan 1, 2004. Don't know if that makes a difference in notability. Thatcher131 02:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Further update per the Hoover business directory, CEO of Mars Inc. is John Franklyn Mars, current president is Paul S. Michaels. In fact, nobody but a Mars family member has ever been CEO of the entire company. Current president of Masterfoods Europe is Pierre Laubies and has been since 2004, president of Masterfoods USA is Robert Gambort. I don't question CEO DR (talk • contribs) good faith but his "Bloomberg people directory" is out of date to say the least. I guarantee that the business school library where I work has every $100 business magazine he can think of so if he wants to post specific citations I will be happy to verify them in the real (offline) world.Thatcher131 05:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn --Khoikhoi 03:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments above. Although I have commented this is my first vote expression of opinion. Believe this to be a non-notable mid-level executive with a suggestive name. Thatcher131 05:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep now that Thatcher131 has kindly researched this. I think he has borderline notability, so in doubt I'll say keep. It may also be for the best to retain a sane article - as we have - under 'Dick Raper'. --kingboyk 05:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but needs work. Newyorktimescrossword 09:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Thatcher131 - being 'in charge of personnel' is not notable, do we get the head of HR at every notable company having their own page? (No, we don't) Cursive 21:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 10:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DioxideBot

Delete as non-notable web application under WP:WEB Ambuj Saxena (talk 16:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete agree, nn -- Samir (the scope) 17:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn. --BWD ^(talk) 17:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn per above Bucketsofg 18:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete User says this was built from scratch, This is actualy based on code i released.. The article could also be considerd promotion.--MatthewFenton 22:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn --Khoikhoi 08:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. kingboyk 12:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dj lottery

Non-notable disc jockey. I would have speedied this but it does assert notability. CrypticBacon 10:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. I don't see how this really asserts importance, nor is verifiable. See WP:BIO, WP:V. --Aude (talk | contribs) 10:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says "he is the focus of a raging debate in the music world", which I'm sure is complete BS, but still an assertion of notability. I support the vote for speedy deletion, regardless. --CrypticBacon 11:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, he is the focus of a raging debate in the music world, centering on two questions: has he had help in the form of illegal performance-improving drugs, and if so, to what degree, if any, does the use of these drugs account for his accomplishments?". I'm glad I'm not the only one who rejects A7 request if there's a slight assertion of notability, but I'm going to have to disagree on this one. The "raging debate" claim is nonsense and as such is not a valid assertion. The suggestion that a DJ has such acomplishments that he might be using, say, THG is pure fantasy. --kingboyk 12:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 10:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dose-productions

Delete. Blatant advertisement and spam. --BWD ^(talk) 06:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Advertisement. Monkeyman^(talk) 06:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spamad. --Terence Ong 06:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Edgar181 15:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam. ProhibitOnions 21:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 03:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 01:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic marginal tax rate

This is original research by User:Colignatus. To my knowledge this is not a widely-known economic concept. Rhobite 22:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I just listed this as a copyvio. --djrobgordon 01:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: No vote since the article isn't available (copyvio), but, depending on how you look at it, a marginal rate is "dynamic" by definition, or "dynamic marginal rate" is a contradiction. Peter Grey 07:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article is available in the page history. Stifle 00:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the copyvio is from a paper that Thomas Colignatus wrote (which clearly makes it original research), also the user has been indefinitely banned. Cursive 17:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete and redirect per discussion here and previous AFD. If anybody wants a copy of the deleted text because they feel there's something to merge, just drop a request on my talk page. kingboyk 15:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EAthena

Previously AfDd here, the consensus to redirect lasted nearly two weeks before someone subverted it by re-creating the article at a different location. Scores reasonably high on Google test, as you'd expect given the obsessive nature of online gamers, but orders of magnitude lower than Ragnarok Online, the merge target at last AfD. Contains unsupported assertions (whaere is the proof that it is "the most widely used Ragnarok Online server emulator known today"? And in what way is that proof of notability? Should I write an article for my work shoes on the basis that they are my most widely used pair of shoes?), but most of all I am just sick to death of the constant re-creation after deletion or redirect of articles on trivial subjects for which a 100% informative treatment can be found at the website which pops up at the top of the Google list. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a directory of every concept peripherally related to online gaming. However, the thing may have gronw since the last AfD and I don't want a revert war ove re-establishing the redirect, so I bring it back here. Just zis Guy you know? 09:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect. That is Delete and re-establish redirect. The difference in content between old and new articles are very similar, so the old AfD result should stand. It is very hard to assume good faith in that it was accidental or misguided, and not an attempt to get past the original AfD result.--Blue520 10:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but (maybe) include in the See Also at Ragnarok Online. --CrypticBacon 11:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per all above. --Terence Ong 16:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral eAthena is infact one of the more widely used RO emulators. Whether or not it deserves its own article I am not sure. It would meet WP:SOFTWARE if you include the players of the server as users instead of only servers. Their forum has over 25,000 registered users. kotepho 20:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, sounds like it deserves mention, but not its own article. ProhibitOnions 12:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, it contains information not found in Ragnarok Online and is of note in that it is a very widely used and popular emulator.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 09:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Supreme Court

This is original research by User:Colignatus. To my knowledge this is not a widely-known economic concept. Rhobite 22:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original speechifying; I don't see anything resembling research. Monicasdude 01:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per monicasdude --Khoikhoi 08:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. Stifle 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom (Talk) 15:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effection:_Hellraiser

• The film obviously does not exist. - adnghiem501 07:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• IMDB doesn't have it which raises some flags -- Tawker 07:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that an user Julian Thome who is listed in the crew is removing this AfD notice despite being warned. They were asked to provide a source that this is actually in production but so far has not. I have no problems keeping this article if a cite can be found but without it is a removal. -- Tawker 07:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax... this is waaaay too fishy. Per the user and talk pages of this editor, it's evident that he is nothing more than a teenage vandal, and that this film is clearly some fantasy of his. Also, the same User:Julian Thome has been editing the article of pretty much every single person he's listed on this article to include "Effection"... some damage control and reversions needed there, IMHO. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to super speedy delete: G4 and protect per Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Effection, and the deletion log... nine times? Come on. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nine?! This guy is obviously just around to be disruptive. Is there a way to get him banned? Hbackman 08:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's been attempted on a temporary basis... but I think that something more permanent is not unreasonable. I'll let an admin worry about that, though. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. I had a long list of the ridiculous things about this article (18 different distributors listed?!), but what I think takes the cake is that Google finds exactly one page for a search on "Effection: Hellraiser," which is Julian Thome's user page. Hbackman 08:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete CSD G4. Also this is telling. -- Samir (the scope) 08:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As a side note, is it just me, or is the synopsis BJAODN material? As much as I don't condone vandalism like this, the Engrish feel to it made me laugh a little: On the Beginning, nine soldiers make a little gag against Cajuns, where will a catastrophical adventure. Then, worldwide are problems with Monsters, Magic, Murder, War, Crime and so on. In Nevada, Los Angeles, Australia and Louisiana must people die, account of this little gag. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: User:Julian Thome has been adding links to this page to many film-related articles as well, which must be reverted (ie wasting our time). Nationalparks 08:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obvious hoax. Is there anyone in Hollywood who's not in this movie? --CrypticBacon 11:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as REALLY obvious hoax, dreamed up by somebody who must have dropped acid after watching Southern Comfort. --Calton | Talk 14:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and please ban Julian Thome. They have been adding this film to filmographies of various actors and directors for weeks now, especially Fred Ward. They have been banned before and will likely just come back to recreate this page as well as add the "film" to the filmographies of people yet again if the ban is not permanent. Dismas|^(talk) 15:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 09:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ejaan

A web forum of questionable notability. The text is quite advert-ish, but that can be cleaned up, and a google search on "ejaan.com" initially brings back over 80,000 matches. On closer inspection however only 22 of those are unique. Francs2000 21:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Montco 01:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 08:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle 00:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus tending strongly towards keep. bainer (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Yamin

Page is devoted to some non notable TV contestant.

• Delete. Axiomm 03:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:BAND: Has won or placed in a major music competition. Monkeyman^(talk) 06:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no encyclopediaec value
• Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 06:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. To editors voting Delete, please review "WP:BAND: Has won or placed in a major music competition". This article meets the criteria. He is a finalist in American Idol (Season 5). Monkeyman^(talk) 06:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I have no idea who this guy is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.131 (talk • contribs)

I may not know who some people on Wikipedia are, but if they meet the standards for the site, I think they deserve to be there. --JamesB3 07:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't care that people dont know who this guy is!! He is one of the best singers on American Idol!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.3.98 (talk • contribs)
• Delete fancruft (as the page admits) The only thing encyclopedic is the songs he sung which is already at American Idol (Season 5) -- Astrokey44|talk 15:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP His is a relevant entry. The content needs to be increased and enriched. He is up and coming. Be patient! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.32.164.156 (talk • contribs)
• Delete, as personally I don't consider American Idol a real major music competition, and the regular failure of competitors on such competitions to convert their temporary fame into anything permanent would give some support to this. But then I am a snob. Average Earthman 19:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the competitors on this show have managed careers after the series has ended. Josh Gracin, Bo Bice, Kimberley Locke, Carrie Underwood, Kelly Clarkson, Clay Aiken have all been on the charts and/or won major awards, and others (Tamyra Gray, George Huff, La Toya London, etc.) have released albums or had major roles on Broadway or film (Diana DeGarmo, Jennifer Hudson, Frenchie). If the article is going to be deleted on the criteria that the people on the show go on to failure, then I think this article should be kept. --JamesB3 07:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, unless the intent to delete pages on all other American Idol finalists. (AI is a real major music competition viz the 30+ million viewers who tune in to the program each week; no other competition comes close.) Is becoming a finalist the same as "won or placed" in a competition? I'd argue it is; the finalists, at least, have placed somewhere in the 1-12 area; some may turn out not to be notable, others likely will. Best to keep until we know for sure. Thehappysmith 19:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into contestants article. ProhibitOnions 21:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep verifiable and seems to meet WP:BIO. --W.marsh 21:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, just let us keep working on this article and we can make it more encyclopedia like. He is also the best singer on American Idol!!! We have articles on the other Top 24 contestants and you let us keep it, so why can't we keep this one?-User:Cory pratt
• Delete per nom. i don't think contestants should have their own seperate pages, even if they compete on a popular show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.131 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom. If he wins or makes a hit record then you can make it again. --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Keep -- I think it might be better to group all contestants together on a single "American Idol Contestants (Season 5)" page, but since such a page does not exist, the best option seems to leave the existing page as it is... borderline for qualification on WP:MUSIC, so I must vote to err on the side of caution, hence the weak keep vote. --Viridian {Talk} 06:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes the person does compete on American Idol, but I wonder, do contestants from CBS's Survivor get their own pages?
• Keep. Every finalist in Idol is famous enough to have a page about them. The claim that this is "some non notable tv contestant" is absurd. It always pisses me off when I find information and notice someone wants to delete it. Lapinmies 07:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's a finalist on one of the most popular series in America (and unlike Survivor, there is a certain process where you go through semifinals, then the finals - the public votes for you to get to the finals), and many of the people who are finalists on this show go on to have a career in the entertainment industry, sometimes a very successful career, even if they don't win. I also don't think it's appropriate to propose this one article for deletion while not nominating any other American Idol season 5 finalists for deletion. If that means they are "notable", since they have not been nominated for deletion, then Yamin is just as notable. --JamesB3 07:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP All the American Idol finalists have their own pages.
• Keep Can't see what harm it will do, I actually researched someone from American Idol the other day on here, and was pleased to find the information I wanted. --Nicholaking 00:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' all American Idol finalists have their own articles, there's no reason why Elliott should be the exception - note I posted exactly that on the AfD that is currently ongoing for Bucky Covington MLA 10:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' Unless intention is to merge American Idol finalists into one page. Best idea would probably be to keep individual pages for winners and/or those who have gone on to do something notable in their professional careers (for example Jennifer Hudson, a former contestant, who is playing the lead, Effie, in the film version of "Dreamgirls" starring Jamie Foxx and Beyonce Knowles) and merge the rest into a single page.
• Keep per Monkeyman. --DDG 17:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' this guy is probably going to win American Idol 5, and is picking up fans left and right, even in the UK
• Delete - Don't care if I'm going against concensus here. For Pete's sake, the guy is a game show loser who cares?!? -Oscar Arias 10:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

observation - Whole lotta unsigned votes out there, suspect entire fan club came out to vote. -Oscar Arias 10:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that two or three of the "delete" comments are unsigned, I'm not sure about that. As for the game show loser - if that's the case, then every page involving anyone who was involved with a game show would have to be deleted. I can't imagine that happening any time soon.--JamesB3 01:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 10:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Anthropology

Appears to be purely promotional, with no indication of notability Noisy | Talk 19:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As above. Noisy | Talk 19:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, could be expanded out of stub Benon 19:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Appears to be a perfectly verifiable book. I don't get what's "purely promotional" about this article, from looking the article history. It is also used to help with citing sources, example Robert John Braidwood. --W.marsh 19:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added the article, hoping to expand it at a later date, because I was referring to the work in various anthropology-related articles. I neither work for the publisher or any other company related to the book, and have no financial interest in seeing it promoted (indeed, I imagine that it will sell much to anyone except libraries, making promotion faitly redundant; SAGE will presumably already have that covered). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems to be a verifiable book. Carioca 20:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- no compelling reason to delete. Jkelly 21:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If there were some links to the more significant articles in which it is a necessary reference, it would be more obvious that it is a page needed by other pages. If it was expanded by a hundred words or so rather promptly, I'd say keep. s it is, it is doing no harm so I certainly wouldn't say delete. Midgley 21:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep, notable and verifiable book and as per Mel's expansion. --Terence Ong 02:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus (defaults to keep). Looks like a non notable local spat to me, but I'm just the janitor. kingboyk 15:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everitt Road saga

Non-notable argument that does not warrant a place in an encyclopedia. Delete. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:19 UTC (2006-03-12)

• Keep. Though not glamorous, this dispute has generated widespread interest and media coverage in Singapore and even Malaysia. --Sengkang 10:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Everitt Road saga" is just an arbitrary title applied to a news story. Consider moving it to Wikinews but it doesn't belong here. --CrypticBacon 11:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a notable neighbour dispute, as per Sengkang. The saga was once a major story in the newspapers. --Terence Ong 15:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you find some more cites, especially in other countries? Show that this tiff (By the way, I wasn't aware that "displaying jewelry" was an uncivil action, even in Singapore, which is a fine city!) had some influence on something else? Public policy? Changed the lives of truly notable people? Anything? Throw me a bone here man... If not, delete. Also, if kept, it needs a new title. ++Lar: t/c 20:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep!Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk) Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 02:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination, and comment regarding Lar's questions: it is a petty dispute, "notable" only because the participants took each other to court. Singaporeans are just beginning to learn to be litiguous. :-( — Kimchi.sg | Talk 03:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable event. *drew 03:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per drew --Khoikhoi 04:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Uh, I haven't been following this recently, but did they sue the newspapers? If so, then I would consider it an interesting case study of slander and libel in Singapore. Cases that were ridiculously trivial but blew up have been notable, just depending on impact. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on above comment: No, neither party sued the press. A Google search turns up no evidence they did. This CNA report of the trial has a description of the antics leading to the lawsuit, and these antics are why so many Singaporeans remember it. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable Dispute Leidiot 10:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Notable in Singapore does not mean notable wortld-wide. It's not notable enough for a place in an encyclopedia. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:51 UTC (2006-03-13)

• Weak keep notable in Singapore means it's notable. ProhibitOnions 12:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it hasn't been demonstrated to be very notable in Singapore, though. If it's notable enough there to give a few verifiable references, it would be notable enough for me and I'd change my view to keep. (I agree with PO, not NLSE, it doesn't have to be notable worldwide per se)... ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable nationally, made frontpage, [12] The issue may appear less notable on search results because it is cited mainly in the Chinese media, and reports date back to 2003. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That one helps a lot. Changing my thinking to neutral, shading to weak keep. Article needs more (cited) material on why this is so far out of the norms for S'pore, I think... that would enhance notability a lot. People have garden variety spats all the time but this is starting to look like it's beyond that based on the cite you gave (which I added to the article)... thanks! ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, in a buttock-shaking manner. Utterly non-notable. Proto||type 14:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see much difference between this and the Hatfields and McCoys. The feud has been verified by highly esteemed editors like Terence Ong who know Singapore intimately. We should honor our responsibility to look beyond our biases and cover the world. -- JJay 21:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per author's request. Flowerparty■ 15:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ezmanga

Non-notable website - Alexa rank of 298,034. Wikipedia is not a web directory. FreplySpang (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per author of page as noted on the article. --CrypticBacon 10:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  08:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fathimath Shafeega

"Shafeega, is famous in the Maldivian financial sector as the founder of the Maldivian Stock Market, The Maldives Stock Exchange" ← While this is notable enough to be an encyclopedic entry, it cannot be verified. A google query on the subjects returns 17 results. It can be verified that she is the Deputy Managing Director of MMA [13]. She is also in the Capital Market Advisory Committee of maldivesstockexchange. [14]. The about page of maldivesstockexchange.com doesnt specifically say she is the founder of the stock market, which is the encylopedic fact here. Therefore I nominate this to be deleted. Oblivious 15:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but should be edited to conform with verifiable information. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 15:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Malber. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if the info can be verified. Otherwise delete. JoshuaZ 21:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the time being. We should give the contributor sometime to validate that particular comment about Ms. Shafeega being the founder of the stock exchange. Failure to do so, then Delete.--Fizan 14:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pending verification AdamJacobMuller 03:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets Wikipedia:Notability. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original notability factor (which is "founder of the Maldivian Stock Market") cannot be verified and is now removed from the article. The closest thing to notability that can be verified is "Shafeega, is the Deputy Managing Director, Capital Market Division of the Maldives Stock Exchange." I dont think its such a good idea to have an article for each and every managing director of each and every company out there... dont you think so? --Oblivious 03:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A month and a half has been given to verify. I think it's a reasonable policy to keep for a verifiability probation period, but there has to be a limit. I can make up an infinite series of articles on people and things with assertions of notability which can never be deleted unless there's some consequences for failure to verify. --Fuhghettaboutit 03:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverified. --Terence Ong 03:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. From "Tsunami Aftermath: In Maldives, a Gap Widens", The Asian Wall Street Journal, 3 January 2005: "FATHIMATH SHAFEEGA was overseeing the Maldives' tiny stock exchange when she spotted an unusual dark swell rolling toward her office from the Indian Ocean. She halted trading and sent everybody home." There's another story or two about her at other dates. We can take it as confirmed, I think, that she's indeed in charge (and why not founder?) of the Maldive stock exchange. But its tiny. So the question is whether this notable enough? Bucketsofg 15:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If she really is the founder its notable enough. Else it isnt! --Oblivious 19:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in this new AfD per Buckets. JoshuaZ 17:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; how many articles about Maldives executives usually make it onto Google? I wonder how a one-person stock exchange works, though. ProhibitOnions 21:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems confirmed that at minimum she is in charge of the Maldivian stock exchange. She may be a big fish in a small pond, but that's what overcoming systemic bias is about. Astounded that my Firefox has a Thaana font installed. Smerdis of Tlön 15:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as empty). --Nlu (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Female erection

Delete Article serves no informative purpose Dolukhanov 23:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Delete. pointless, had I gotten to it, it would have been marked for speedy deletion.--Acebrock 23:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Delete, speedily as patent nonsense if possible. — TKD::Talk 23:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Delete nonsense. If you can find a reason to Speedy, go for it. Fan1967 23:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fishy Joe's

trivia, relevent to one episode, The Problem With Popplers, and that article doesn't even mention it. It's only claim to fame seems to be that it is listed on the futurama template. RJFJR 15:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the episode, or with List of recurring characters from Futurama where we find Fishy Joe himself. Or keep. Kappa 15:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above, in keeping with other articles such as Recurring South Park characters. ProhibitOnions 21:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the episode per Kappa and remove from template. -- Saberwyn 01:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with episode The Problem With Popplers D_X 04:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above --Khoikhoi 08:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foreskin's Lament

Delete. The page is incoherent - while it now does seem to document an actual play, there is insufficient information available; the play, if it does exist, is hardly known of and does not warrant an individual page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulus89 (talk • contribs)

• Delete. The content does not merit an article. --Wraith Daquell 04:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't even think this is a real play, but even so there is not enough information available to make it its own article. (68.32.34.152 19:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

This entry is a crock. The person who listed this article is 68.32.34.152 (26 edits) who said "Delete, the page is incoherent etc". The first Delete is from Wraith Daquell (19 edits). The second Delete is by -- you guessed it -- the same 68.32.34.152 who nominated the article for deletion. Note that in his first comments above, he said it seemed "to document a real play", but in his vote he said he didn't "think it is a real play". I was unaware of this article until seeing it on this list, so I read it. It is stubby and needs editing. But it is genuine, and describes a prize winning play. Moriori 07:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I believe you are mistaken, Paulus89 was the one that nominated the article. If you have any evidence of it's award winning status, I am more than willing to change my vote. EivindSpeak! 08:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Curiouser and curiouser. The entry of this article on this page was made by someone who didn't leave a signature. On reading the entry, I naturally went to check out the actual article (I don't vote here without reading the articles first!). I saw that the Afd had been placed on the article by User:68.32.34.152 and assumed it was he who put the article on AfD. So, apologies for mixing them up.
• Delete doesn't state notability. Eivind 07:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up EivindSpeak! 08:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, real play, sufficiently notable. If you don't find it notable enough, merge to Greg McGee, but I don't see a reason for outright deletion. Kusma (討論) 07:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and give it a tag. Moriori 08:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; merge into Greg McGee if desired. Fails to assert important things like its publication history, sales, major performances, awards in new play festivals; reading the article, you might conclude this play was made up in school one day. If evidence of notability surfaces before this AfD is over, consider this vote changed to keep. Otherwise, the original author (who should be aware the deletion process is not a vote) may consider rewriting the article once the film mentioned is playing in cinemas. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC) After reviewing Greg McGee, I suggest just merging this content into that article. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but needs substantial clean-up. One of New Zealand's most famous and controversial plays. Will tag and attempt. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since our Kiwi readers can vouch for this. ProhibitOnions 12:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems notable enough. Carlossuarez46 21:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamertag

Delete. Gamertag does not require its own entry. It fits fine at Xbox Live and a whole article is just an output for gamertag websites to advertise themselves on Wikipedia. Msc44 22:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Xbox Live. — TKD::Talk 23:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Xbox Live. kotepho 00:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect neologism just over the threshold of notability --djrobgordon 00:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect --Khoikhoi 08:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gammamute

Dicdef, if not nonsense. Delete. DMG413 17:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Incomprehensible. Probably nonsense. Clearly nn. Bucketsofg 18:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable conspiracycruft. Sandstein 18:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I am a member of the secret sect mentioned and I want to avoid this central concept to be exposed. — mark ✎ 19:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A secret sect so secret as to be completely unverifiable. Fan1967 23:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per above, just to make the point that wikipedia isn't about respecting little secret societies. JoshuaZ 07:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Delete per Mark's clarification. JoshuaZ 16:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just for the record, I was being ironic. — mark ✎ 08:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because I am researching the article (and it seems others are as well), and more information comes to light every day, with better, and better sources. Could someone please inform me as to how I can use offline sources in wikipedia? Lou "Bob" Dobbs, III 07:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that 208.233.32.44 has now repeatedly tried to remove/modify votes. I just restored them again. JoshuaZ 19:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize for the confusion...I was under the impression that your comments could be removed after the problem was fixed. I will keep that from happening, again. I am a new user.

However, for this record, also note that JoshuaZ and mark have made repeated attempts to discredit this article, though have actually contributed nothing to the article as of the time of this comment. I strongly believe there is personal bias involved in these two users' activity on this article.

I believe dministrative mediation is very necessary at this point. 208.233.32.44 20:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the rest of the problems, I'm really not sure which aspect of the article bucketsofg are refering to. Can you elaborate on a specific part of the article?

I'm not attempting to discredit. This information, unverifiable as it is, has no place in Wikipedia because we have a No Original Research policy. Besides, I think the concept isn't even notable enough to get included anyway. I say delete. — mark ✎ 08:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly a much more civil approach to get your point to be understood. This could have avoided a great deal of time, had you said that a week ago. Currently, I am working with the sources to get them released...I'm trying to expose something and avoid a lawsuit at the same time. I seriously question, however that you've attempted to research any part of the article, given your history of behavior with other users on this article and statements made on and about this article prior to the one you just made.

There is a book, Marco Rodin's "Aerodynamics" that can be cited, if I could just find it...I can find works "in Re" to it, but not the original work, other than the book I'm holding in my hand. Marco Rodin wasn't exactly a hack....he was a brilliant physicist...

Even that wouldn't account for the whole article, I do understand, sir, but I assure, I am working on it. If you could show some patience, as I requested, I can definately verify these sources. I just need time..surely you can understand the concept of delayed gratification.

If you can bear with us, we are working our tails off to get this completed...it's rather turning into a drain...as we're spending hours on the phone arguing with some of the members of this group to release interviews to certain medias.

The following users need to contact me to discuss what problems they have with the article:

• DMG413
• Sandstein

Lou "Bob" Dobbs, III 04:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I wasn't clear enough initially. However, I stand by my vote. I think we cannot afford to have unverifiable articles, and even when your contacts with certain people result in citable sources, I am not convinced at all of the notability of the concept. Also, please take note of Wikipedia:Reliable sources: not all sources are good sources.

If you ask me, 'Gammamute' just is one of the zillion pseudoscientific concepts that struggle to get included in Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is just a tertiary source — it is not the place to publish original research and hence it is not the proper venue for the publication and documentation of fringe concepts like this. I think the most sensible thing to do is to delete the article as it stands now, if consensus says so. Of course, nothing holds you back from working on an improved, referenced version at home (or wherever you like to work) first. But as I said, I doubt if it will ever be worthy of inclusion on its own merits. You might want to try wikinfo.org, where the rules seem to be slightly less stringent. — mark ✎ 16:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will most definately continue researching this group at home, regardless of whether the article is deleted, however I will continue to find citable sources in the article.

I understand your point about original research. Perhaps I should go to the newspapers anonymously with what I have (much more than the article), and let them take it from there.

http://www.freedomdomain.com/email_1.html

Lou "Bob" Dobbs, III 19:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  12:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geek Answer Syndrome

The phrase may have originated at Usenet, but the paucity of Google hits indicates that it hasn't become widespread enough for inclusion here, so I'm nominating for deletion as a neologism. Joyous | Talk 15:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Google only finds about 100 hits on "Geek Answer Syndrome" - but I notice that it does find about 9780 hits on "Male Answer Syndrome". Perhaps the article should be retitled to the latter, and the focus shifted to be more about the Male Answer Syndrome? - Brian Kendig 15:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep perhaps it could be redirected, but google does demonstrate that there is at least some validity to this topic. not a protologism. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 16:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The term Geek Answer Syndrome yielded 0 results on the PsycArticles and PsycINFO scholarly journal databases on psychology. So unless I malformed my query, this is completely non-notable in the medical community. --BWD ^(talk) 16:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking a any reliable source (i.e. unverifiable / original research). And anyway, it's male answer syndrome. Just zis Guy you know? 16:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If it is a legitimate psychological phenomena under a different name, why not rename it? "Male answer syndrome" gets plenty of valid googles for me, but only one in google scholar[15]. kotepho 20:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's popular culture, not a psychological phenomena. - Brian Kendig 16:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Eivindspeak! 23:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 02:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per terence ong --Khoikhoi 08:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I created this article, and I can accept if it's deleted because it's not really a widespread thing; but I think it could be merged into some other article which talks about the ways that people help each other or give advice. I believe it's common for people to give advice when they're being approached for sympathy - what would be a good article which already covers this topic? - Brian Kendig 16:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 12:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete since there seems to be no objection... if a non-admin wants this moved to a different namespace let me know. W.marsh 19:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Governor Templates

This is a good collection of templates, but they don't belong in this Namespace. How about moving them to a User page? —Markles 21:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 18:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It could also be moved to Template: space (like Template:TestTemplates), or, since the creator and only contributor has blanked it, it could be speedy deleted. Stifle 00:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwheel

Greenwheel has one possibly notable song, "Shelter" from the Spiderman soundtrack ("music from and inspired by") and one album release by a major label (Soma Holiday (album), so fails WP:BAND. Nothing since 2002. No indication that "Shelter" that is notable enough to warrant the band having an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC) My bad. Thatcher131 21:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, has done a national tour, according to the archives on their website. Also, Melissa Etheridge covered their song "Breathe" on her album Lucky. I'd say they surely meet WP:MUSIC on the touring and cover alone, although I'd imagine with the soundtrack and Etheridge info, we could find some media mentions as well. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. National tour meets WP:BAND. Monkeyman^(talk) 06:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Badlydrawnjeff. Suffice it to say (with no slight to the nom intended) that a song in a movie soundtrack for a movie as big as Spidey passes WP:MUSIC... ++Lar: t/c 06:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment except that it wasn't used in the movie; it was on the "music from and inspired by" album put out by their record label. Thatcher131 13:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right, I knew that, because you said it above, and I read it, and I was paying attention. The soundtrack album it seems, these days, doesn't always include every song used in the movie and does include some not. However it was associated with the movie, as you said and as I said. Sorry if my being unclear in phrasing was cause for any confusion, but no change in my opinion. The album sold well enough to justify part of the retention, the cover of a song by Etheridge provides more, the national tour provides a little more, the being signed by a major label provides a bit more too. All in all, sums to barely notable, I think. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Difference of opinion then. It looks to me like Island records got the rights to the soundtrack, had some empty space left over after putting in the actual movie sogs, and tossed in some of their own bands as filler. Doesn't add to their notability IMHO. The other reasons you cited are better. Thatcher131 20:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above Eivind 07:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - tour, high-profile recording, songwriting for major artists. Never heard of 'em. ProhibitOnions 21:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They are releasing a five song EP album through their official website, titled Bridges for Burning. There is more information about the album and their subsequent tour on their website.—This unsigned comment is by Kc12286 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 15 March 2006.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  12:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Party (UK)

I'd better officially add Thomas Davison to the nomination. Although it's a redirect to Imperial Party (UK) it has a page history. --kingboyk 08:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A 'political party' with one member and, in 2004, a declared income of 10 whole English pounds. Polled 129 votes in the 2005 general election, 0.3% of the electorate in the constituency in question and too small a percentage nationally to even bother about. This is what one would normally (charitably) call an "independent" but, no, this is apparently a political party of significance enough to merit a Wikipedia article. I had to laugh when the article provided a citation link for the statement that "critics have labelled the scheme unworkable and detrimental to personal liberty". Thinking it might be a local newspaper or even - in my wildest dreams - The Times, imagine my disappointment when the link took to me a forum at the UKIP, relatively a Goliath given how they polled 2.3%. This, my friends, is vanity spam cruft of the highest order. kingboyk 14:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I find the nomination convincing and the article unworthy of preservation. Politepunk 15:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per comprehensive and well reasoned nomination. Just zis Guy you know? 17:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I wonder why so many people have edited the page... Granted, they're mostly IP addresses, but this article has even been vandalized a few times. Either this is probably the most well-orchestrated case of sock-puppetry I've seen, or this article generates enough interest for it to have a sunstantial edit history. I don't know what to make of it. No vote. Grandmasterka 18:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it is extremely easy to stand for election in the UK. There have been people less successful in general elections, but some of them were actively trying not to get voted for... Average Earthman 19:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because Kingboyk says so. ProhibitOnions 21:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per convincing and well explained nomination. --Terence Ong 02:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote: I'd like to vote keep, because if it exists officially under election law, we should not be passing judgment as to its notability, but if there's officially only one paid member, then it can't exactly be a political group. Peter Grey 08:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly, it's one guy who stood in the general election and polled 129 votes. Your average Monster Raving Loony Party candidate polls way more than that and, as Category:Official Monster Raving Loony Party shows, we only have articles on their key figures, not every candidate who has ever stood for them. --kingboyk 08:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A political party of one person is a political party, there's no group criterion. The election law only refers to upcoming elections and then only requires that parties are not excluded from reference to that particular election in that particular constituency. MLA 10:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Being a group may not be a requirement of UK electoral law, but it's a sensible requirement for encyclopedic notability. Peter Grey 06:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Not necessarily - Martin Bell. Average Earthman 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Royal Television Society's Reporter of the Year and former MP Martin Bell? :) I take your point though. Independents can be more notable than small parties, and Bell is clearly more notable than a "party" who polled 129 votes. Sadly they don't even qualify as notable for receiving the lowest number of votes ever (1 vote!). --kingboyk 01:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 08:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - there are hundreds of minor parties that stand for UK elections and this is a good example of one that is not notable MLA 10:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  12:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Support

Delete Fails WP:CORP and Vanity. Crzrussian 13:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 15:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn --Khoikhoi 08:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; non-notable company offering nondescript product line. Simon Dodd 16:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 10:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incarceration

• Delete Wow! This article is a real mess. A good encyclopedia article (or any survey article in any context, for that matter) should start with a basic definition of the subject before plunging into an in-depth discussion. David Cruise 10:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Article needs cleanup" is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to, you know, clean it up. —Cryptic (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 18:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is a mess? So fix it. Monicasdude 19:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Invalid AfD criteria. Topic is highly notable — RJH 19:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep {{sofixit}}. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as cryptic says "Article needs cleanup" is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to, you know, clean it up. There's much useful information in the article and it even has citations. You need a new job. pat8722 22:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep speedy if possible. kotepho 00:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Capitalistroadster 02:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup --Khoikhoi 08:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, merge possible of course. W.marsh 02:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Online Classifieds Industry

Prod was removed. Sending here for review. Monkeyman^(talk) 05:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Would we also have a United States Online Classifieds Industry or a Canadian Online Classifieds Industry? For that matter, would we ever have a Brazilian Healthcare Industry article. I'm not sure this warrants an article by itself. If anything, shouldn't this go under Classified_advertising? Monkeyman^(talk) 05:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sure why not? Classifieds are becoming more and more popular online. In today's news http://news.com.com/2100-1024_3-6049161.html?part=rss&tag=6049161&subj=news 65.189.187.26 05:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I feel that a whole article devoted to analysis of this or any of the other examples given by Monkeyman is unnecessary, and might even violate WP:OR, even if some of the companies do meet WP:CORP/WP:WEB (I don't plan on checking, as that has no relevance to my reasoning). "List of Indian online classified sites" would be bordering on listcruft, but that would seem a little more legitimate in comparison. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge first section with Classified_advertising; NPOV and verifiable portions of the "review" section could be merged with individual companies that have articles, and any links should be internal. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 19:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am the original author. I think the entire article including the look at the top classifieds sites in India that were mentioned in the article should be kept. The 10 classifieds sites mentioned are the most popular in India. If you have any doubt please talk to anyone who lives in India or is knowledgeable about Indian websites. The reason why the Internet and Internet usage in India is very interesting is that currently internet usage in India is at approximately 3% of population. The number of users increased over 50% from last year and is continuing to grow with improved infrastructure plans. By comparison, the percentage of users in the United States relative to population was 68.8% in 2004 and dropped in 2005. I believe a look at the Indian and Chinese internet industry is important over the short term. Bluesargam 01:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Commment The increase in Internet usage is noteworthy, but probably belongs in India or one of the broader India-related articles (Standard of living in India? Mass media in India?) I don't see how that supports the creation of an article about one specific aspect of Internet usage in one country. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I think online classifieds usage in India is an indication of this growth. But yes I agree with you that it is just one piece of the overall growth. Bluesargam 03:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the NPOV content with Classified advertising. Most of the article is unencyclopedic, original research. Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages. utcursch | talk 03:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I propose to delete this, as I dont think that such an analysis type article is necessary in an Encyclopedia. thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK}
• Merge as above into Classified advertising if it is felt there are any India-specific points worth mentioning. Otherwise delete. ProhibitOnions 12:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bluesargam. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources have been provided yet. Merge to Classified advertising if provided. - Ganeshk (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unencyclopedic essay, totally unverified and full of POV. No need for this article, definite reason to WP:CHILL. Agree with possible merge of any WP-standard material into relevant articles. Deizio 18:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. mmeinhart 22:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with cleanup of the POV plus provide sources.--Dakota ~ ° 08:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 10:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Zorro

No notability established for a very minor computer game reference. Apparently it has something to do with Silent Hill 4: The Room but I can find no references to it there. A link to a set of Silent Hill 4 walkthroughs was provided but I couldn't find any reference to Invisible Zorro in any of the walkthroughs on the link. A google search for "invisible zorro" comes up with practically nothing. I attached a prod to this one but it was contested and so I bring it here. MLA 11:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and not even worthy of a redirect. --CrypticBacon 11:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable computer game. --Terence Ong 17:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete game cruft--Porturology 06:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all --Khoikhoi 08:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, you said it. ProhibitOnions 12:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 10:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITV On 3D Movie Maker

Nonsensical (not patent), non-notable (no Google hits for "ITV On 3D Movie Maker"). ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 12:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Edgar181 15:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 08:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; confusing. ProhibitOnions 12:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 10:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITV Play Report

Nonsensical (not patent). Appears to be about a TV show, but no Google hits and can't find a listing for it on ITV.com - so non-notable if it does exist. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 13:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, quite so. Sandstein 13:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Edgar181 15:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 08:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 12:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted (G7). (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Abramoff Allegations

Delete - This page is patent nonsense. Kelisi 00:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete patent nonsense it is - doesn't that make it speediable? Camillus (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense. According to the page history, the comment during creation was "A joke"... I'm not going to condone such a blatant attempt to get on BJAODN by recommending that it happen. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete CSD G1 -- Samir (the scope) 01:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. -- Arnzy | Talk 01:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete --Khoikhoi 01:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as admitted joke, don't BJAODN. dbtfz^talk 02:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Nonsense. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete on patent nonsense. Not even v. good satire, if that's what they're trying to do. Bayberrylane 03:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete (speedy) as patently nonsensical. Bucketsofg 03:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Terence Ong 03:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as author-endorsed, when he blanked the page and said that it was time for it to go. --Rory096 03:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Badger

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Greene

Another wounded Canadian soldier, whose notability is that he was wounded. YUL89YYZ 21:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Abstain. Seems to be the subject of a fair amount of media attention, with 109 unique Googles for "Trevor Greene" afghanistan, many of which appear to be media articles from both Canada and overseas. Google News has 15 hits on the subject. We seem to keep a fair amount of USIraqWarcruft, and if this article was expanded to relfect the events and the media attention, I would personally have no qualms about the presence of this article, but choose to leave it up to more knowledgeable powers to decide its fate. -- Saberwyn 21:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, in a war period with relatively few casualties, almost all will get mentioned in the news. However, merely being mentioned does not confer notability, except in extreme cases. -- Kjkolb 04:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if expanded with proper information -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 19:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - do we create pages for all 17,000 US troops wounded in combat in Iraq? Not notable--Looper5920 05:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 04:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Looper5920. Monkeyman^(talk) 06:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN Crzrussian 07:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN. Having articles on every wounded soldier on all sides of a conflict isn't feasible or desirable. Henrik 09:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless he was awarded a medal and the incident itself becomes notable (in which case redirect to the article on that incident). --CrypticBacon 11:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless we're going to have articles on the Iraqi wounded as well. --kingboyk 13:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are, sadly, huge numbers of injured soldiers. Unless he is to receive a major medal, he is no more notable than any other injured soldier. Average Earthman 18:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Christian High School

school is NN and page is largely empty after lots of waiting Crzrussian 08:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, only been a couple of weeks, since page made (and WP:SCH) -- Samir (the scope) 08:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Article was just created. --BWD ^(talk) 15:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go on then, expand it. Average Earthman 19:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you expand every article you see that needs expansion? Hawkestone 02:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Every stub or sub-stub article I vote *keep* on in AfD, I make at least a token effort to expand it. If everyone voting keep on this one made a similar effort, it wouldn't be a stub. But nobody has. This school does exist, doesn't it? Average Earthman 22:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep clearly notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neutrality^talk 15:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SCH and all schools are notable. --Terence Ong 16:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep High schools only --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Valid High Schools and older. — RJH 20:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, real school. Surely this counts for something. ProhibitOnions 21:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per WP:SCH. It is a real school, and the article is verifiable. Carioca 02:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable and verifiable. Hawkestone 02:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above --Khoikhoi 04:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep per WP:SCHOOL --Larsinio 20:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per larsinio ILovEPlankton 14:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 04:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all schools that are verifiably existant belong in a comprehensive encyclopedia.  ALKIVAR™ 04:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Yes, I'm swimming against the tide, but the "all schools are notable" mantra is unsound: just look in your local telephone directories for driving schools, correspondence schools, traffic offender's schools, typing schools, day-care-cum-nursery-schools, etc. Carlossuarez46 22:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This pointless substub informs no one and is unlikely ever to get much larger. A waste of hard drive space. Denni ☯ 00:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please schools are very important Yuckfoo 01:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 09:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted Critique

Seems to be a fairly non-notable website. It was brought to my attention by a user over an edit war about a cleanup tag, but it looks to me like it should just be deleted. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 22:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I've also speedied the logo (which was on Commons, not here) as a copyvio; there is no proof that User:Twistedcritique was the creator, and the source was rather obvious. If he is indeed the creator, and would like to release it in the public domain, he can email the Foundation to provide the necessary confirmations. Otherwise, he needs to upload it here and make a vaild fair-use claim; Commons does not allow fair use images. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 22:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. non-notable to me, edit history shows that the page was edited and possibly created by User:Twistedcritique so it's most likely WP:SPAM and self-promotion, definitely Delete AdamJacobMuller 22:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn --Khoikhoi 08:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per AdamJacobMuller. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 14:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Essjay. Stifle 00:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete per Me. TwistedCritique 21:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 10:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Keith

Delete. Ty Keith is a fan-fiction character from an online RPG for Harry Potter. The character is not mentioned at all in J.K. Rowling's books and appears to be a vanity page for the person who created him for the game, Ryan Fossil. One Salient Oversight 13:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Right. Fan-fiction is not canonical and hence not to be wikipedified. --N-true 15:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fan/RPG-cruft. (Puts the dumb back in Dumbledore!) --Kinu ^t/_c 19:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fanfiction. WarpstarRider 01:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all --Khoikhoi 08:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fanfiction. ProhibitOnions 12:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete every single fanfiction character ever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fanfiction has no place at wiki (Duane543 03:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universal empire

Delete. This page is utter rubbish. The only source he cites is a legitimate history text, but he has misrepresented the chapter title. It is in fact "The Impossible Dream of Universal Empire, A.D. 532 to 602." There are also numerous factoids that put the accuracy of the whole article into question. The Holy Roman Empire, of course, never came anywhere near ruling the vast territories that the Roman Empire ruled. Also, "Catholic" does not mean "orthodox, as he claims, but "universal" (I've just verified this at One Look). His claim that the Russian tsar "arguably" inherited the right to the Roman throne is at best questionable, as is his claim that Napoleon set out to conquer Rome's old territory (I'm pretty sure Napoleaon took much of Germany and Poland, and tried to conquer Russia, which with the exception of the odd outpost in Germany were never Roman). I cannot believe that there is any legitimate history behind this article given the obvious errors and the misleading source reference. Kelisi 04:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Original Research. Monkeyman^(talk) 06:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pretty clever. However, the cited reference, at Amazon here, only covers the period to 565 A.D. Should be speedied as nonsense. Slowmover 06:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR and the well explained nomination. Eivind 07:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, no support in the sole ref, very original research. Angus McLellan 20:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonsense, possibly concealing an axe to grind. ProhibitOnions 21:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 03:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! The page CLEARLY states this concept is a THEORY. There are many THEORIES which have articles on Wikipedia (string theory, Marxist theory, etc.). Nowhere does this article purport the theory as fact.

The article does explain how the theory is BASED ON CERTAIN FACTS. Those facts can be readily checked on Wikipedia.

For example, the bit about Russian Czars trying to claim a tie to the Roman Empire is well established. The following is pasted from the Wikipedia entry on "Czar:"

The last Russian ruler formally styled Tsar, Peter the Great, at the peace of Nystad (November 1721), assumed the Byzantine styles of imperator (of Latin origin, somewhat exotic for the Eastern Orthodox world) and Autocrat, intended to mark his imperial dignity as the equal of the Roman Catholic Habsburg Emperor, as the 'third Rome' (after Byzantium; the Holy Roman Empire succeeding the original Rome in the Western Roman Empire).

Perhaps the above users have axes to grind? Just because they either (1) do not agree with this theory or (2) have not themselves heard of it, does NOT mean the theory ITSELF doesn't exist. And that is all the article reports on: the existence of a theory.

At any rate, I edited the page to take away some of the ramblings and inaccuracies, which I agree were humorous. I for one have heard of this general CONCEPT; perhaps the users above disagre with it bearing this name? Is there another name for this theory?

I believe we're hearing from the author, "HistoryProf" – his writing and arguing styles leave little doubt. Prof, cite your sources. Kelisi 22:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as OR. Wikipedia is not the place for theories. Not even for THEORIES. Fan1967 23:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original research. Until the Napoleonic Wars (not the Russian Revolution), the concept of Roman authority had powerful, almost mystical, impact on Europeans, but the article isn't saying anything very coherent and the expression "universal empire" seems completely unrelated. Peter Grey 08:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, regrettable original research. Sandstein 10:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. kingboyk 14:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veqtor

This was speedied under another title, prodded, and the proposed deletion tag removed by the creator with discussion (see talk page). He is making a good faith effort to help here (removing external links for example), and I appreciate that... but I hope he can understand the objections by at least 3 editors to his article. It seems to exist solely to promote Veqtor, which is a problem, since that's not what WP is for. Also, there's no evidence provided that the company in any of its incarnations meets WP:CORP. W.marsh 16:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as written it is still spam, and there is, as W.marsh says, no evidence presented of meeting WP:CORP. Just zis Guy you know? 16:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This definition does meet the definition of WP:CORP and it is not "Spam" (as asserted by User JzG). Quoting from wikipedias own articles the definition of Spam (electronic) is unsolicited or undesired bulk electronic messages, such as e-mail spam, unsolicited emails with advertisements..)

• See WP:SPAM for Wikipedia's definition of Spam.

VEQTOR has been described and specifically mentioned in various non-trivial publications, including books and magazine articles and television shows, for example: ISBN 88-85860-23-0 Author Danilo Tosetto, published by Facto Edizioni of Italy--82.68.21.14 17:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Has been reposted multiple times and is duplicated under VEQTOR. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 17:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• DO NOT DELETE This item has only been reposted as it was set for rapid deletion and I was away so I did not have the five day grace period. The reason for duplication under VEQTOR is that wikipedia is a case sensative search engine. This listing does meet WP:CORP even if Arundhati_bakshi does not like the listing.--VEQTOR 17:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You can use redirects, you know. The way you're doing it now makes you look like you're spamming. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 18:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete advertispamitiously. Bucketsofg 18:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement, thinly disguised. Bucketsofg 18:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Its Okay What does Bucketsofg comment mean? Surely if you find something incorrect or offensive then specifically ask the author for it to be changed. I don't have a problem with the listing.--Jplache 18:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Global Books in Print has no listing for author: Danilo Tosetto or ISBN:88-85860-23-0. Thatcher131 20:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no coverage in Lexis/Nexis European or American news; one peripheral mention in an article about a Laser Tag arena. Fails WP:V and WP:CORP I believe. Thatcher131 20:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per Thatcher131. No reliable sources provided, seems like WP:VSCA and WP:CORP failure nonetheless. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC); amended 07:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per all --Khoikhoi 08:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the AfD for VEQTOR

Something funny going on, merging them...

VEQTOR

fails WP:CORP, has been reposted and is duplicated on Veqtor (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 17:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This definition DOES meet the definition of WP:CORP as VEQTOR has been described and specifically mentioned in various non-trivial publications, including books and magazine articles and television shows, for example: ISBN 88-85860-23-0 Author Danilo Tosetto, published by Facto Edizioni of Italy--82.68.21.14 17:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)--82.68.21.14 17:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)--VEQTOR 18:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Global Books in Print has no listing for author: Danilo Tosetto or ISBN:88-85860-23-0. Thatcher131 20:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Its Okay This piece is not an advertisement as it has no external links. It presents facts about a subject and relevant internal links to related subjects of interest to some readers to wikipedia. Just because Bucketsofg has no interest in the subject does not make it unworthy. Further Bucketsofg has not sited any solid reason for removal or suggested any changes to make this article acceptable. Therefore his comments should be summarily rejected.--Jplache 18:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Others can make up their own mind on the issue at hand: it's not all that important to me. I'm struck, Jplache, that you've only ever submitted two edits, one here and one to the deletion thread on [Veqtor]. I assume that you're acting in good faith. But in case you don't know the rules, WP does not allow voting under different aliases (WP:SOCK) and there is a process for checking. Bucketsofg 19:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update. Check-user confirms that both VEQTOR and Jplache use IP 82.68.21.14 and are therefore probably the same individual. Bucketsofg 05:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the subject has been covered by third-party sources, the article needs to mention this. NickelShoe 20:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per all --Khoikhoi 08:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE ISBN 8885860044 does exist. I apologize for the misleading information above. However, it was published in 1987, and is only held by 3 libraries. It is in Italian, and the title is Progettare un parco : alcune idee per un parco ricreativo-tematico "made in Italy" . Its subject category is Amusement parks -- Italy -- Designs and plans. I don't know if this affects notability or verifiability. Curiously, the book's publisher has no other listings in Worldcat, Firstsearch or Books in Print. Lexis/Nexis has a single mention as a maker of LaserTag equipment in an article about a new LaserTag arena in Louisiana. Factiva finds that VEQTOR exhibited at the 2003 IAAPA trade show. ProQuest finds a 1996 article about a LaserTag installation in Iceland, and a 1998 press release about a LaserTag facility in New Delhi. (Those by the way are the only hits in Factiva and Proquest, not a selected subset.) Various other databases find nothing. I change my vote from delete to No vote. It's a real company but darned hard to find any verifable information on it. Thatcher131 18:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But shouldn't the very fact that it is hard to find an article on it be an index of non-notability? Bucketsofg 02:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice I didn't vote keep. One problem is that the online Global Books in Print obviously doesn't go back far enough in its out-of-print listings. Maybe other searches suffer similarly; if the company was bigger in the 80's and early 90's there might not be a lot in online sources. Certainly the lack of current information could mean they are no longer notable, and certainly hampers verifiability. Having made the mistake about the existence of the book, I wanted to be extra careful and make sure I didn't miss anything else, so I went farther in depth than I have before.Thatcher131 03:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Blatant spam. Delete both unless rewritten (and I am not holding my breath). - Mike Rosoft 15:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he is working on a major revision. Although there may be some doubt if it will meet WP:CORP, he is usiong references and the article now looks like an article instead of an advert. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 23:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mike, what elements of the article would you like rewritten? Do you have any other known uses of VEQTOR as a definition of clarification? Most users of wikipeida understand that wikipedia is a compendium of facts and descriptions related to words and concepts, spanning millions of subjects, old new and even theoretical speculation - AND no matter how obscure! What FACTS within this article need to be changed, enhanced, clarified? What items contained within this article are 'SPAM'? Over time I guess that many people will seek to add accurate modifications to this article - interested parties describe there experiences and associations with the subjects this article contains. Mike not all subjects on wikipedia are of interest to you (nor to me) but that does not mean that they are not of interest to others. I hope all voters on this subject will present POSITIVE criticism like Bucketsofg has demonstrated - wikipedians must use an honorable approach suggesting positive actions, rather than unsupported bias. --VEQTOR 19:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)----[reply]

Turn it into an article instyead of an advertisement. Look at the Winn Dixie article to get some ideas. Theorectical speculation does not belong at Wikipedia. You need to read WP:NOT, WP:WINAD, WP:SPAM and WP:NOR to see why people object to this. What you have looks like an advertisement of a non notable company that contains almost no information. After reading your article I am still not sure what VEQTORIAN is. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 19:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• dont delete this article was interesting as I have an interest in the health and wellness business and it's interesting to see how the market is developing.--Mudie 13:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on finding this AfD with your very first edit. Just zis Guy you know? 18:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new user to wikipedia, and I found this article interesting. Why is it marked for deletion? I think it should be kept. Richard 3-21-2006 11:20 a.m.

Posted by IP 66.167.119.42. Another user who has never posted to wikipedia before, must be a coincidence. --OscarTheCat^talk 21:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete advert, unsuitable for wikipedia as it stands. Author is making a valiant attempt at faking some "dont delete" votes though. --OscarTheCat^talk 21:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So 'OscartheCat', I believe wikipedia is to contain facts not assumptions or suppositions. Both of your comments are just that - factless. I am the author of this article and you have given me no guide as to what you want to see added or deleted to improve this article. Without your positive input the goal of wikipedia is dead. YES, I have e-mailed a few collegues around the world and introduced them to wikipedia - some have take the time to try and learn to use wikipedia and I commend them. The fact is that most people of the world and casual internet users do NOT use, or even know about, wikipedia. The fact is I am not faking the vote.--VEQTOR 08:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:VAIN? Just zis Guy you know? 13:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete this page........I need the info on this page!!! This is the funniest game ever made,you laugh constantly AND get a workout.....brilliant. regards from wolfman

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Liberatore(T) 18:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Pet sites

Delete. The article is based on personal preference and is vague. At most, wikify and enhance. Wraith Daquell 04:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as the one who tagged the article with {{afd1}}. I contemplated suggesting a merge to Digital pet, but there is nothing new to be merged. --Viridian {Talk} 04:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's all opinion. I'd call it original research if I though any thought had gone into it. --djrobgordon 05:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Viridian. No Guru 17:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Digital pet--Irishpunktom\^talk 18:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect this silliness. ProhibitOnions 21:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Digital pet does not contain any listing to websites but an external link at the very bottom does. A redirect would possibly just confuse readers. -- 127.*.*.1 22:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 03:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Brown (filmmaker)

Wes Brown is related to a number of semi-notable surfing documentary filmmakers, but is not himself notable. Article asserts only one movie and neither that movie, nor this person, are in IMDB. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) JRP 06:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He is on IMDB. The site has errors on his entry though (many dupes). The multiple Wes Browns listed as working on films such as Endless Summer Revisited, Step Into Liquid, and Dust to Glory are the same Wes Brown as discussed here.

I created this because of his notability in continuing the Brown family legacy in making surf movies. Sure he only has the single movie but all filmmakers start with a single movie. I doubt it will be his last.

I have not been given the opportunity to flesh out the article yet is why it is in such a rough state. I had added Wes To his father Dana's entry and it was promptly removed for redirecting to the wrong location (A football player). I created a rough entry for Wes Brown so that link would redirect to the proper person and not be deleted. Now this entry is marked for deletion before I even have a chance to clean it up. I don't take that personal but I do find it rather annoying time is not given to flesh something out before it is judged.

However go ahead and delete it cuz I no longer care and I'm not going to put up a fuss. I now feel I would be better off just merging the three Brown family entry's (Bruce Brown, Dana, Brown, and Wes Brown). --Generalleoff 07:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is not the IMDB, and I see no need for us to duplicate them. Average Earthman 19:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per averge earthman --Khoikhoi 03:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as mentioned, because of duplication. Generalleoff might need time to do this. ProhibitOnions 12:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 10:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney 3rd lounge

Had a prod tag but it was removed, non-notable lounge, Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, agree with nom, seems quite nn to me. --Deville (Talk) 17:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable (also contains a fair bit of nonsense.) No Guru 17:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN. Bucketsofg 18:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 19:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn --Khoikhoi 08:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not only not notable but vanity. CartesianAngst 10:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 10:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiskel landscape

Advertisement, non-notable per WP:CORP, PROD removed by author. Sandstein 11:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CORP. Quite an article for a local landscaping company. --CrypticBacon 11:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 15:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all --Khoikhoi 08:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all redux. ProhibitOnions 12:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Reads like advertising. Atrian 18:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 06:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Orchestra of Greater Columbus

delete non-notable orchestra. no cds, 128 google hits Magdela 16:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. I believe we consider schools notable (if this is a false statement, someone can strike my vote). We should apply the same approach to youth orchestras, whose principal mission is education of young musicians and not musical performance for audiences. Hence lack of CD's, etc., is to be expected. Appears to be a credible youth orchestra, so no reason to delete by this reasoning. Martinp 03:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC) (serious amateur clarinetist)[reply]
• I would go for a speedy delete per {{nn-club}}. I'm not 100% confident in it, so I'll leave another admin to recheck. Stifle 01:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This sets a bad precedent for clubs on Wikipedia if kept. I would guess that every major city in the US, Australia, UK and Canada at least, would have such groups, for all sorts of activities. Unless we're talking about something equivalent to the Boys Choir of Harlem (hint: we're not), this isn't worthy keeping. Harro5 05:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Angr/talk 21:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please delete per Harro5. --D-Day ^{My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes} 21:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Harro5. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Schools are only "notable" by whimsy of consensus, and I'm not inclined to see that notion spread to other non-notable entities. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Whimsy of consensus" is a peculiar way of putting it. My impression is that there is no consensus at all on the notability of schools, which means they get kept by default. Angr/talk 23:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per Harro5. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Harro5. --Terence Ong 02:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There was 75% support for deletion at the closing time, this shouldn't have been a relist. Stifle 00:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  13:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zentec

Delete. This is a vanity page for a non-notable company. Companies in the "beta" stage are non-encyclopedic. cmh 15:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:CORP, and the little tirade added to the article is a nice touch. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. And sanction article creator (or at least the rant editor) for threatened disruption of Wikipedia. Haikupoet 04:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all nn --Khoikhoi 08:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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