Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 21 May 23 >

Purge server cache

May 22

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home and Away Spoilers

[edit]

Unencyclopediac Home And Away-cruft. Also questions over the whether the info is verifable. Midnighttonight 03:32, 22 May 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 11:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark and Friends

[edit]

A web comic with no incoming links [1] or references that google knows of [2]. The website's pageview counter is currently just above 600, and [3] indicates that this is the correct number of visitors so far. Zocky | picture popups 00:06, 22 May 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 -- Longhair 22:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floriana basketball club

[edit]

This would fall under the non-notable criteria (not that I've read that section or anything, but still, if I had read it, then I'd still probs AFD this). A Maltese sports club, this is. Fair enough, it is probs more important than such British gems as Locks Heath F.C.. What was the question again? Ah yeah, delete this. Talented Wikipedian 00:14, 22 May 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. Mackensen (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penis banding

[edit]

This is a strange activity, and there's no assertion that it is practiced by anyone other than the authors of the two linked webpages. I can't seem to find any reliable sources for this. It seems to me that this may be a type of obsessive compulsive disorder in which the sufferer is obsessed with castration. WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT a how-to. Erik the Rude 00:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep as above. moreover if only those two websites exist and they only have a few thousand members it is important to the wholeness of the information present in round about ways to this issues. While this is not the case since this is an ancient practice as sourced.--Procrastinating@talk2me 18:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Siva1979, else redirect to penectomy. Very difficult to verify by its very nature but, like any paraphilia, there's plenty of questionable internet source material on the subject. — AKADriver ☎ 13:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Searching "Penis banding" together gets 65 Ghits only.--Jusjih 13:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn practice. Is also unverifiable. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Siva1979, but I would otherwise merge with penectomy. Just because it's bizarre and you've never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. -- stubblyhead | T/c 18:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as the sources given are absolutely unacceptable as sources. Wikipedia is not the internet, I have no doubt that there are people who have done this, but "truth" has nothing to do with whether something should have a Wikipedia article or not. This article is basically original research which is unverified by reliable sources. Mak (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Give me something beyond a beyond a personal site saying "this is what it is and this is how I do it" and I'll reconsider my vote. But if this counts as verifiable then I have a bridge to sell you, er, some web pages to create. Cburnett 01:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not referenced enough for me. People do strange things to themselves, but the fact that something is possible (and practiced by a handful of people) doesn't make this notable. Grandmasterka 03:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: This entry still has no reliable sources, nor is there any information on how widespread it is or even if it is important at all. If those voting "keep" had sourced it or provided some information on how widespread or important it is, I wouldn't have minded seeing it kept. I just don't like it when people make up activities, give it a name, and put it on Wikipedia. Erik the Rude 17:47, 28 May 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. -- Longhair 10:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Dunkadelic Era" In America, 1984-Present

[edit]

Long, rambling, idiosyncratic pop-culture history essay, created by Dunkadelic Education (talk · contribs). No real sources cited. "Importance" and "reference" tags have been added and removed -- twice -- and prod tag added and removed, all without any comments. Seems to be related to Dunkadelicious (see its AfD -- author removed AfD tag from article) and to Dunkadelic. Calton | Talk 00:59, 22 May 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. Royboycrashfan 03:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Portier

[edit]

Appears to be a vanity page. The only claim for notability is an unsourced statement that the subject has been published "around the world" jmd 01:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 23:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkadelic

[edit]

Contested PROD. Original research, neologism, possible spam by User:Dunkadelic Education Erik the Rude 01:14, 22 May 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. Mailer Diablo 15:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto

[edit]

This page has been recently deleted within the last 48 hours as a speedy for copyvio; it was speedied through admin intervention in a regular AfD. The original AfD nom, which I support, is non-notable. In addition, Gregorykay (the main contributer), has repeatedly deleted a second speedy notice claiming that this is a different page. Adding to AfD for discussion Hobbeslover 01:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As nominator Hobbeslover 01:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete There is NO REASON THAT PAGE SHOULD BE DELETED! Im just annoyed because everyone all day is saying to delete it just because at the beginning it was copyright infringement but it no longer is. Just say why it should be deleted, is there a reason? Or you just saw that someone else nominated it for speedy? Because this article is diffrent one from the one that was originoly nominated. Sorry if i sound rude i am just a bit annoyed--Gregorykay 01:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are still bits and pieces that are copyvio. The sentence structure has been changed but elements remain of copyvio (check it against the website). - Hobbeslover 02:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Individual churches/synagogues/mosques are generally non-notable (WP:NN, perhaps specifically WP:CORP) except where special circumstances entail (e.g., prominent leader, notable attendees, historical significance, very large congregation); I don't see such circumstances here (there is, I imagine, an argument to be made that each individual religious house of worship is as notable as any individual school; inasmuch as it seems well-settled that schools [at least of secondary level] are notable per se, I can imagine a reasonable argument for keep). Joe 01:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Keep I concurred in Crum's note that the synagogue would be notable were it one of the largest in North America and were we able to verify such size per WP:V and WP:RS; I am convinced that such verification is now possible, and so the synagogue, to my mind, meets with WP:NN. Joe 20:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably be notable, if it comes from WP:RS Crum375 01:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It comes from the synagogue website bayt.org--Gregorykay 02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to it? (I couldn't find it on the site) - and BTW WP:RS means some neutral reliable source would have to say so. Crum375 02:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.bayt.org/ at the top under about us, Our history
Sorry - I read again the entire history and probably missed it again :P - can you quote something that I can search? (not that it matters - it's POV etc but for the record) Crum375 02:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought you were asking were i got most of the information from, i didn't realize you were specificly asking about where i found it is the largest synagogue in toronto. As for that information i dont really have a source, as an active member within the Toronto jewish community it is a known thing. But i guess that is not a reliable source.
  • keep and massively cleanup We tend to keep houses of worship, as long as there's some small claim to notability. (As an NP patroller, I can assure you this isn't even the most tenous claim to notability I've seen this week). The page currently has a lot of self-promotion. If we can clean it up using WP:RS and only verified info, it should be okay. (note to anyone who wants to clean it up: take a look at other articles in Category:Places of worship in New York City - there are some in there which are very good.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bachrach44 (talk • contribs) 02:04, May 22, 2006 (UTC).
IMO, a reference which is a catalog listing cannot vouch for 'notability', as the criteria for inclusion are unclear. Much better would be articles mentioning the institution (not necessarily in a complimentary fashion). All that's needed is notability (or notoriety as the case may be), IOW 'claim to fame' mentioned by a reliable neutral publication - i.e. why is it special. Crum375 15:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the newspaper article would be reliable and near the bottom it says "It has since grown to become one of the largest Orthodox synagogues in North America", that is its claim to fame
  • That was my point, but the catalog reference is not useful and the article as of now still reads like an ad. The first sentence should probably say "...one of the largest Orthodox synagogues in North America...", and there should be reliable neutral references backing it up. Crum375 16:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we are looking at different articles. The one I see right now is just an ad for a business. No claim to fame (e.g. one of largest per above), nor citations of neutral publications justifying such claims. As it stands it is still WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:NN to name a few, i.e. delete candidate. Crum375 22:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry im kinda new to wikipedia, how long until the process is over, and if its decided that the article will be kept, will these tags be added to it; {{not verified}} {{Expert}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorykay (talk • contribs)
The AfD was created on the 22nd of May, and will close on the 27th of May, unless an administrator closes it early. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
kk thnx--Gregorykay 04:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much better now, good job. It would be nice to have the source of the 'one of the biggest' available online. I just changed my vote to Keep (on trust). Crum375 20:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 23:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.EE

[edit]

Never heard of this drink and a quick search shows no evidence for it. Think this is some sort of prank, but even if the drink does exist it seems unlikely that every brand of every drink should have a wiki entry! Gretnagod 01:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand why this article is deemed unacceptable. It is factual.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as listcruft. Royboycrashfan 03:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Xavier Institute students

[edit]

Not memorable, TERRIBLE precedent - Xavier Institute is a school in India John Broughton 01:13, 22 May 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. Rje 15:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunk DJs

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A7. Royboycrashfan 03:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darkflame Studios

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

All the AfDs in this section have now been individually closed. --Ezeu 05:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish summer camps and local organizations

[edit]
Note: The manner in which this vote has now been set up requires that you click on each of the names and place your votes and comments into each one individually.

Two or three days ago User:PZFUN was nominating some Judaism-related articles for deletion during stub-cleaning. Together with mostly summer camps he inexplicably managed to list a number of rather notable Hasidic rebbes. Predictably this led to some nasty finger pointing and name-calling on the administators' noteboard and on AfD itself.

The full helping of bile is here and here.

I am re-listing the articles (minus the rebbes of couse) here in the hope to restore civility. Intentionally no rationale is given why any article might be delete-worthy. Please read the articles and make your statement on the worth of the article itself. Rude remarks and blanket statements are discouraged, those are never helpful. Dr Zak 02:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I consider it highly impolite at best to remove with a keystroke all the efforts of many, who commented and voted on many of these AfD's. I think the vast majority of the comments were very civil and objective. To start from scratch, tossing away many hours of work by many caring people because there was suspicion of POV or GF on the part of the nominator (which I believe proved to be a false alarm) is simply wrong. Crum375 02:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I think all the previous noms should be closed as either no consensus, or reopened where they were. -- JJay 02:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The votes at the various VfD for the articles were going along fine until the Dr. came along. There was absolutely NO acrimony on the voting pages themselves, everything was very civil. The results would have been either "no consensus" or "keep" because enough "keep" votes had already come in. Almost ALL those who voted "keep" gave far more detailed and researched reasons than those who voted "delete". It is puzzling, to say the least, why this new very unusual listing is now needed. Those who have voted on those VfD pages should be informed that this move was taking place. IZAK 03:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree about the civility, though not necessarily about the potential outcome. Personally I think there should be consistent WP policies about all clubs and organizations and their grouping, if any. But leaving that aside, I totally agree that this re-listing is most improper. The work product invested by people by researching each case and voting, and the ensuing civil discussions, cannot just be tossed aside on someone's whim. Crum375 03:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all silly, wikipedia is big enough for all of these jewish summer camps. Camps for Jews are an important part of both european and american jewish history. 24.60.163.16 05:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all WP:POINT and never should have happened. PZFUN deserves to be blocked. But now we're here it may be useful to review these cases, as summer camps have intrinsic notability and WP:V problems. JFW | T@lk 07:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is time to stop the crusade against perfectly non-obtrusive and non-offensive articles about legitimate topics. What is the problem with keeping them? That Wikipedia will be more complete?? Keep them all and let people improve the articles. -- Olve 08:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any reason why these shouldn't be merged into ... oooh, lets say Jewish summer camps and local organizations. A paragraph mentioning what they generally have in common (constituency, activities, staffing), and then a list with locations and any truly important distinctions noted there. -- GWO
    • GWO: It's simple, because there are too many of them, they are very diverse, and they have different histories and facts surrounding them. Basically all the information about them would not fit into a normal page. IZAK 10:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of them are unique, but a lot are basically the same. Camp Galil, Camp Gesher, Camp Miriam -- are these really more different than they are similar? Their differences could easily be summarised in a list / table at Habonim Dror summer camps. Much of the additional information is completely superfluous. I mean, do we really need to know where Camp Geshers flagpole is, or how many baseball diamonds each camp has? -- GWO
        • GWO: Obviously we are not focusing on the "flagpoles", the point is not just what you and I may think of these camps, it's obvious that there are plenty of other readers who are delighted to get this information and anything else that can be added to it in the years to come. In the USA going to summer camp is almost a way of life for many Jewish kids, it's part of their fun connection to Judaism in many ways, and it cannot be minimized and should not be trivialized and certainly should not be deleted. Wikipedia's servers can handle it. IZAK 11:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry. I was under the impression this was an encyclopedia, not a holiday brochure. Playing softball is a way of life for lots of Americans: are we to allow every softball team a page. -- GWO
            • Oh come on GWO: Have you honsetly read all 1,200,000+ articles on Wikipedia? When all the articles about Porn stars and Nudity will go then I can start comparing things here to the Britanicca, but for now, all decent information is more than welcome as far as most people are concerned. IZAK 12:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm all for including notable pornstars, notable summer camps and notable nudity. But the criteria for inclusion is notability, not usefulness to kids planning their vacations. -- GWO
            • So what it boils down to then is what values to go by, those that value porn stars and nudists (what's notable about filth? -- it's like measuring garbage) or those that value Jewish children (who are inherently precious) and the notable institutions that serve them. IZAK 15:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Our apologies; we missed the part on the Wikipedia Main Page where Wikipedia's adherence to some interpretation of Judeo-Christian "moral values" was cited. Until it does appear, however, I'm afraid the standards for inclusion for this (or, likely, for any other) encyclopedia will revolve around verifiability and notability before it does any utterly POV-ridden concept such as "values." RGTraynor 20:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hmmm. I'm tempted to register wholesomepedia.org and filthopedia.org, and see which gets more contributors. Pornography is massive influence on world culture -- whether IZAK likes it or not. Jewish summer camps, not so much. -- GWO
  • A really pain-in-the-arse way of going about solving the problem 'if' there was much of one. I only hope that the closing admins also look at the original discussions when considering the result. -- saberwyn 11:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is an excellent example of what is wrong with AfD right now. It appears most if not all of these were nominated with no attempt to discuss the problems with these articles on the individual talk pages. Granted, what we have here are a number of summer camps and clubs, which in my opinion fall well short of current inclusion guidelines and the vast majority of them should likely be deleted if you look at them on their merits, independent of the issues surrounding the nominations. Still, if a reasonable effort had been made to discuss these articles individually this whole mess could have possibly been avoided; or at least some civility could have been retained during the AfD process.--Isotope23 16:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder if there is any good way to announce mass nominations of articles. One can discuss the merits of an individual article on a talk page, sure, but what would one do when one goes spring-cleaning with, say, ten summer camps, or student societies or porno starlets? Dr Zak 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No there really isn't a good way... which is why mass noms are not the best idea. I understand the concept if it being easier to look at a bunch of similar articles together... but really, best practice is to individually nominate and discuss each article on its merits. Mass nominations just always end up being acrimonious.--Isotope23 19:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a lot of articles on American Jewish summer camps appearing on wikipedia, many of do not appear to be very notable: Camp Modin, for one. If these articles are to stay on wikipedia then I would suggest that new articles be made, perhaps one for each US state, in which information about the camps in those areas can be placed, rather than having this huge number pages on camps, most of them not exceeding about 250 words in size. Martinp23 18:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Camp Modin is one of the oldest Jewish camps in the US and was the inspiration for a recent feature film. We need many more articles like this, not less. -- JJay 20:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact is that many of these articles are onyl a few hundred words long, and should either be expanded or amalgamated. With all the camps from a state in one article, it will be easier for the reader too compare the camps, and look and Judaism in these areas. The more notable camps shoudl have their articles extended. Camp Agawam is really a tiny article which should be combined with others into a new article. Martinp23 21:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please expand them then if you think they need more information. However, I would be happy to see stubs on every camp in the US, even the non-Jewish ones. -- JJay 21:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grouping by state is a poor taxonomy, as I see no reason that geographic location (certainly on a scale smaller then "regional") would significantly differentiate them. If anything, group them by ideology/mission. Better yet, have a single article. --Nmagedman 23:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As per WP:BREAK, a Best Current Practice for page development is to start with a single page, to create sections as needed, and to fork those sections off into their own articles as the parent article matures. Here, however, we find a large number of stub articles with little indication of their individual importance. Repeatedly, the argument was made below that the camps are notable because they have been around for many years and have had an impact on many peoples' lives. I accept that argument for the camps as a whole, but see no justification for articles on each individual camp. I therefore propose that the camp articles be merged into e.g. Jewish-American camp movement discussing the significance of these camps (as a whole) on the Jewish-American experience/culture, with sub-sections for each camp indicating how it substantively contributed to or differentiated itself from the rest of the movement. --Nmagedman 23:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully agree with this - just because they have affected lots of people doesn't make them notable. There are many people in the world, teachers and doctors for example, who have had a HUGE impact on many peoples' lives, but are not considered for Wikipedia. Martinp23 16:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jewish summer camps do not merely "impact peoples' lives" in the secular sense of "having fun" or whatever. These camps are an integral part of the Jewish cultural experience. They are not just about playing baseball or swimming in the lake. Those things might happen, but the main purpose is to provide a place where Jewish children and youth can affirm their Jewishness in an accepting, positive environment. As such, they are more akin to feminist retreats or GLBT retreats or some other cultural minority that does not always feel accepted or able to be "out" in the greater society. Those of you who did not grow up Jewish in America (or Canada, in the case of some camps) cannot truly understand the experience, anymore that a heterosexual can truly understand what it feels like to be gay in a homophobic society. If these were gay or feminist camps, would we even be having this conversation? Because the pattern of these delete nominations -- and not just camps, there have been others! -- has been to target Jews or Jewish institutions that might not be known in the general public, but are nevertheless as important in the Jewish experience as a lot of other things I've never even heard of that are still here on Wikipedia. Rooster613 01:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]
  • "Going Down The Pub" is an integral part of the "British cultural experience". Doesn't mean my local pub deserves an article. One can write about the importance of Jewish Summer Camps as a social construct without detailing each individual camp. I'd love to see such an article. Of course, writing such an article is hard, and requires research. Merely enumerating and describing each camp is easy, and pointless. Guess which wikipedia got? -- GWO
  • Weak Keep [note: I voted Merge above. Since the thread has grown from there, I'm adding this rather than striking what I have above.] There are at least a couple hundred articles on various summer camps on Wikipedia, not to mention high schools and everybody's pet organization. Personally, I think they are all NN rubbish and have no place in an encyclopedia. However, it is a waste of energy to repeat the "Are summer camps encyclopedic?" debate on each and every camp article on WP. Hash out the debate in a guideline discussion. Once a standard is agreed upon, then sweep through all the camp articles, applying the standard equally. In the meantime, I would not be averse to flagging these (and all) camp articles with {{importance}}. --Nmagedman 08:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is Relative: By any rule of logic, reason, and fairness, one should not short-circuit the system by nominating articles for deletion, when what certain articles may need is improvement and sources, and one needs to step back from one's own mind-set and think of entire groups of articles that may be important in other contexts. I did NOT write the articles on this page up for VfDs but nevertheless if enough people feel that these topics (about Jewish Summer Camps) are important enough to write them up, it must mean that many young parents or campers or people out there WANT to read about them, so that in itself makes these articles worthy of being defended. A lot of the shouting about "notable" is bogus because notability is a relative concept, and as I have stated, when the day comes that Wikipedia will do away with articles about porn stars and nudity I will know that it has become a "real" encyclopedia. Why are Jewish Summer camps "not notable"? They play a major and very significant role in the lives of hundreds of thousands of Jewish kids growing up in North America for two months out of every year. Jewish kids love their camp experiences more than they like school. Camp fees for two months are often the equivalent of an entire year's yeshiva or day school tuition, so summer camps are important features of Jewish education and life! In fact it's surprising that there are so few of these articles, there will surely be more by new editors unaware of this fuss who will just write new articles in the future. Sure, the articles are wishy-washy and are obviously often written by people who want to get attention, but how is that different to other areas? Sure, in the Jews and Judaism sections we have articles that need work, is that not true everywhere on Wikipedia? There are editors who have spent hundreds of hours devoted to improving the articles, but they are few in number and it will take time, maybe even years. It is not wise to ignore the broader picture and to not take the long-term view, and "delete on sight". There is now a new self-justifying rationale that one can just skip the "needs improvement" requests on article pages and just put "VfD" on them with the excuse that they just are doing it to "get the attention" of other editors -- "The New Deletionism". To expect action and solutions within days is not realistic. It will take months and years to improve things. Writing and editing takes time, not to mention all the man-hours spent on debates and discussions on talk pages on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has come a long way, and there is a long way to go yet, but we should not let deletionists to throw the baby out with the bathwater with articles in the name of making Wikipedia more "encyclopedic" when in fact, notability is relative, and more caution and care is called for. Wikipedia is not a "finished product", it is definitely a "work of art in progress" and no works of art are produced overnight. IZAK 16:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy living shit. You really believe that wikipedia will be improved if it discards everything that does not fit your moral code. That's a scary, scary, scary idea. Thank God you're in a minority of one. -- GWO
    • GWO: Who the heck said anything about a "moral code"??? I was citing examples to make a point, that while some people think that porn stars are notable, others do not, and by the same token while some people think that summer camps are important and notable others do not. That's it in a nutshell. If I was truly worried about "moral codes" I would spend my time someplace else other than Wikipedia. I am not detached from reality, so please don't make it sound like that. Not everyone sees things the same way. There all kinds of "encyclopedias" out there, depending on one's interests. IZAK 17:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • while some people think that porn stars are notable, others do not -- and you're telling me that your railing against porn and nudity (nudity ?!?) isn't based on morals but ... what, exactly? Incidentally, if you think wikipedia's going to become cleanopedia, I suggest you investigate how Bomis makes its money. -- GWO
        • GWO: So you think that Bomis's X-rated history should guide the fate of Wikipedia? Anyhow, it's a poor argument to believe that because Bomis is what it is that therefore Wikipedia is the same. People are free to be moral, immoral, or amoral, but that is also not the point of my argument which you insist on twisting. My point is that "notability" does not have the same meaning or definition in all situations and is not the same for all people, something which should be very obvious but which is often ignored. One could just as clearly say that while some people may think that different species of rare insects may be "notable", for those who couldn't care less about bugs, "bug xyz" crawling in the Mojave Desert is simply not notable -- whereas something that does interest them, like the things that revolve around the education and development of children, such as Summer camps, is extremely notable. My only argument here is that the notion of notability is relative. IZAK 18:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • My point is that "notability" does not have the same meaning or definition in all situations and is not the same for all people, something which should be very obvious but which is often ignored. -- No. Your point is further than that. Your point is that notability is relative, but your concept of it is the one that should apply to wikipedia. i.e. remove the famous, notorious, filthy, obscene, unpleasant-but-widely-known pornstars whom you find so distasteful, but keep the non-famous-but-thoroughly-wholesome summer camps because they're so super-important (at least to the middle-class Jewish boys from the midwest to whom they cater). My point (if I still have one) is that that's hilarious. -- GWO
          • GWO: What may be "hilarious" to you is pathetic to someone else. No need to make fun of "middle-class Jewish boys from the midwest" which I would say could be construed as a very offensive statement or worse, don't you think? Oh my, why do you put words into my mouth. I have never proposed any of the things that you attribute to me. I was pointing to examples of differences of perspective that prove that there can never be a universal standard to guide notability. Not everyone watches or has an interest in porn stars, nor should they, but the only thing that I have maintained is that no-one on Wikipedia or anywhere can decide upon universal rules for notability, nothing more and nothing less, and please do not attribute words to me that I have not stated specifically. IZAK 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • GWO: No need to make fun of "middle-class Jewish boys from the midwest" -- I didn't make fun of them, or even say anything derogatory about them, except to say that an individual camp that caters exclusively to them might not be particularly notable. So take your faux-outrage and implications of anti-semitism and go and write a good article about the cultural importance of Jewish Summer Camps, and fewer descriptions off their individual amenities. -- GWO

Comment - Setting aside dogmatic debates between deletionists and inclusionists, I think that a) the fact that an article is still a stub does not make the topic non-notable; and b) it takes some nerve to nominate for deletion articles that the nominator clearly has no knowledge, and in some cases didn't even read. --Leifern 00:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -- Longhair 03:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First American-Romanian congregation

[edit]
Question: Why wasn't the original contributor of this article informed at any point about the votes for deletion? See User talk:Rshamos. Thank you. IZAK 10:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a synagogue :) -- Avi 20:08, 22 May 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 Zealotry. Sango123 (e) 23:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biryonim

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eisner Camp

[edit]
Anti-Jewish crusade...? Playing the race card, are we? It is a nn summercamp, Jewish or not. 130.225.184.24 10:12, 23 May 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. Mailer Diablo 15:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiddush club

[edit]
Question: Why wasn't the original contributor informed of this vote? It's now on his talk page, see User talk:Nathanm777. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)
comment I'll concede that it seems like a very small niche field, but it is an important issue. If anyone could think of a reasonable place to put it, such as in the Yeridat HaDorot article, or the Alcoholism among orthodox Jews article, I'd change my vote to a merge. As it is, however, I see no appropriate place for it other than where it is now. I don't think we should worry too much about it since Wikipedia is not paper. The biggest issue ought to be "is the content stupid and irrelevant," and I htink the answer to taht is definitely no. Avraham 15:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this could be merged with coffee break, and mentioned there as loose a cultural equivalent? HKT 16:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable phenomenon. Jayjg (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with kiddush. Delete. This is a slang term and a neologism, though the activity described is prevalent. I am uncertain whether this violates WP:NEO. Personally, I was taken aback when I saw that this had become an article. If "kiddush clubs" are notable, maybe we should have an article about the practice of children playing ball outside of the synagogue on Shabbat, and which Jewish organizations criticize this. I don't think that this meets Wikipedia's notability standards. HKT 22:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC) On second thought, changing my vote to delete. I don't think the content is sufficiently encyclopedic for its own stub, and it doesn't really have a place in the kiddush article. HKT 22:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: First of all, a term is only considered a neologism if it has only recently created. The term "Kiddush club" has been around for a considerably long time, and more significantly, it has been accepted into the lexicon of contemporary Orthodox Judaism. Secondly, it is certainly encyclopedic, being an important and notable cultural phenomenon among synagogue-going American Jews. --DLandTALK 03:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Kiddush clubs" are simply a shtick used by some people to leave the synagogue earlier, eat earlier, consume liquor, and socialize with friends. This term has not even spread to all or most communities. It is hard for me to appreciate what cultural significance this might have, though I understand why this practice was criticized by the OU. HKT 16:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with kiddush Delete as per HKT. Ted 22:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widespread and well known cultural phenomenon. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Notable enough for the OU to take a stance, notable enough to keep. --Yodamace1 16:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If commentary by the OU is sufficient to establish notability, perhaps we should compose an article about talking during prayers in synagogue and driving to synagogue on Shabbat (both of which have at least as much cultural significance as "kiddush clubs"). HKT 16:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mostly as per HKT. This is an encyclopedia, not a almanac of religious (or non-religious) customs. At most, merge with something else. --Shuki 20:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Indeed, this is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia should have encyclopedic articles about notable cultural phenomena - like this. If you think articles of this sort belong in an almanac, I suggest you find out what an almanac actually is first. --DLandTALK 04:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Merger doesn't make sense. It has little to do with Kiddush really. It is a label for social phemomena that has broader significance. --Metzenberg 12:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please merger does not make sense either Yuckfoo 19:19, 25 May 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 and redirect (this has already been done). Tyrenius 05:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North American Federation of Temple Youth - Northeast Lakes Region

[edit]
Question: why wasn't the original creator of this article informed about the votes for deletion? I have now done so, see User talk:Meitavlord2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/redirect to North American Federation of Temple Youth.--Ezeu 01:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North American Federation of Temple Youth - Mid-Atlantic Region

[edit]
Question: Why was the original creator of this article not involved about the votes to delete it? It is now on his page, see User talk:CrazyDrumGuy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Jewish Students Society

[edit]
Question: Why wasn't this article's initial contributor informed about the votes to delete the article? Now it's done, see User talk:Ps0u2166. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Yavneh

[edit]
  • Instead of complaining about POV, if there are lines that you think need "removal", why not edit the article? Normally, I would include a link here to the various help pages on editing. However, since you have demonstrated in-depth knowledge of AfD, I assume you already know how to edit. -- JJay 01:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep -- Longhair 22:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Tawonga

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Miriam

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Massad

[edit]
Question: Why was the original creator of this article not notified about the votes to delete. It's now on his page, see User talk:Sens08. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Camp Massad is unique as the only Hebrew immersion camp in Western Canada, has been serving the Winnipeg Jewish community for over 50 years, and the article is sourced through links to the Camp Massad website and news articles written about the camp by various Jewish periodicals, all reputable sources. --Darknightonight 03:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Uniqueness is generally not particularly sufficient. I see that it has been around 50 years which is pretty good, but I'm sure that a lot of ethnic/religious youth groups have also been around that length of time and are not regarded as being notable. I agree that the sources are reliable, but I'm also sure that many regional religous/ethnic group magazines will make a noticeboard section about their youth programs so to speak. What is the size of this camp, for instance. Did it win awards for its social work? At the moment the articel is long but seems to have been inflated by large amounts of material which seems like a camp programme/manual/calendar/schedule.`Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 07:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Darknightonight created his account the day before this vote took place and has since only edited one page — this one. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He still has very good points, even if he's a new member. 24.66.94.140 20:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not saying that this is the case, but when things like that happen, it offen brings to mind sockpuppetry. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 20:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did create my account only yesterday; long time user of this site, first time member. I use Wikipedia as a reference, including looking at the page Camp Massad, an organization I do have some familiarity with. When I saw that Camp Massad was up for deletion, I created this account in order to give some credence to my arguments as to why this article should be kept. I can understand how that can be misconstrued as sock-puppetry, but I assure you it was only done to speak up against efforts to remove this article. --Darknightonight 21:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my previous comments regarding camps. Use clean-up tag if article needs improvement. -- JJay 10:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Darknightonight, camp is mentioned in several stories in The Canadian Jewish News and Jewish Independent, site of Winnipeg Beach's only synagogue (over 50 years old), received grants of $22,500 from The Winnipeg Foundation in 2005, [12]. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 10:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current incarnation of the article should be adopted by the camp's website, because that's how it reads. This should be an encyclopedia article, not free web space or a parallel to the organisation's website. Keep if and only if the article is rewritten to show, through the use of externally verifiable information sourced from or cited in reliable third-party sources, information pertaining to the history and social/cultural/regional impact of the camp. NOT a detailed play-by-play report of camp life and organisational structure. 10:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as the article is very thorough, an important part of the History of the Jews in Canada, and shows the strong connections that the Jews of Canada have with Israel. IZAK 13:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 13:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up' or delete - this article is entirely original research. The topic itself may have notability, but it is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 13:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like ad, blizzard of information, all WP:NOR, notability uncertain. JFW | T@lk 14:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Primary problems is that this appears to be based off originial research, lacks verifiable information from reliable sources, it doesn't really distinguish the subject from other summer camps that kids have attened for decades, and seems to be pretty close to WP:NOT a webhost. That said, it's quite a well written and formatted article...--Isotope23 17:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I hold a personal bias as a member of the camp, and the original author of this entry, but the reasons to keep this article far outweigh the points to delete it. A run of the mill camp does not have the only synagogue in Winnipeg Beach. The same camp would not be the only Hebrew immersion camp in Western Canada. The same camp would not be the only sleep-away Jewish camp in Manitoba. If this article reads to much like an add, it needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Per above, and per my own, this article should no doubt be kept, and this ridiculous summer camp crusade should come to an immediate end. Sens08 19:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might I point out that since you wrote this article purely on personal experience, it is in clear violation of Wikipedia:No original research? And please do not use the word crusade, it only serves to make any discussion more heated than it already is. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, that it has original research, however while the camp is publicized, the information about it is definitely not. The information on the entry is in no way hearsay. And I use the word crusade for one reason, There are 16 Jewish Camps listed in Wikipedia, 12 are up for deletion. Its hard to beleive its a coincidence. Sens08 21:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As before. This is the only Hebrew-immersion camp in Western Canada, mentioned in several stories in The Canadian Jewish News and Jewish Independent, site of Winnipeg Beach's only synagogue (over 50 years old), received grants of $22,500 from The Winnipeg Foundation in 2005, [13], certainly as notable as many of the elementary schools listed on Wikipedia and camps listed in Category:Summer camps, such as Camp takajo or Woodward Camp, or indeed almost any of the camps in that category, almost all of which are referenced at best by a link to the camp's website. Jayjg (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Hebrew immersion camp seems notable. Delete No more notable than any other summer camp with an angle. Ted 22:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC) (changed from keep to delete Ted 04:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep This looks like unique camp, however doesnt differentiate between this Camp Massad and other Camp Massads--Gregorykay 00:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The camp is known through most of North America, though it is a Canadian camp a lot of Americans have attended and are attending. The fact that the small Jewish community of Winnipeg has a summer camp that attracts kids from all over North America is worth keeping. A camp like Camp Massad is unique in its programming and location, therefore the article should be kept so that other people that might hear about it can look at the article and know what the camp is all about.
  • Keep seems notable --Shlomke 03:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Without repeating all the previous information, I agree that camp massad is an important aspect of the Jewish community of Manitoba and Canada. It is a great place for children to connect to their Judaism to help teach about their own religion. It is very important this article stays posted since it discusses the programs and everything that occurs and is very informative on it. This is the most positive information I have seen on one camp in a long time. It is very informative without being too personal. Please consider this for the camp's benefit before you take it down. If need be, i vote edit rather than delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.26.22 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep -- I already voted to keep this before, I vote so again -- thank you, DR., for wasting my time by making me do this over and over... Rooster613rooster613Rooster613 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. <Camp Massad of Manitoba deserves as much right to deserve an entry on a global encyclopedia as much as any other organization does. The article was written for the people by the people. It may go against the rules of Wikipedia, but there are tons of other articles with invalid information. the Camp Massad article is ligit because the people who wrote it are active members at the camp.>. 24.76.228.13 03:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - IP's first edit. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is not "proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words" as WP:NOT also "Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable" This information is verifiable and is not just opinion. 24.79.132.194 18:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - First AfD edit by this IP. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable in any way, the article is partily a copy-vio, and contains no indication of notability. I could find about a thousand 8-year-old who are mentioned by newspapers, too. That does not mean they should be included on Wikipedia. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wow, i can't believe you guys would take the editing of wikipedia seriously enough to ban the products of the hard work and time spent by the writers of this this aticle. When you speak of something as wideranging as wikipedia, who's to say that one article is more significant than another. This page and this camp are obviously important enough in the lives and history of the many people who have passed through it's gates in the many years this camp has been around. It is also a wonder how those in favor of deleting this article came across it in the first place, and it's a shame that the feelings like these couldn't be used for more constructive purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.136.83 (talk • contribs)
Note - IP's first edit. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some of the brand new users seem quite confused about what makes something a legitimate Wikipedia topic, for instance 24.76.228.13 (talk · contribs) and 142.161.26.22 (talk · contribs). This is an encyclopedia. General interest to readers (which is lacking in this topic and this article) is a reason to keep. The "benefit" of an organization is not. And as for slapping a clean-up tag on it, I'm becoming more and more dubious of further inflating the already huge category of useless stubs with cleanup tags that nobody is doing anything about. Go clean it up already, and it'll surely be kept. Bishonen | talk 19:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Sockdrawer, very poor article quality, next to no assertion of notability. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 20:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23 and Bishonen. bogdan 20:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bishonen and User:PZFUN...Scott5114 20:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too much trivial information on a non notable subject. This article is seriously embarrassing to the project. Aspern 21:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am proud to say that I do in fact "take the editing of wikipedia seriously enough" to want to keep only articles that (a) belong in an encyclopedia and (b) meet Wikipedia policies. Point (a) is debatable for this article; reduced to stub length, it would be like one of 10,000 other harmless little articles on the fringes of notability. Point (b) though, makes me a litle nauseous when I read through this thing: No Original Research and Verifiability, two of Wikipedia's most critical content policies, have been wildly, thoroughly ignored; ignoring those to such a degree inevitably creates conflicts with the third, WP:NPOV, as well. I sympathize with the work that went into this and I encourage the creators to move this material to another website before it is deleted, but this is not material that belongs in Wikipedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Although some page about a notable and rather large Jewish summer camp can be kept, I express dismay at the excessive amount of original research that is put into this. A summer camp does require so much information that isn't even going to really concern many people. I suggest a cleam up and a reduction to stub length. - XX55XX 18:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article provides fun facts and interesting information as well as the actual, technical details of how the camp is run, which makes it entirely unique. It is imperative that it be kept up and running. - Susan & Liat --84.229.46.95 20:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complete rewrite needed - delete for now. I see potential if someone removes the POV and every advertising aspect in this article. It's a close call on notability, but that can be resolved on rewrite. The article is way too long for its purpose and subject matter. This article will be deleted unless someone steps forward and cleans up the mess that is there right now. B.Wind 12:48, 28 May 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. Mailer Diablo 16:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Gesher

[edit]
Question: Why wasn't the original creator of this article informed about the votes for deletion? Now it's posted at User talk:JamieJones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)

No vote yet. Dr Zak 01:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as it is, article asserts no notability. Like many of these other articles under AfD, this veers close to copyvio territory and is in desperate need of a rewrite to be encyclopedic. B.Wind 12:55, 28 May 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. Mailer Diablo 16:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Galil

[edit]
  • Neutral - article is in need of serious rewriting, to eliminate POV and establish encyclopedic form. I'd be tempted to advocate a merge with Habonim Dror, but there's not much "room" in the target article for it (or the other six articles). B.Wind 13:00, 28 May 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. Mailer Diablo 16:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Tel Noar

[edit]
Question: Why was the creator of this article not notified of the votes to delete? He is now, see User talk:Masterpjz9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, as noted by other editor in previous Afd, over 60 years old, one of three camps supported by the Cohen foundation, site of famous 1998 fire as documented in the Pulitzer Prize winning Eagle-Tribune. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 10:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not establish notability. --Tom 13:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per MPerel, and for its accurate description of Jewish life in the North Eastern USA during the summers. IZAK 13:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being old does not establish notability, and since when is 60 years old? This article is almost entirely non-encycloaepdic content. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 14:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since there are no guidelines for summer camps, I simply don't see anything that distinguishes this particular summer camp.--Isotope23 17:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As before. Over 60 years old, one of three camps supported by the Cohen foundation, site of famous 1998 fire as documented in the Pulitzer Prize winning Eagle-Tribune, certainly as notable as many of the elementary schools listed on Wikipedia and camps listed in Category:Summer camps, such as Camp takajo or Woodward Camp, or indeed almost any of the camps in that category, almost all of which are referenced at best by a link to the camp's website. Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article does need to be expanded, but it has been written about in the Eagle-Tribune and explains Jewish summer camp life for children in the northeast US. I would expand it somewhat, but not if it will be deleted. Masterpjz9 22:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and no place to merge it. Ted 22:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting opinion. I disagree. Silensor 23:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per MPerel, quite notable. Silensor 23:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not about to vote delete yet, but I can't agree with some of the rationales being offered in support of keeping the article. One of three camps supported by the Cohen foundation: why is this notable? I don't think we have an article about the Cohen Foundation. Site of famous 1998 fire: the fire occurred off-season, was confined to only one building and, fortunately, caused no injuries. [22] This is not the stuff of Category:Fires, and I doubt the camp would consider the fact that they had a fire 8 years ago as a justification for listing them in an encyclopedia. In fact, I can find no Internet references to this fire other than three articles in the local newspaper (the one I just mentioned and [23], [24]). Again, that's the local newspaper. I can't find any references to the camp at all in the New York Times or Washington Post archives. Pulitzer Prize winning Eagle-Tribune: Yes, the Eagle-Tribune has won two Pulitzer Prizes, but they had nothing to do with this camp or the fire. I don't think a Pulitzer Prize conveys encyclopedicity to everything a newspaper ever has or will report on. ... I don't know enough about this camp to say it's non-notable, but I don't think the keep voters should exaggerate the importance of the camp and significance of this article. --Metropolitan90 03:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per tom MarineCorps 02:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this camp is 60 years old and quite notable Yuckfoo 19:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not assert notability separating it from other summer camps; no room in Habonim Dror for merge; article in serious need of rewrite to remove POV and establish encyclopedic form. B.Wind 13:04, 28 May 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 List on today's copyright problems log as a copyright violation from here Jude (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Avoda

[edit]
From Talk:Camp Avoda: This article survived an afd. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Avoda/First for more details. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 03:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might I ask you to consider that this discussion is about of the Camp Avoda article, not the merits of other articles on Wikipedia. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 18:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was making the point that it might good for this article to be merged into a new article about Jewish Summer Camps in MA - but i did generalise in my last comment Martinp23 19:25, 22 May 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 -- Longhair 22:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Star Camps

[edit]
Question: Why wasn't the editor who created this article informed about the votes for deletion? He has been now, see User talk:Mcepitome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Sholom Day Camp

[edit]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 to Aleph Zadik Aleph. --Ezeu 01:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amitiz

[edit]
Question: Why wasn't this article's first contributor informed about the votes for deletion? Now he has been, see User talk:Ptolme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me under CSD-A7. --Arnzy (whats up?) 15:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew linde

[edit]

Reads like an advertisement (the original author appears to be the subject or someone associated) and does not establish notability. Crystallina 02:24, 22 May 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 16:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audra Williams

[edit]

Non-notable vanity article. Homey 02:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article at present is somewhat shorter than it was during the first AFD. Almost two weeks ago I asked for sources for several claims. None have been provided and the paragraphs in question have been hidden as a result.Homey 03:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearcat. Ardenn 04:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've certainly heard of her. - SimonP 04:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I've never heard of her, the article certainly seems a good job of asserting a lot of notability. And, assuming that the vast majority relate to this person, 9,360 Google hits is plenty. -- Kicking222 04:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep barely notable. Any remaining unsourced claims can be removed after the AFD. If that leaves a short stub, that's fine. People can add back material with sources. I added back some (not all), just now, so people could see what's being voted on. Also, if anybody edits this article, please do leave edit summaries if you can. --Rob 05:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC) On review, I see I can't vote keep, due to the lack of independent sources. --Rob 20:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not (yet) a collection of random non-notable information. Bwithh 05:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my previous comments before on the article's talk page. I always said I did not believe there would be a consensus to delete on an AfD; hence I avoided taking it here, but now that it's here, I believe the subject falls just short of notability. (I also missed the last AfD, by the way.) TheProject 07:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I still don't see how she is notable. --Eivindt@c 08:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, entirely nn. Web forum moderator? Activist? What has she actually done? Wikipedia is not a repository of mini-bios on liberals with consciences who can use a computer. Inclusion = systemic bias. Deizio talk 09:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and just to get systemic bias out of the way -- Wikipedia is not a repository of mini-bios on conservatives with consciences who can use a computer, either. TheProject 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete her article, though she herself sounds lovely. 100% agree with Deizio. She may be good at generating Google hits but she herself has not yet achieved anything of real note. Vizjim 10:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 13:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know vanity when I see it 15:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC) (added by User:Medico80)
  • Delete NN - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deizio. Ravenswing 20:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO in my view. --Arnzy (whats up?) 15:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. see this discussion Wiederaufbau
    • The definition of vanity is "written by the article subject themselves". This article was not written by Audra; I know the person who wrote it and he's neither Audra nor a personal friend of hers. Bearcat 22:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to Wikipedia:Vanity; "Most often, vanity edits are edits about the editors themselves, their close relatives or their personal associates". You have thus far failed to convince me, and may fail to convince others, that this article does not fall within the bounds of that particular guideline. Deizio talk 22:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What part of "the person who wrote it has no personal association of any type with Audra Williams" are you finding difficult to understand? The person who wrote it is not Audra, or a friend of Audra's, or a relative of Audra's, or a personal associate of Audra's. The person who wrote it meets no criterion that would make this a vanity article per Wikipedia:Vanity. Bearcat 22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Serves pretty much the same purpose (and I'm not convinced the principal authors are not connected with Audra, even if only in a virtual way ie exchanges with each other on the same chat boards, emails etc,) For instance, this article was discussed on the babble strike board, Audra expressed her desire not to see it deleted and has posted to that effect on the talk page. When someone campaigns not to have an article on themselves deleted that tells me the article serves the same purpose as a vanity page. See [27] Homey 00:39, 26 May 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 -- Longhair 12:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regatta Implementation: Preliminary phase

[edit]

No concensus was reached on the last AFD on this article - not for want of delete votes. The textbook-styled text is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia, delete--Peta 02:29, 22 May 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. -- Longhair 23:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Carroll

[edit]

This might be a vanity article. This guy's name doesn't ring a bell to me.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -- Longhair 22:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew M. House

[edit]

Non-notable author, can't even find anything about him on google [31] Liface 02:42, 22 May 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 -- Longhair 12:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Stinger Report

[edit]

Contested speedy deletion. No vote. --Nlu (talk) 02:43, 22 May 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. Royboycrashfan 04:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fresno Dragons

[edit]

DELETE Minor, non-notable soccer club, didn't even qualify to get into the league they were trying for. Librarianofages 02:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Money

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -- Longhair 12:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms used to describe NATO in Serbian media during Kosovo War

[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information, never mind an unsourced list which is clearly trying to push an agenda. Listcruft. wangi 03:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft Order of Battle

[edit]

This page is a mess, and confusing for a non-expert. - however I'm mostly listing it because I found the broken AfD notice. Neutral SeventyThree(Talk) 03:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starionwolf (talk • contribs) 11:24, 23 May 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. Sango123 (e) 15:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bellone

[edit]

Non-notable person (WP:BIO). Also non-verifiable (WP:V). Speedied, but speedy was deleted by the user who created (and has made all of the edits on) the article). Jesuschex 03:29, 22 May 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 non-notable. --Nlu (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Gao

[edit]

Lack of notability, few relevant google hits. Deprodded by anonymous IP. cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precious Time of New York, Inc.

[edit]

Appears to be not sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:59, 22 May 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 16:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Way

[edit]

Bizzare and unencyclopedic evaluation of an appartment building, has been though afd once, but the article hasnot been touched since and is still unfit for an encyclopedia.--Peta 04:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll try to merge the article with Walt Disney World College Program. Thanks for sharing the info SPUI. --Starionwolf 06:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tanawat wansom

[edit]

Unclear if the article is about a person or a copmany, it reads like a copyvio and there is no demonstrated encyclopedic value.--Peta 04:22, 22 May 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 and redirect to The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Tyrenius 05:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"

[edit]

Verbatim reproduction of eight "commandments" of a parody "religion", allegedly based on a book that appeared this year. Generally unencyclopedic as textdump, non-notable and nonsense. The existence of these commandments is already noted at Pastafarianism. Contested PROD. Sandstein 04:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.234.4.1 (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep or merge Would also be appropriate under GFSM but should not be deleted Enigmaedge 20:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or mergeIt is a beautifully written piece, I personally would like to say that this article inspires me to go out into the world and do good things for people without expecting anything in return.

Keep or merge. -a wanderer

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rje 16:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Senor Fraser

[edit]

Non-notable per WP:BIO. Returns only one hit on Google (not counting the article itself). No assertion of notability in the article. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional note. The full text of this article was originally located at Jim Fraser and nominated for deletion, which decided to revert to an earlier version about an Australian politician.User:JohnJacobs has subsequently been involved in move-warring aimed at replacing the text of Jim Fraser with the current text of Jim Senor Fraser and is borderline 3RR on that article. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd think the article to be speediable, but the Pan Am Games participant claim should likely be construed as an assertion of notability; notwithstanding that, the claim appears unverifiable, and I'm disinclined to think participation in the Pan Am Games necessarily to convey notability. As AD well notes, nothing else in the article comes close to demonstrating notability. Joe 04:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 08:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Jusjih 14:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If he won an event at the Pan Am games that would make him notable, mere participation is not enough. JoshuaZ 01:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The editor(s) of the article have been given enough time and guidance to develop the article's notability. Most of the article is contingent on internal school documents or figures to support it, like the school's website or "notable" alumni, of which the two editors actively working the article are. I was even asked what my hidden agenda was when I tried to help them out. KC9CQJ 16:13, 24 May 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 The result was Speedy Delete under A7. The JPS talk to me 11:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor McCleskey

[edit]

Unverfied and non-notable, delete --Peta 04:25, 22 May 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. Rje 16:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teemo

[edit]

Non-notable neologism, which for a teenage subculture has a pathetic 29k google hits, the top hits having nothing to do wiht said subculture, delete.--Peta 04:33, 22 May 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. --Ezeu 01:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report

[edit]
  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Original research, POV fork, indiscriminate list with vague requirements for inclusion, redundant see:9/11 Truth Movement, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 DCAnderson 04:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should't you have stated that this is a second nomination? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People questioning the official American 9/11 account. --LambiamTalk 11:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Title is "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report (2nd nomination)".--DCAnderson 12:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Oh, come on... not again. As I said on the article's talk page when this was proded eight hours ago, these reasons for deletion don't hold water. 1 - "original research" - If the claims are properly cited then it's not original research. Since we have the citations for the people being kept on this list it's not original research. It's as simple as that. 2 - "POV" - What POV? How is the article expressing a POV by listing those who question the report? It's not. 3 -"redundant see:9/11 Truth Movement, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11" - The people listed on this page need not be part of the Truth Movement, need not be scholars or reaserachers. So how is it redundant? This is a much more inclusive list, therefore it doesn't fulfill the functions of more specialized lists. 4 - "vague requirements for inclusion" - If people question the report they're in. What's vague about that? -- noosphere 04:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe article is a POV fork attempting to avoid the scrutiny of the more heavily enforced 9/11 pages. It is also very indiscriminate in definition, as it means if you have questioned the 9/11 report at all you're automatically lumped in with the controlled demolitions and conspiracy theory loonies.--DCAnderson 05:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page exists to show off how many people disagree with the official account. The POV is that there is something wrong with the official account. It's a fork because it is a POV seperated from the other 9/11 pages describing the official account.--DCAnderson 05:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does the article express the POV that "there is something wrong with the offical account"? Listing those people that take such a stand doesn't mean Wikipedia is endorsing the stand itself. Otherwise we should delete the 9/11 Commission Report article itself as endorsing the POV that "there's nothing wrong with the official account", which is ridiculous. -- noosphere 05:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:POVFORK says, "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism. Instead, assert the application of NPOV policy — regardless of any POV reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in an NPOV-consistent manner." So, once again, I ask what POV does the article express? -- noosphere 15:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote yet. Question: can you answer the assertion that the article is an "indiscriminate list with vague requirements for inclusion"? Because it seems like one to me. I'm satisifed, however, that this is not original research (fully verified and sourced throughout), it does not push a particular POV within the article, and I can understand that there is a difference between the pressure group Scholars for 9/11 Truth, professional researchers working full-time on their particular conspiracy theory, and this grouping of random individuals worldwide who have questioned the 9/11 events. Vizjim 10:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per every single word writen by Noosphere, im feel really happy that there are people who what to defend wikipedia from this kind of afd. Keep up the good work! As for "indiscriminate collection", it is not. Ther are "researchers" that question. A researcher researchs new facts. Ordianry people only agree with the facts researched. See list of christians, List of humanists, List of transhumanists, List of anarchists, List of communists and List of people by belief. Any more questions? There is not a single valid reason to delete this. --Striver 10:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a lot easier to judge whether someone is say "a christian" or "an anarchist" because they would refer to themselves as being members of these groups or ideoligies. This article is very vague, because as near as I can tell you could make just about any criticism of the report, and suddenly you're a feather in the hat of the "9/11 Truth Movement".--DCAnderson 12:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it's not vague at all, since you've just stated the exact criteria for inclusion. You just have a problem with with those people being in the article, which is a different criticism than having a vague criteria for inclusion. -- noosphere 15:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are ideologies. Criticising the 9/11 Commision report is not an ideology. i.e. Anarchists and Christians share a set of world views and philosophies on life. Criticising something just means you expressed an opinion about one specific thing. This doesn't represent an all-encompassing view on the world.--DCAnderson 17:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you just lost me. Are you suggesting that only people expressing "all-encompassing views on the world" could be included in an article like this?
Also, you did not address my point, which was that the criteria for inclusion wasn't ambiguous since you yourself seemed to have no problem applying it when you said, "you could make just about any criticism of the report, and suddenly you're a feather in the hat of the "9/11 Truth Movement"." That means that you know, unambiguously, when people fit in to this article (which isn't the Truth Movement, by the way... but the point holds for this article as well). -- noosphere 15:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for a rename to People who have questioned the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report. but this article can not be merged into the researchers article, however, maybe that article can be merged into this one.--Striver 17:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But these aren't all researchers! That's the real problem with merging it in to an article on researchers/scholars. Some of the people here are neither. -- noosphere 15:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, your addition came in between about twenty or more deletions of information by Tom harrison, and I intended to revert the deletions not your addition. I am actually all for adding details about why a given person questions the report. Reverting your addition was a mistake, and I've put it back in the article now. Sorry about that. -- noosphere 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article presents serious problems with WP:V, and WP:RS. Even the mainstream media has problems with cherry-picking quotes from what people say, and out of context they can imply something different than what the person really intended and not capture nuanced views well. This issue of cherry-picking, misinterpretations, and misrepresentation is all the more serious with sources used in this article, such as prisonplanet.
    • Some users have attempted to clean up this article, but nonetheless its daunting and a problematic article for Wikipedia. Maintaining this article requires extreme due diligence, as these are all Living people; I'm concerned a list like this may misrepresent some people's viewpoints, or mistakenly include people. Should these very people see this page, there is potential for causing another controversy and embarassment for Wikipedia (e.g. John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy).
      • In light of a recent message from Jimmy Wales on the enwiki mailing list, he strongly suggested a preference for "Zero information preferred to misleading or false information". [34] This article is a perfect case, for where this should apply. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we know that the information is misleading then we should not add it in the first place, or delete it. I think we can all agree about that. However, just because a quote could be taken out of context doesn't mean that we should not add information based on that quote.
We should create articles based on the best of our knowledge and not pussyfoot around living people just because they may, possibly not have meant something they said. But, of course, if there's evidence they didn't mean what they said by all means show us that evidence, and if it's valid then we'll remove that person from the list. -- noosphere 21:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do like the idea of explaining in what maner each person questionend the reportes finindings, i think ill start doing that, as soon as i take some time. No reason to delete the entire article.--Striver 19:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could agree with this merge proposal.--Striver 08:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above anon user's first contribution[35].--DCAnderson 15:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote Noosphere, "WP:POVFORK says, "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism. Instead, assert the application of NPOV policy — regardless of any POV reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in an NPOV-consistent manner." " —204.42.17.108 15:49, 27 May 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.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006_Raw_Results

[edit]

Page has no content, no meaning and makes no sense. I honestly don't even know what it's supposed to be about. Jscarle 04:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It refers to results for RAW, but it's so poorly designed and laid out that it's worthless. There's a link on the RAW page to a site outside of WP for results, and if somebody cares about enough maybe they could add it here, but this page right now is completely worthless. --fuzzy510 05:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if it was better designed, it would still be worthless. It's not nonsense, but it is crap. -- Kicking222 05:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poorly written, article does not effectively describe contents (My first thought was "Who's putting their raw research data on Wikipedia?") and appears to be much better handled by at least one of the external links, as per Fuzzy. -- saberwyn 11:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Provides no context. A link in the main article will do. Author is unlikely to return to fix it. - Mgm|(talk) 11:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006_Ontario_Extreme_Tour_Rodeo

[edit]

Advertising, not an encyclopedia article. Jscarle 05:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I can't beleive I stuck the db tag on here...) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tran Duc Thuan

[edit]

There is nothing to suggest that this should be an encyclopedia article, delete--Peta 05:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BATracer

[edit]

Prod removed without comment. entry about new on-line racing game [Alex rank 34,145] and very recent site. Not a notable site. 291K [Ghits] but nothing that looks like it makes the site suitable for wikipedia - Peripitus 05:12, 22 May 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 -- Longhair 12:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HH411

[edit]

Pure spamvertisement. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\talk 05:19, 22 May 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 (no content = speedy deletion). -- Drini 05:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1968 in Malaysia

[edit]

No content. Jscarle 05:20, 22 May 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 (no content = speedy deletion). -- Drini 05:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1967 in Malaysia

[edit]

No content. Jscarle 05:24, 22 May 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 (no content = speedy deletion). -- Drini 05:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1964 in Malaysia

[edit]

No content. Jscarle 05:25, 22 May 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 (no content = speedy deletion). -- Drini 05:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1959 in Malaysia

[edit]

No content. Jscarle 05:27, 22 May 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 (no content = speedy deletion). -- Drini 05:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1958 in Malaysia

[edit]

No content. Jscarle 05:27, 22 May 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. They are already categorized. --Ezeu 01:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of piracy computer and video games

[edit]

WP:NOT an indescriminate collection of information, and I doubt the majority of these redlinks will ever be filled in. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:41, 22 May 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 Merged histories, dupe article. GarrettTalk 23:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rejuvenation (The Meters song)

[edit]

Duplicate of Rejuvenation (album), which provides the same info and conforms to the standards of the Albums WikiProject. fuzzy510 06:13, 22 May 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. Rje 16:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Janse

[edit]

Possibly a vanity article. Looks more like a user page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mostly Rainy (talk • contribs) 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment Was it really necessary to bring it to AfD one minute after it was created? I feel uncomfortable voicing any opinion on the matter until the article has time to mature, as it certainly doesn't seem to be a candidate for speedy deletion with 700 hits on Google. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is a lot of people try to make a bio article and the ones lacking sufficiant details (like the one I nominated) often get speedy deleted. Mostly Rainy 06:32, 22 May 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. Rje 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine

[edit]

Previously deleted following this AFD debate, but result was disputed and this DRV debate produced a majority for undeletion and relisting. Therefore this discussion is restarted. No vote from this admin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 22 May 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 both. Mailer Diablo 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twaddlebum and Twaddle

[edit]

Contested prod with no reason given. Transwikied; only backlink is from Clodhomps (see AfD); dicdef; slang. TheProject 07:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clodhomps

[edit]

Contested prod by anon with no explanation given. TODDS (transwikied orphaned dicdef slang). TheProject 07:10, 22 May 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. -- Longhair 23:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tarcoon

[edit]

This page is a spoof. Tarcoom is a location, but it would not have more than 5 houses --Grahamec 07:17, 22 May 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. --Ezeu 01:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German-Jewish Gay rights movement and antii-semitiism

[edit]

Even if the title was spelled right, and the glaring bias cleaned up, this still has no chance of being encyclopedic material. Reyk YO! 07:21, 22 May 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.  RasputinAXP  c 19:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doom squad

[edit]

A so called 'up and coming' organisation about all things 'doomy'. Seems nn to me. THE KING 07:31, 22 May 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 userfy and delete. --Ezeu 01:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelle Arlin M. Credo

[edit]

Author began her career only in 2005, Ms. Credo should not be described within a year as someone who "has garnered some coveted awards," "co-authored with other eminent poets and writers," or "an established magazine columnist and freelance writer." Links to these "coveted" awards and "eminent" poets and writers are not provided. External links in the entry are basically personal pages (a yahoo account page, for instance). User:Raeshylle, the writer of the article seems to be the author herself. Entry appears like a vanity article. No links from major universities, books, publications, studies and theses. No studies about the author from important critics and writers. No mention about the author in important discussions on or about Filipino, Visayan or Cebuano writers. Accomplishments not comparable to widely-regarded Visayan or Cebuano authors like Resil Mojares, Erlinda K. Alburo and Marjorie Evasco. Author appears promising but she should wait some time before she can be considered as a Wikipedia entry. 7258 07:41, 22 May 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 -- Longhair 22:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Vasiljevic

[edit]

He is not a famous footballer, not a Serbian International, and playing in lower division Matthew hk 07:36, 22 May 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. --Ezeu 02:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darkain

[edit]

This is a clear vanity article. It was started by an Anon that looks like Darkain himself. There have been no substantial changes since it was last listed for deletion 6 months ago. Lod 08:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware County Intermediate Unit

[edit]

non-notable, see WP:CORP Ioannes Pragensis 08:37, 22 May 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, nonnotable advert, cut-'n'-paste from userpage. GarrettTalk 23:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandino

[edit]

This seems to be a cut-and-paste job of a press release. In other words, advertising. Chaser (T, C, e) 08:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve sauve

[edit]

self promotion, non-notable and poorly written Robertsteadman 08:50, 22 May 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 -- Longhair 10:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Www.hayaser.net

[edit]

Originally prodded by User:Rory096 on May 9, 2006 with a reason of "non notable website, alexa ranking of 2,253,287. doesn't meet WP:WEB" Removed by User:Hayaser, whose username indicates that this article is about his own website. I agree with User:Rory096 with his original reason to delete. Copysan 10:07, 22 May 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. --Ezeu 02:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Ramah

[edit]

Its a summer camp organisation. It organises summer camps. There is no claim to notability except by proxy to one of its sponsors, and after that is removed, we are left is "We are summer camps. We do summer camp things". Unless the article can explain, through the use of verifiable information taken from reliable third-party sources, how this summer camp organisation (or its component summer camps) is significantly different from the standard, run of the mill summer camp organisation (or summer camp), there is nothing we can do that the camp's own site cannot do better. -- saberwyn 10:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If kept, should be moved to a name implying that this is a collective organisation running several camps, not just a single camp as the current title implies. -- saberwyn 10:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Conceeded. -- saberwyn 02:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Vizjim 13:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and expand The article isn't particularly great as it currently stands, but Camp Ramah is a very important organization. I'm not very Jewish, but where I'm from (New Jersey), literally every single conservative Jew I knew went to Camp Ramah. Has anyone bothered to check the SIXTY THOUSAND Google hits [38]? The camps have existed for a very long time, and are spread through North America. In my opinion, they're quite notable. -- Kicking222 14:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
674 unique Google hits, pretty notable. Will change my vote if someone updates the article. Vizjim 14:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep A google search gives many valid hits implying its notability, although the article does require more references. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An organization that oversees summer camps- that's exactly the type of article we need here. Reminds me of the articles we have on school accreditation agencies. -- JJay 20:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per JJay and Kicking222, but not withdrawing nomination. -- saberwyn 23:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and expand. Ramah camps are one of the best-known, most influential, and best-documented educational programs associated with Conservative Judaism. A large number of academic books and papers document the Ramah educational vision, and its influence on North American Jewry. You could make a pretty strong argument for the case that Ramah, as an institution, has had more influence than many of the Conservative rabbis listed in Wikipedia. That said, the existing article makes it sound as though Ramah is nothing more than an administrative office in New York, overseeing activities at a dozen or so camps around the world, and that these camps are places where kids have a lot of fun. The article would benefit greatly from describing the history of Ramah camps, the role of Hebrew and Zionism in camp life, the influence that camp had on the evolution of egalitarianism within Conservative Judaism, the very large number of Conservative Movement leaders who have been campers and staff members at Ramah, and educational theories and practices that were devised as a part of camp, among other things. The article needs to be expanded quite a bit -- but the skeletal quality of the existing article shouldn't fool you into thinking that Ramah is unimportant or undeserving of a Wikipedia article. Reuvenmlerner 21:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep - notability is established in the first part (unlike the other summer camp articles in the AfD listings), but the article is in dire need of rewriting to get into encyclopedic form. More description and less listing are needed. B.Wind 13:22, 28 May 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 15 to delete, 3 to keep and 7 to merge (including the vote to Keep but rename or merge). Those who support merge argue well, but there is no agreement on where to merge. There are also some voices to rename and rewrite the article. A better written and less POV article under a different title will certainly be started. The votes to delete are plenty and well argued, so I close this AfD as delete.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ezeu (talk • contribs) 12:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

Australia's alleged East Timor cover up

[edit]

This article has been a blight on Wikipedia since the middle of last year. It is a horrendous example of gross bias and unbridled original research. I doubt very much that the subject would warrant its own article in any case. cj | talk 11:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep Although it's badly written POV and OR there are sufficient sources to rewrite and I'll make a beginning. Grateful if you could hold off deletion until I've spent some time on fixing it. Mccready 02:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per above, and also because of inherent problems with verifiability Fluit 03:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi Guys, since my post of 02:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC) below, I've done quite a few hours work on the article. We are now looking at quite a different beast. Would appreciate your revised input. Does anyone have the Des Ball article? Thanks. Mccready 08:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename or merge. As is, this is not an article. It needs to be pulled together under a stronger common theme with a different name, or perhaps merged to another page. Maybe one of the people/reports referenced on this page might qualify. But at the same time it doesn't seem to be OR, and the material covered does seem to be encyclopedic. There are plenty of other wikipedia pages that do deal with allegations - so long as the allegations are serious enough and at least potentially true, that's OK. POV is reason to cleanup, not reason to delete an article. Finally, I remind people that AFD is not a vote. It may be 'obvious' to you that the article is/is not worth keeping, but that is not a useful comment in our attempt to reach consensus. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is there anything in the article that is actually untrue? I don't think so. Certain questions have been raised by certain people and these people are senior whistle blowers. A suicide is involved. Certainly more work is required, but such is the nature of the Wikipedian beast. Yes the article is problematic but these issues have yet a long way to go before a clear view can be had. Deleting the article will only frustrate future researchers. The references are all quite valuable. The article can be utilized in building a clearer picture of this history. Deleting it amounts to suppression of information. --Wm 12:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've been reluctant to reach a final conclusion on this because although it has been a POV problem in the past, and probably still is, it does cover some stuff that should be covered (Lance Collins, for example, who was widely covered in the media, is currently covered nowhere else on WP but here). I think in the end however that it would be better to start again from the ground up and not have to work off the legacy of this article. Some users have volunteered to help with working on this, I'd like to add my name to the list but invite them to start from scratch rather than trying to fix this article. As per the old AWNB discussion, it would be more appropriate at somewhere like foreign relations of Australia with East Timor, to tie in with the main article foreign relations of Australia. --bainer (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I really can't believe wikipedia is giving over an entire article to such unfounded allegations. John Smith's 15:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: soapboxing. Pecher Talk 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem with the article is not that the writer has a POV (that's generally a given and not grounds to delete). The problem is that the article is more about the people who have made accusations, than about the accusations. It's more of a list than an article. Assuming that all these allegations are to do with East Timorese Declaration of Independence (currently a redirect to East Timor) perhaps that article should be resurrected and expanded and these allegations be dealt with there. Alternately, they could be dealt with in the East Timor article itself, but that wouldn't feel right to me - just a little off topic. As I said above, this material may be uncomfortable for some people, but that is not a reason to delete it. Yes, it's POV and soapboxing and yes, it should be cleaned up so it deals with the issues (independance/genocide/cover up) and mentions the accusers, rather than the other way around, but none of that is not an excuse to delete it either. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Dayton

[edit]

I can find little evidence for this person's existence let alone notability as a poet. I've left messages on the creators talk page but there's been no response and prod tag has now been removed.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -- Longhair 12:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psp authority

[edit]

Non-notable webzine. Has released two issues and apparently died after that (contested prod). Pak21 11:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable enough, maybe in the future if it succeeds. Ydam 14:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; if the best they've done to date is 3-5K downloads, that fails WP:WEB or any other publication criteria. RGTraynor 15:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. - LeonWhite 15:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete All the Above users are just saying that because Josh edgar asked them to do it, and they have no real opinion of their own on the matter. Josh is just being a bitter person because he isn't working on the magazine anymore. And as far as psp independment mags go, PSPA is technically the 2nd or 3rd most download mag per issue. Heck even major sites like PGR that produc(ed) a psp mag didnt even get 1000 downloads... - Psp Authority 12:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the above edit was actually made by 198.69.68.2 (talk · contribs). And I had to go and read the article again to work out who Josh Edgar was... --Pak21 16:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on a nasty message left on my talk page by the same anon that posted above as "Psp Authority", I have been confused with the Josh Edgar he mentions. For the record, I am not that person, and have never had any kind of connection to this webzine. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For the record nobody asked me to vote on this matter and I certainly do not know this Josh Edgar person Ydam 16:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Surprising as this may sound, it is possible for editors to judge the (non-)notability of an article on its own merits; assume good faith. This website fails, and if a so-called "major" PSP site can't score as many as 1000 downloads for its in-house mag, I submit that such a site isn't particularly "major" at all. RGTraynor 16:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this mag is non-notable. I might add that I've never heard of Josh Edgar. -Geoffspear 16:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Four months old, two issues, a few thousand downloads, fails notability by a wide margin. Fan1967 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I say delete as well. As I said before someone reverted it back, haivng a wikipedia page is pointless anyways, the demographic trying to be reached will not find pspa through this anwyays. Also for the record, pspa just released issues 3/4 like seconds ago. And that 3-5k downloads is an average per issue. The biggest sites downloads came from pspupdates.com and pspmagazines.com both of which have amassed over a thousand each for the past issues. And BTW Josh Edgar is a former team member on the PSPA staff who left the project abruptly, because of dispute between which forum to use. Your name being edgar, and his name being edgar, I had assumed it was him since he has been a really poor sport about it. PSP Authority 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~ Hibana 03:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. --Starionwolf 06:53, 27 May 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. --Ezeu 03:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ERICS

[edit]

delete un-notable university society dedicated to making and eating ice-creams . cancelled prod Melaen 12:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is no need to be rude Djb1985 23:44, 25 May 2006
  • Keep I am relatively new to this but had read in one of the articles that if the subject was well known within a community (as ERICS is) then it could be considered notable. I have since read elsewhere that there are further conditions which are not fully met by this article. It is a shame that there was such a rude response in this AfD. Some of you perhaps should be more civil and polite when talking to newcomers. Djb1985 19:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC) - Adjusted 23:40, 25 May 2006[reply]
  • I think it would be a real shame to delete it as there are few societies of its kind in the world. I think that Wikipedia requires some origionality and lightness and I think that ERICS offers that. The spread of such a consept- of a society of icecream- would be facilitated by Wikipedia. The society clearly has an inclusive policy, shown by its inclusion of members of other coleges to the detriment of its name (as it is 'Emmanuel real ice cream society'). I feel that such inclusion would be very beneficial to those starting at any university. I am aware that ERICS sees a great deal of interest at th fresher's fair, a great increase in members each year and a great deal of new friendships blossoming. Friendships and such light fun clearly cut suicide rates... so I say SAVE A LIFE TODAY... VOTE TO SAVE ERICS on Wikipedia. *_hannah_* 20.13, 24 May 2006 (BST)
  • P.S. I further feel that the ERICS article should be elongated to include details about the posts of 'Honorary snowman' and 'Chief Stirrer'.
  • Quote: "Category:Clubs and societies of the University of Cambridge" "It has been requested that this category be populated." So what do you want guys? More articles about Cambridge University Societies or fewer? ERICS has a niche role within Emmanuel community, just as the Pembroke Winnie-the-Pooh Society with Pembroke College. Emmanuel is well-known for being the 'friendly college' in its advertizing (with ducks, snowmen) - ERICS is part of that. Steve (Hon. Snowman 2003-4) x
  • Comment - First-time contributions for the last two editors. That being said, I commend to you folks WP:NOT, which explains in some detail Wikipedia's policy as to for what it is and is not. Generally speaking, the needs and desires of the community of a single university (presuming, which we do not do on faith, that Cambridge University does indeed consider ERICS a significant and integral part of the campus) is not among them. The ways that a university club can be deemed notable enough for inclusion involve being a national organization with chapters spread across many universities or in having notable members amongst its ranks (such as Skull and Bones). If ERICS so qualifies, please let us know. RGTraynor 00:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lord Wilson of Dinton is an honorary member Djb1985 23:44, 25 May 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 - copyvio and probable vanity. -- RHaworth 18:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Anupam Bhide

[edit]

Was tagged as speedy probably for sounding like a resume, but author made some notability claims about high jobs with multiple multinationals. Should this be renamed and cleaned up? I'm withholding my vote for now. - Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 22 May 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. --Ezeu 03:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgeback Bikes

[edit]

A fairly non-notable bicycle manufacturer. There are many similar companies out there and I can't see how this one deserves a wiki entry. It's not even good enough to qualify for the "pointless advert" criteria Gretnagod 12:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terekhov

[edit]

Vanity; non-notable. cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:13, 22 May 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 -- Longhair 10:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable X-Men

[edit]

We already have a good article for this at List_of_X-Men. Also, the text for each of the notable X-men in this article is a direct copy and paste from that character's article. Metros232 13:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 15:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Pringle

[edit]

Journalist who has called George Bush a pathological liar, as well as attributing a coverup to him. Not in itself establishing notability - views widely held. Delete. JFW | T@lk 20:08, 21 May 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 (A7). TheProject 16:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Body

[edit]

Non-notable band, self promotion, article title is a person while article body is about the band LimoWreck 14:09, 22 May 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 (A7). TheProject 16:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hokum Band

[edit]

Non-notable band; self-promotion; (+user added linkspam to Progressive rock and replaced Wikipedia:New contributors' help page with the same spam) LimoWreck 14:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 16:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Henry Huffman

[edit]

Topic might have a notability claim, but this reads like a giant original research topic. cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 16:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobaworld

[edit]

Was prod but it was removed, It certainly existed but IMHO it fails WP:WEB and as the site and its owner disappeared from the Internet in 1996 it's difficult to see otherwise. Optimale Gu 14:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I tried Googling this, and it gets 2,600 hits, but the vast majority of them are for the current bobaworld.com, something to do with frozen drinks and unrelated to the article subject. I got enough info on the subject to say that it definitely was a web page that did exist circa 1995, but pretty much nothing else beyond that. Beyond the verifiability problems, it seems like it would not pass WP:WEB, even if we relaxed the standards due to the oldness and deadness of the site. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Starblind. I'm sure it existed, but I doubt it was particularly notable (or, at least, that any notability could be verified). -- Kicking222 14:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see evidence of notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 23:27, 27 May 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 kept all votes to cleanup/keep - non controversial non-admin closure Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flexifoil

[edit]

Non-notable company. Appears to be an advertisment. LeonWhite 15:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article is an ad, but I'm going to go simply by the Google test: Flexifoil get 416,000 Google hits, every single one of the top results (and every other random summary I've perused while looking for how many unique hits it gets) relate directly to the company or its products, and the company gets 751 unique hits. Those numbers are huge. It's Alexa rank is quite low at around 336,000, but considering it's a company that makes kites for kitesurfing, the Alexa rank can be forgiven. -- Kicking222 15:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and strong cleanup per Kicking222; seems to be notable enough in its small pond. If (as I presume) the originator is affiliated with the company, perhaps they'd be so kind as to add some information about its founders and owners. Smerdis of Tlön 18:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kicking222; I agree that 751 unique G-hits is huge. May I ask upon what basis this company is alleged to be non-notable? RGTraynor 18:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup the article as it stands reads like an ad. -- stubblyhead | T/c 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Merge with Flexifoil_bladeNot sure why this was a candidate --Davelane 19:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 16:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Sports and Bowl Championship Series

[edit]

This article cannot contain any information that would not be more appropriately placed in ABC Sports and/or Bowl Championship Series. Prod tag was removed by creator. Maxamegalon2000 15:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: It appears that ABC Sports is more or less just a list of relevant topics, and that the information in this article is already in Bowl Championship Series. So really this article is already just a duplication of content which, seeing as how ABC is losing the BCS to FOX, is unlikely to be added to. --Maxamegalon2000 15:42, 22 May 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. --Ezeu 03:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flexifoil blade

[edit]

Appears to be an advertisment. LeonWhite 15:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 16:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Thanos

[edit]

Delete NN band with one album released on no label. WP:MUSIC. Deprodded by anon b/c "decent article". - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 16:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentalist Dumbledorian

[edit]

Term is not standard, just fancruft. Four Google hits without quotes, only one (Wikipedia) with quotes. Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 15:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 16:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Anne Dudley

[edit]

We've had this article for two years. Throughout that period it has been an unverified text dump. For a year now it has languished in cleanup hell, the result of which has been to further wikify this text dump without adding context. Notability has not been established, nor have references. Mackensen (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 16:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miss bikini of the universe

[edit]

Seems like a very non-notable/prestigous beauty contest. Comes up with under 100 Google hits. Metros232 15:53, 22 May 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 (A6). TheProject 20:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Balanta Briceno

[edit]

I stumbled across this whilst clearing out old copyvio images. I tried and tried to find a reason to speedy this, but couldn't. It's a hoax, and a rather cruel one. There was a lady called Julia Briceno who suffered from dementia, and wandered off with her granddaughter. She was found a day or two later, with no harm to either. The story is here or here. According to this article, she is a Belgian criminal, the head of a major crime 'sindicate', and a terrorist. I really want to hit the delete button, but I can't, as it does assert notability. Gnnnargh. Delete, and then salt the earth. Proto||type 16:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 16:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military action in Lebanon

[edit]

Mess of an article that has been so over run with anti-Israel POV that I can't see a way to salvage it. No decent references and almost no articles linking to this one in any context. Any topics are much better covered in other articles. StuffOfInterest 17:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 16:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Amateur Croquet League

[edit]

Minor organisation that 'hopes to have 1000 members'. Non-notable organisation, Prod contested, Delete. The Land 17:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why whould you want to deleate this article. it is just as notable as the video games and car commercials you post on this site. I demand you take this off the deleation list unless you deleate all of the other irrelevent pages!!!!! --User:Tezzoract

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Radeon R520. — Rebelguys2 talk 08:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R580

[edit]

The R580 is of the same generation as the R520, and nearly all GPU articles that talk about ATI or nVIDIA GPU's are seperated by generation


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 16:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan L. Pelikan

[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted: no citations, not a notable author, not even published. Google search turns up his deviantart account [44] but Wikipedia doesnt keep articals for deviantArt members. Kamiawolf 18:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 16:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future Pipe Industries

[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable company. Previous PROD was removed by the author. cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:32, 22 May 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 by PZFUN. -- saberwyn 23:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Risa goswami

[edit]

Certainly does not merit an article Craig451 18:38, 22 May 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 A7.  RasputinAXP  c 18:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron hancock

[edit]

Not deserving of an article Craig451 18:46, 22 May 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, A7.  RasputinAXP  c 18:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar rubio

[edit]

See what wikipedia is not - does not merit article Craig451 18:49, 22 May 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. --Ezeu 03:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Buddy

[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted: Not an encyclopedic entry, just seems to promote the game which doesnt have any notable signifigance. First link just goes to google. Kamiawolf 19:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 16:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Lu-Jo KISMIF

[edit]

This is a short, non-encyclopaedic stub about a non-notable summer camp in Oklahoma. A Google search returned only 300 hits, many of which have nothing to do with the camp at all, or are Wikipedia or Answers.com [45]. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its a summer camp. No, its an article stating that a summer camp exists in "OK" (Where the hell's that?), at that summer camp Christianity is studied, and school age children (I assume the normal attendees of summer camps) attend. There is nothing here that cannot be far better said by the camp's/organisation's website. How many religious summer camps in the US are affiliated with a religion and perform camps based on learning about that religion? (I don't know... I'm an Australian). If the article can be expanded, through the use of externally verifiable information taken from reliable, third party sources, I would reconsider, but in its current incarnation delete. -- saberwyn 22:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 23:18, 27 May 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. No Guru 16:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Gilead (Florida)

[edit]

This is a short one sentence, non-encylopaedic stub about a non-notable summer camp in Florida. A Google search returned only 600 hits [46]. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 18:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--I've added the disambig page Camp Gilead to this discussion, as it only includes this camp and another camp in Washington which currently doesn't have an article. -- stubblyhead | T/c 20:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 16:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CBM Ministries

[edit]

A short non-encyclopaedic article about a camp in Tennessee. A Google search returned 900 hits for the name, many of which have nothing to do with the camp at all, as they are about Canadian Baptist Ministries. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 18:55, 22 May 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. No Guru 16:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp WaMaVa

[edit]

This is a one sentence micro-stub about a fairly non-notable summer camp in Virginia. A Google search for "Camp WaMaVa" -calendar returned 10 hits [47]. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 18:52, 22 May 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 (WP:CSD#G4). RexNL 21:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postow Tenenbaum and Williamson and SONS

[edit]

Notable? Computerjoe's talk 19:04, 22 May 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. --Ezeu 03:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Stewart Brighton

[edit]

Non-notable bio. No articles link to it, no legitimate yahoo search engine results. NapoleonB 19:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 16:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 24-Hour Album

[edit]

Everything about this is unremarkable. 24-Hour albums are not a completely uncommon product, the town of Pittsfield, Illinois can't have that big of a music scene with a population of less than 5,000, and the group (The 24 Hourtronauts) register a whopping 7 hits on Google. fuzzy510 19:46, 22 May 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. --Ezeu 03:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 times 7

[edit]

Vanity entry, invented game with no mentions on Google of "3 times 7" gambling except the "official" site; article additionally proposes new game is popular even though there are no mentions 2005 19:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a true game, with real rules and real players. Yes it isn't as popular as other "casino" games, but believe me that I'm familiar with this game for the last 20 years, and it is played and would continue to be played.

That said, it seems that it is pretty unfamiliar in the world (at least over WWW). The official site is new, so it would take the game some time to be indexed with Google.

  • There is an ongoing discussion over the Hebrew translation of the article, about the validity of this game. I'm happy to see finally more people who are familiar with the game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karlito2000 (talk • contribs) May 23 2006.
  • Hi, I'm active in Hebrew wiki, and asked the same question there. The response of he:משתמש:GODFATHER, a well known user, and not the creator of the article, was that in his town on independence day there are a least 10 tables offering this game. So apperently the game is popular in certain communities, and therefore should not be deleted. DGtal 08:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGtal, also note google is not the only search engine on the web... have you tried yahoo, clusty, ask jeeves... the list goes on and on... ?Eagle talk 22:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, maybe you better look next time. There are no results in Yahoo. There are no results on Ask. There are no results in MSN. (Aside from the "official site"... which obviously also is an oxymoron.) You can't get less notable than having zero mentions on the Internet aside from this article and a site calling itself the "official site" of a non-published game. 2005 23:36, 27 May 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. No Guru 16:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp takajo

[edit]

An unencyclopaedic article about a nn summer camp in Maine. 750 Google hits at best [48]. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:49, 22 May 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. No Guru 16:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon's Ambition

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide and this is a personal essay. Also the scenario is not notable enough to warrant its own article - its mention in Starcraft is sufficient. — ßottesiηi (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 16:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Noodles

[edit]

unwikified recipe, listed as requiring cleanup since July 2005, no other Wikipedia articles are linking at it Deleteme42 20:14, 22 May 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. --Ezeu 03:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daughters of the Bible and Daughters of the bible

[edit]

Delete. I cannot find this book using Google. Author states that it has "appeared throughout college campuses and several online literary communities" and that "the book has received urban legend status" without offering any proof. Unless proof of notability can be found, this article cannot be in Wikipedia. EdGl 20:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

external links show the books existence. I am trying to conatct the writer as well as Yale Professor Harold Bloom who sponscored the book in 2003 for possible endorcement.

http://www.arabicstory.net/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=11&t=1007 http://www.arabicstory.net/forum/index.php —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.20.11.32 (talk • contribs) .

Daughters of the Bible is a novel written by Izl Maller that has appeared throughout college campuses and several online literary communities. The book has received urban legend status due to some reports of Bible code. Some of the Equidistant Letter Sequence (ELS) or Bible code claims, are the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake found on the book’s 17th chapter entitled Ourobouros; specifically page 168. Others claim the book foretold the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the Capture of Saddam Hussein. But perhaps the most noticeable claim is Hurricane Katrina. Bible code enthusiast have found that on page 79 of chapter 10, the book foretold the devastation of the hurricane and more ironically on that page the story talks of a storm that came in the night. "The sea, it turned against us. With it the wind and sky, it swallowed everyone. A storm brought in the shores in the middle of the night destroying the entire village. All our resources were washed away, and blown away. The sky glowed green as enormous flashes of lightning burst throughout the ordeal. It was this that took from us our food, shelter and last your people.” It is highly unlikely for ELS to be discovered in literature that correlates with its predictive topic. Yet recent blogs further fuel the books ability.

Despite being self-published, the book has acquired international status. Translations have surfaced in Arabic and French websites. The story takes place completely in China though Mandarin translations have been squashed due to its strong Religious Judeo-Christian views.

http://www.arabicstory.net/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=11&t=1007

http://www.arabicstory.net/forum/index.php —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.20.11.32 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. First of all, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Second of all, one source isn't enough in my opinion (and the fact that it's mostly in arabic doesn't help either). In other words, I'm not convinced that this book has "international" and "urban legend" status. But prove me wrong :-) EdGl 21:20, 25 May 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. --Ezeu 03:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AP Macroeconomics

[edit]

This article seems unnecessary and redundant with Macroeconomics excepet that it notes that there is a highschool class on the subject designed for college bound students I vote DeleteNick Y. 20:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • AP Macroeconomics refers to an Advanced Placement class that is in a series of Wikipedia articles about AP classes. However, the page shouldn't be deleted. It should be merged into Macroeconomics instead. But if we do that, we should probably merge all AP Class articles into the articles on their subject which I think would be a bad idea, therefore I overall disagree that this article should be deleted. --Shawn 21:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There may be some larger organizational issues here; however, I really think that a simple list of subjects that have Advanced Placement courses at the high school level in the United States on the Advanced Placement page with links to the subject page would be best. Basically the article says "There is an AP class in macroeconomics" as to what AP or macroeconomics their respective pages are much more informative. --Nick Y. 21:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on past precedant, I would have to reiterate my vote for a strong keep in light of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AP Psychology. Thanks, Lambiam. --Shawn 22:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment I have looked at a selection of the other AP________ pages and they are all the same. I can not imagine how these articles are going to be expanded without being redundant to Advanced Placement or their respective subject matters. I am open minded given the strong keep from a second although anonymous editor.--Nick Y. 21:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was not aware of the previous nomination. It seemed to come closer to no concensus than keep IMO and that was after the article was completely rewritten from scratch. I still stand by my nomination but not because I want to disagree with those that voted keep last time. The AP Psycology is a good article but under the wrong name IMHO. This article could be made similar to AP psycology exam and would be acceptable to me but this stub I still vote delete. Make a new article AP Macroeconomics exam However all of the content here is worthless.--Nick Y. 23:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article should be redirected to Advanced Placement Program. If someone wants to take the time to make it more like AP Psychology or some of the other more fully expanded pages about exams then they can remove the redirect and put in the content in the future... The content that's there now about the specific incarnation of the course is nn. (I don't think that the title of the article would need to be changed to AP Macroeconomics exam though. By that logic the current article should be renamed to AP Macroeconomics course. People are much more likely to search on the simple phrase AP Macroeconomics than anything else, imho.) —Jnk[talk] 01:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current state:"This course is for students interested in college-level work in economics. Study begins with fundamental economic concepts such as scarcity, opportunity costs, production possibilities, specialization, comparative advantage, demand, supply, and price determination. Major topics include measurement of economic performance, national income and price determination, and international economics and growth."

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Even without the obvious socks, consensus still wouldn't be delete. --Ezeu 04:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bus Uncle

[edit]

Not encyclopedic and not notable (at least in en.wikipedia) video. Delete. feydey 20:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am currently looking for people to translate the topic for me, coz I'm in my GCSE Exams and have no time to finish the translation, thanks! -- CMB Transit 20:18, 23 May 2006 (BST)
  • Update Improvements should be completed at this stage, with all the Chinese removed. -- CMB Transit 17:43, 24 May 2006 (BST)
  • Comment At first by a brief glance at the Chinese version, I believed that the article should be deleted. BUT after reading Dog poop girl, I don't think it should really be deleted. As regards the content, it's "more" worthwhile to delete the Chinese version, not the English version (as per Hong Kong Time 9:45am). So, I would suggest that someone cleans up both versions quickly.--Gary Tse 01:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IF the yet-to-be newspaper articles are in direct relation to the game and come from reliable sources. If we don't allow an article on something that's very popular just because it's very popular somewhere else, we're not conforming to WP's "worldview" policy. If its notability can be verified by external sources, there's no reason to remove it from the English WP. -- Kicking222 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This 'phenomena' has now been discussed very day in the main Hong Kong English newspaper for the past 7 days. It is part of mainstream culture now. -- CMB Transit 09:00, 30 May 2006 (HKT)
  • Strong Keep It is a recently-developed culture in Hong Kong, although controversal and unproven in English Wiki. There are evidence from Hong Kong's Mass Media noting the significance of the influence of "Uncle Bus" to Hong Kong culture. Improvement needed but doesn't deserve deletion. -- CMB Transit 22:04, 22 May 2006 (BST)
  • Delete per nom. RexNL 21:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep These event are totally real, it should not be deleted but refined, or other people will never know about our local culture. And cease per noming!!!!! -- GrigorIII 10:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree, "Per Noming" is not a reason for deletion, wiki people should read the reasons not the votes. -- -- CMB Transit 19:02, 24 May 2006 (BST)
  • Comment I think the article requires serious editing, discussion on the social implication of the incidents and its effect on language use in Hong Kong. -- Chaakming 12:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Object If it is a nonsense it won't have created so much attention and influence in Hong Kong, also it meets WP:MEME as what Mailer Diablo have said, no particular reason for deletion. -- CMB Transit 17:13, 24 May 2006 (BST)
  • The influences are shown in the new slangs of Hong Kong people, as well as the quotes of "Uncle Bus" used by TV Stations, posters, etc. It is significant and please don't be so ignorant. -- -- CMB Transit 19:04, 24 May 2006 (BST)
Why are you humiliating me just because you don't agree with me? Any individual in Hong Kong can come up with this so-called "slang". The individual concerned is of no significance to Hong Kong society. The content can be merged into encyclopedic entries such as Internet Culture of Hong Kong, or even Philistinism in Hong Kong. -- tonync (talk) (講) 01:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many true happenings are ridiculous, such as the laws in some countries which allows you to marry when drunk and some allows you to urinate behind a car, not a sufficient reason for deletion. -- -- CMB Transit 18:59, 24 May 2006 (BST)
Throughout history, little things like this pop up with absolutely no long-term impact on the society at large. I see no reason to believe that anyone will continue to remember this in a year or two. --Nlu (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up to this point,
Delete : Keep = 15:26 (Comments are not counted)
just for everyone's convenience.
Dicussion and voting continues. Please, AfD is not a vote!--Hetar 04:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

--Hkchan123 00:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Has received lots of publicity in the news, and seems quite funny. --Joy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.195.155 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Is as popular as Star Wars kid in Hong Kong, and we have an article for Star Wars kid. This is a very big internet meme. Acyso 04:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A definite keep. The spirit of Wikipedia is to include all sorts of information that bears significant to this world. While this particular case does not mean anything to the Yanks and Brits, but in terms of displaying the powerful influence brought by the internet, and in particular, the rapid rise of popularity in internet video streaming, this short movie in Hong Kong bears as muich significance than any single short clip ever shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LLZ (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - depsite being a somewhat stupid meme, this thing is so rediculously well known and talked about in HK - if someone didn't know what the fuss is about and wanted to find out on WP they should be able to. novacatz 04:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I read about this guy in the newspaper, wiki is my source of information. I think the incident will be discussed for years and should definately not be removed. (JFO)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.224.92 (talk • contribs)
  • Please notice that lots of comments/votes above are made with new users. --minghong 05:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on substantial coverage from media outlets around the world. The article needs a serious cleanup, with standard reference formatting, but that can be fixed later. --Rob 06:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - it is absolutely a notable video which is even on the NY Times.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Microtony (talk • contribs)
  • Keep-It is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antattko (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - there is a mass-striking of "keep" votes that is cast by legitimate Wikipedians, for some reason at the VfD of the Chinese version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.120.68.71 (talk • contribs)
  • PLEASE KEEP THIS! It's sometimes very hard for overseas Hong Kongers to know what is going on in HK, and this is definitely the biggest newsstory from HK in so far this year.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.83.203 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep It This is a cultural incident, not a simply argument on the bus. by 十歲就很帥 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gforgal (talk • contribs)
  • Keep — This is notable in Hong Kong and on the internet. We have stuff of a similar calibre here purely because it it a US phenomenon. — Gareth Hughes 10:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because noone in the U.S. knows about it doesn't mean it's not notable. —Nightstallion (?) 12:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I believe it satisfies the "The meme has been mentioned in a reliable source outside of Internet culture" criterion in WP:MEME (as evidenced by the guardian and NYT links in particular). Middenface 20:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the dialogue from the short movie is a classic with a content of anti-war . The line: “Not resolved! Not resolved! Not resolved!” is a universal answer to all the conflicts on earth. "I face pressure. You face pressure. Why did you provoke me?" probably is the best answers from the heart of Muslims to President Bush of the United States, portraying and explaining the birth of terrorism. I think the one who film this video and show the video to the world was very brave and deserve a noble prize for peace. - A. Tsang--219.89.91.116 00:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am satisfied that this meets the various tests and considerations as espoused above. enochlau (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability (in the sense of newsworthiness) confirmed by recountings in mainstream print media, such as the Associated Press in this article reprinted by many AP-fed news sources, such as CBS News here, as well as by the South China Morning Post in this article. Furthermore, I live in the U.S. and came to the article specifically to look up what was known about it, so that confirms English-language interest to some small degree as well. I note also that the article is sidebar-linked to the related Chinese-language article. KGF0 ( T | C ) 02:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is now a famous example of anti-social behaviour that made the news. It's not a silly video that was staged or is not newsworthy. The video in question has been viewed well over 1 million times - how often do you think some obscure articles on wiki are accessed? John Smith's 14:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thanks to Guardian mention. --Fangz 18:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep""".I read through all the comments, and most importantly Wikipedia’s Deletion policy. Neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, copyright issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion
I don’t see any problems with this article on the above 3 main criterias. I also looked at some of the examples listed in “problem articles with alternatives to deletion,” no major problems there either.
The main issues people brought up are:
1. Not encyclopedic and not notable. For example, “meaningless, nonsense, ridiculous, no long term impact, etc. etc. etc. Per Wikipedia itself, "the reason, "unencyclopedic" is not an argument at all but just another way of saying should be deleted.”’
2. Remove the Chinese/foreign language.
3. Delete per nom.
Not encyclopedic, not notable, nonsense, and meaningless. These are all very subjective comments. My guess is that there are far more people who think the article and incident is notable, meaningful, encyclopedic, etc. This incident has stirred debate among almost everybody in Hong Kong. There is not anyone in Hong Kong (adult at least) that does not know something about the incident and have an opinion about this. There also has been "intellectual/intelligent" dicussions about this whole affair. I guess the people who says the incident and article are nonsense are the same people who says that the masses are fools.
Remove the Chinese. It’s great there’s some Chinese translations, phrases. Why? For me, it’s research purposes. I don’t know Chinese well, but having some Chinese here allows me to search further for OTHER, non USA resources (whether it be websites, blogs, news sites, etc.). If everything was in English, it would limit my ability to search for the other 50% of non English sites.
Delete per nom. This argument has no facts to support why article should be deleted.
Conclusion. I am not convinced the article should be removed. No clear and convincing argument to remove the entry other than OPINIONS. There are no clear and convincing violations of neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, copyright issues.
Yes, the incident may become insignificant to some and maybe in time, but for now it is not. Yes it may not be encyclopedic for some, but at the same time, we have to ask ourselves is Wikipedia really just an encyclopedia in the traditional Britanica sense? What is “encyclopedic”? My feeling is what makes Wikipedia so powerful is the collaborative efforts AND the ability to obtain any INFORMATION about anything, anywhere, etc. badbatzmaru 20:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let's not forget that the first language of many HK residents is English, so this is their Wikipedia, and this is where they come to get well-researched background on current cultural phenomena. Uncle Bus is clearly a current cultural phenomenon in HK, and our article provides well-researched background. There is no reason to delete; in fact if the article didn't exist it should be created. AxelBoldt 21:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would be a travesty and a disservice to information seekers everywhere if this article is removed. I believe Wikipedia is an international source of information, not just an American one. Granted, not many Americans care about the Bus Uncle, but this is one of the most talked about news event in Hong Kong this year, one that has even penetrated Western media. --UCLARodent 22:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this isn't notable, I don't know what is. It's been mentioned in both local Hong Kong and international media. --Breathstealer 04:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sure, it's just a silly internet meme. But the 168 articles in Category:Internet memes show that there's nothing wrong with that. Foobaz·o< 08:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wiki has a number of Internet Meme articles. Keep it. Language is not an issue; most people in Hong Kong are bilingual. -- overgrownbat 05:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, it's no harm. Second, users have the right to know more about this "news". Third, Wikipedia should be always welcoming the true things that happened in the world. Forth, it MAY not be interested by many people does not implies it is worth to be deleted. e.g. Some of the schools or colleges in Hong Kong have their own article in Wiki, but EVEN the students of the school MAY NOT be interested in the article. You can imagine how few people is going to read those articles. However, by using the same logic, is it worth to be deleted? Hong Kong user: Dk4ofjoshuayhyu
  • Keep it got reported in international news. Quite frankly, I'd've probably said "keep it" even if it hadn't, but this counts as notable by anyone's standards. LupusCanis 14:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am researching for an academic paper on internet fads and without resources like this, my work would be much more difficult —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.160.101.169 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Keep It is with no doubt a remarkable event illustrating the power of internet. It will be useful for future researches —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.13.24 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Keep It is a myth of Internet video, a remarkable event. keep it!

Chinese is okay as the origin of the movie is chinese... Kutar 03:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While I'm rarely persuaded by the arguments of something being a "notable internet meme", this one clearly seems to be—Huge ammounts of media coverage, and great popularity in Chinese internet communities, but it has spread beyond that and became a general cultural phenom, and indeed, an international one. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that it has reached the state of being as influential and notable as Goatse or All your base belong to us, it is fairly close.
  • In addition, I think many of those expressing the opinion that this article should be deleted are losing sight of the article itself and instead focusing on the non-logged in users and brand new users, many of whom may indeed only be here to contribute to this discussion, and perhaps they do not express their opinion or argue their position in the best way; this is however irrelevant. Looking at the article, and just the article, I see a notable subject, with several references, and overall a good encyclopedia article. Granted, this is a problem of AFD and indeed, discussions on Wikipedia in general, but I feel its necessary to bring it up here. The closer of this debate should take this into account. Thank you.--Sean Black 03:38, 30 May 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. --Ezeu 04:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Critchlow

[edit]

Contested prod. This actor is on imdb.com, which probably makes him notable enough to be on Wikipedia, although I'm not sure. You decide. For now, no vote. EdGl 20:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment He may actually be almost an extra as apparently everysingle extra used in the film is individually credited acording to the IMDB on the movie?--Nick Y. 20:54, 22 May 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 G1. Royboycrashfan 02:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Booncach

[edit]

Nonsense neologism, author removed speedy tag w/o expl. NawlinWiki 20:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this could be a legitimate endeavor. It would be a shame if the word actually does get in the dictionary and Wikipedia played no role. Kind of dissapointing.

Well, actually, the previous poster, 161.150.2.31, has been posting "www.booncach.com" to various unrelated WP pages, such as William Green (football). Check his/her contributions: [53]. These folks are trying to bootstrap their own fame. That's not what WP is for. NawlinWiki 02:31, 23 May 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.  RasputinAXP  c 15:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Thomas's Changing World

[edit]

Hoax. A "little-known poem" by a famous author and a cute story about its recent discovery in a barn. No sources, unverifiable. The first edits of User:Djh1102 whose following edits went from bad to worse. AfD instead of {{prod}} because more effort than usual went into creating a believable hoax (assuming it is one). Maybe some Dylan Thomas expert can find a source. Rl 20:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments I refuse to have my professional opinion of this poem brought into question! If you had any idea of the stylisations of dylan's early work you would be able to see the comparisons. Perhaps you should sit back and appreiciate the beauty of this poem - even if it isn't thomas's poem Cicero Dog 21:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CIVIL, folks. Opinions certainly have their place in an AfD discussion. But unverifiable information is a problem even if it might possibly be true. I suggest that those who like the poem make a copy for their own use. Rl 22:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comments There as been a claim by another user that "the allegedly corrupt Dylan Thomas poem, which was written by Dylan Thomas in 1934 in a book of his early poems entitled 'Youth Runs Away' a book which has since gone out of print" contributed by user: Aj87 this should be looked into. Perhaps if User:Fan-1967 Got a doctorate in English literature he would be less judgemental and more able to see poetic similarity. Cicero Dog 10:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no evidence that this "now out of print" book ever existed. I see no evidence that this poem ever existed. And I see no evidence that Aj87 ever existed [55]. Metros232 13:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment funny thing souces...not all of them are on the internet...heard of books? big papery things? yes? .... other than attempting to ram them into my floppy disk drive in the hope the will end up on this talk page i see no way of my source reaching you. As to the writer of the edit about the book. I merely assumed good faith instead of searching the internet looking for who wrote it in the hope that i'll get a barnstar...mainly because i've already got a barnstar! Cicero Dog 13:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. WorldCat, a world-wide database of mostly academic libraries, has no listing for Youth runs away and neither does the Library of Congress. [57] Suggest we stop feeding the troll. Thatcher131 19:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. If this were legitimate, there would have been some mention in news reports, literature, or any of the web sites dedicated to Dylan Thomas. Regarding the comments from the two experts in this discussion (I am assuming good faith here), even if it were true, it would be original research, which is not permitted here, either. B.Wind 13:37, 28 May 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 (and nom withdrawn). Tyrenius 04:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Miesel

[edit]

not notable, minor religous and science fiction writer Nick Y. 21:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment It seems that she may be notable for writing about other notable authors and books. I understand that is the nature of literary criticism however being a literary critic that adresses famous books and authors does not necessarily make one notable. Appearing on the catholic TV network for interviews, writing for a catholic religous magazine, or appearing at religious conferences doesn't necessarily make someone notable either. I am a published author and speaker on important subjects myself but I'm not notable, just published. I'm not voting delete because I am not qualified to judge. It just seems questionable. Are these books notable??? Widely published and read??? I don't know. Certainly other than the books the other work is definitely not notable.--Nick Y. 21:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Search for her on Amazon. Anyone with that many books published (by real publishers, not vanity) makes the grade IMO. Even if they're not best sellers, they're still in print. Her book on the Da Vinci Code is at Amazon rank #1070 right now, due to that craze. Fan1967 21:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm tempted to switch to weak keep, however I'm still not sure that an author who seems to be a puppet for a religion writing a catholic-pop novel with the name of the most popular book on the planet in the title and therefore significant distribution doesn't mean that the author is notable. There are many many non-notable authors out there, she just semms to do a good job of hopping on the latest trend to sell books and push religous ideology. In the larger scheme of things it will be a non-notable book. I understand the notability of anti-davinci code books in general, but a page for each of the authors of such books??--Nick Y. 22:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On further investigation there are 200+ books on the Da Vinci code and this one is not near the top of the list. There are not wikipedia pages for each of those authors. Leaning towards weak delete.--Nick Y. 22:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sensing an agenda here in the "puppet for a religion" reference, and the assumption that she's "hopping on the latest trend." It's one of the many books debating the claims in the novel. I don't believe her faith automatically labels her as a puppet. The fact is that she was an established writer long before this. Fan1967 22:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm Catholic. No agenda here. It just seems that there are many more notable books refuting the da vinci code from a catholic perspective and many more notable contributors to special interest periodicals that don't have wikipedia pages and her other books seem to be similar such as the lord of the rings book she wrote back when that was the craze. Etc. The only reason I am uncertain about my vote is that it is possible she is notable as an academic literary critic. I do not know. I am certain her da vinci code book is not notable relative to others and that there are many more notable religous writers both popular religous writers and academic religous writers. Just thinking it through seriously. Maybe I have too high expectations for notablity?--Nick Y. 22:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Before this AfD I didn't know she'd written a DaVinci book, though I was aware she was a Catholic commentator, so I'm not surprised. I've been reading her analysis of SF for years, especially the Dickson material, which is very good. I think within the genre, as the definitive analyst of two great authors, she's notable. Fan1967 23:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe NPOV language not quoting herself but indicating her expert standing should be added. Thanks for the clarification. I withdraw my nomination--Nick Y. 23:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have reorganized the article to emphasize her notability. Moving that she has a bachlor's degree to the bottom etc. That way the reader will understand why she has an article. Fan1967 -perhaps you could improve it more being familiar with her work.--Nick Y. 23:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some stuff on Dickson (which I've just been rereading lately) and also rearranged the article to give fair coverage to both her SF and religious writings. Fan1967 00:10, 23 May 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 and redirect (this has already been done). Tyrenius 04:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North American Federation of Temple Youth - Michigan Region

[edit]

Chapter of a larger group Homey 21:05, 22 May 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 and Redirect. --Ezeu 04:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North American Federation of Temple Youth - Pennsylvania Area Region

[edit]

chapter of a larger group Homey 21:09, 22 May 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. --Ezeu 04:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AutoScreenRecorder

[edit]

Perhaps useful, but I don't feel it's encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not paper but if we had an entry on every single freeware application in existence things would get out of hand. Crystallina 21:13, 22 May 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 and redirect (this has already been done). Tyrenius 04:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North American Federation of Temple Youth - Southern Area Region

[edit]

chapter of a larger group Homey 21:14, 22 May 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 08:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supine position

[edit]

Dicdef. Was tagged as unencyclopedic by User:James McNally. SCHZMO ✍ 21:17, 22 May 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. --Ezeu 04:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pieism

[edit]

Non-notable joke religion. RexNL 21:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a high priest of jojoism, i think this should be kept to spread the word— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathunter (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Mobster (info merged). Tyrenius 04:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moobster

[edit]

Too specific, should be merged into Mobster. A Google search shows that the word isn't that common (~1000 results). SCHZMO ✍ 21:21, 22 May 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 16:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Chinese Church

[edit]

A nn Chinese church. Nothing about this makes it in any way unique, and it only gets 550 Google hits. [58] Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:34, 22 May 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. --Ezeu 04:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ascension Greek Orthodox Cathedral of Oakland

[edit]

Another nn church in California. The article mentions the name, the construction date, and address of a church, but gives no other information about why it is encyclopaedic. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:22, 22 May 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 kept Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Brotherhood Church

[edit]

A nn article about ... well, I'm not really sure. Is it a church? Is it a new religion? Is it a sect? No-one seems to know, because it only has 49 Google hits [59]. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Seems to possibly be a reletively minor splinter group/sect of questionable notability just don't want to be hasty on this one. --Nick Y. 21:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. A religious sect of any significant size is notable, especially one from the 19th century with several churches in very diverse parts of the world.--Pharos 04:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't think of any reason to throw away articles on denominations. Since the nom has indicated that he is not "sure", I would suggest he read our article on Armenians, where the ABC is prominently discussed. -- JJay 20:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I appreciate the value in trying to cleanup stubs as the nominator is doing, a better approach would be to attempt to actually improve them instead of merely nominating them all for deletion. Pharos added the worldwide portion after the nomination, which makes the nomination understandable - but is also clearly enough to make it notable. GRBerry 02:33, 24 May 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. Mackensen (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints, Poplar

[edit]

Barely a sub-stub about another British church. Gets 55 Google hits [60]. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing something. What is almost notable about it? Páll (Die pienk olifant) 01:29, 23 May 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 16:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abounding Joy

[edit]

A sub-stub about a nn church in Des Moines, Iowa. Gets 65 Google hits [61]. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:08, 22 May 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 16:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Peoples Church

[edit]

An entirely nn and POV article about a church in Canada. Gets 16 Google hits [62]. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:06, 22 May 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 16:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Nations' Church (Apostolic Church)

[edit]

Barely a sub-stub about a nn church. There is no information about why this church is in any way important, and it only gets 23 Google hits [63]. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:02, 22 May 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. Rje 15:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints Church, Wilden

[edit]

A nn church in the United Kingdom. The page mostly consists of gossip, and the church gets 300 Google hits [64]. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom Weak keep see what develops it does contain some notable works of art. --Nick Y. 21:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep While this is not a particularly significant church, it does exist and the historical associations with the Baldwin family are correct. Schools seem to be notable enough to be retained; if so, churches should be too. Peterkingiron 23:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am surprised that it should be considered for deletion on the grounds that it consists of gossip. I can detect no gossip on it at all. All the existing material in the article is of a factual nature with no comments of an opinionated nature. The church has direct association with a British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, two Pre-Raphalite stained glass artists (William Morris and Edward Burne-Jones), a President of the British Royal Academy of Arts Edward Burne-Jones, and the founder of one of the UK's largest iron and steel companies pre-nationalization (Alfred Baldwin), two British MPs and chairmen of the Great Western Railway namely Alfred Baldwin and his son Stanley Baldwin. The church also has indirect association with Rudyard Kipling. There is considerable scope for the article to be expanded with both text and photographic illustration. There is an equal need for an article on the Worcestershire village of Wilden. DonBarton 23:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Feel free to add this iinformation to the article and improve the writing at the same time. Expand it even a little and I think it will be kept.--Nick Y. 23:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Cleaning out church stubs or whatever is an excellent thing, certainly, but people should try and follow the links in the article to see whether notability has been established. Stanley Baldwin was thrice PM in the 30s, for heaven's sake! And a Burne-Jones window would make anywhere notable. Sheesh. Hornplease 06:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DonBarton. The Burne-Jones and Morris connection certainly makes the church notable enough. (I also can't see the gossip here; all the people are mentioned for good reasons. And why should we care about Google hits for a 19th century country church?) up+land 07:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. The article gives a nice overview of this old church. That alone would equal obvious keep for me. But look at the people associated with this + stained glass windows by Edward Burne-Jones, one of England's greatest 19th century artists. I would ask that the nom consider withdrawing this nom. -- JJay 20:01, 23 May 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 and redirect Works of Fanny Hensel to List of compositions by Fanny Mendelssohn, and Keep the latter. The articles have been tagged for merging accordingly. --Ezeu 04:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works of Fanny Hensel

[edit]

A link to this was put on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_22, but the proper steps had not been followed. I'm doing that now. Basically an exhaustive list of compositions by Felix Mendelssohn's sister. Also including List of compositions by Fanny Mendelssohn, which duplicates all information found here.-- stubblyhead | T/c 21:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Duplication
  • It was agreed after extensive debates that this subject should be referred to in Wikipedia as Fanny Mendelssohn
  • The title-format 'List of compositions by....' is the Wikipedia standard for such articles.

By the way, is User:Stubblyhead identical with User:Bethchen? On the page Talk:List_of_compositions_by_Fanny_Mendelssohn, it is User:Bethchen who says that she is going to move deletion of both pages. I am sure we want to remove any risk of double-counting in any voting on this proposal. --Smerus 22:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to stubblyhead for my unwarranted inference.--Smerus 08:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i put the exact same list on ":de:Fanny Hensel", and the germans have no complaints. i don't know why some americans are so anal about capitalization. for someone who is as important as fanny hensel, it is very important to get her name right. in her own home country, she is called fanny (mendelssohn) hensel. in the US library of congress subject headings, she is listed under H for hensel. feminist musicologists call her fanny (mendelssohn) hensel. therefore, i don't understand why some people on wikipedia are so insistent on perpetuating old-fashioned nomenclature. 68.40.58.252 23:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops! i forgot to sign-in... i'm requesting deletion, because i was the one who originally contributed the lists, and i regret making the contributions. i suppose that, if someone really wanted to, they could make the argument that i'm violating renate hellwig-unruh's copyright. in which case, wikipedia will have no choice but to delete the lists immediately. Beth 00:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list is probably not a copyvio because copyright protects creative expression and no matter how much effort may have gone into compiling and verifiying the list, it's not creative expression. (see Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service) Thatcher131 19:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to understand Beth's protests. The protocol on English/American Wikipedia is that we write with standard spelling and capitalisation conventions. If Beth objects so strongly to these conventions, to which all other contributors subscribe,let her not contribute to English Wikipedia. Maybe German Wikipedia has different conventions which suit her better. For 'someone as important as fanny hensel' (or Fanny Mendelssohn as, after, extensive debate, it was decided she should be named in Wikipedia) , it would seem only respectful to give her and her works the encyclopaedic, and grammatic, treatment they deserve. That is, by merging and tidying up the existing pair of lists. --Smerus 08:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge We should have one list of works by this composer at her most commonly used name and keep all logical redirects as well. List needs to be wikified and cleaned up. Thatcher131 19:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Nomination Withdrawn as the article has already been renamed to Otuho language and expandned. . --Ezeu 04:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otuho

[edit]

Unencyclopedic language stub. What is known is listed in related article Lotuko --Abel 22:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect To Lotuko along with Lotuko mythology Yes, horribly written (single sentence) and lacking references but sufficiently informative to merit the possibility of further expansion. It is a real language. I think it is worthy of inclusion as a subject and the single sentence is correct from my brief research. Spoken by ~185,000 people. --Nick Y. 22:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect I'm sorry, the article seems legitimate now and it seems a good idea to unite the two mentioned. How do I retract a deletion request? I'm new at editing here on Wikipedia but as far as I have read in articles regarding deletion, I cannot figure this out. --Abel 02:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, normally, you'd write Speedy keep, but, that doesn't apply since article has become a redirect, which you're happy with. I guess Speedy Withdraw. :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't merge. For reasons of systematics (languages rarely coincide with ethnic groups) it is better to keep language articles separate. Even when there is almost total coincidence, the convention appears to be separation; for example Dhopadhola does not redirect to Jopadhola. --LambiamTalk 06:32, 24 May 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. (I will implement the merge after I figure out how to best do it.)--Ezeu 04:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passive transfer anaphylaxis

[edit]

not understandable for the average reader, not wikified, listed as requiring cleanup since July 2005, article not linked by any other Wikipedia pages Deleteme42 22:12, 22 May 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☀ 06:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bohanning

[edit]

This is a neologism from a radio show. Joyous! | Talk 22:29, 22 May 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 kept Clear consensus to keep Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wotch

[edit]

Non-notable and moderately popular webcomic. Jake013 22:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep of course its notable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.154.112.220 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep this is one of the few webcomics that have enough fan support that the artist can live entirely on the comic-related income. With thrice-weekly color strips of 12 panels or more, it has one of the largest outputs of any webcomic. This deletion request makes no sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.182.25 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete useless unnotable fan articles. The only thing that makes it look notable is the loooooong list of main, minor, and less-than-minor characters, not to mention places, items, and other unimportant tiny bits of information. For goodness' sake, it's not even well written - seems it was mostly written only by fans or anons. And, as Dragonfiend says, the only thing that makes this article and/or webcomic look notable is the video game currently being prodced by "members of the Wotch forums." Some futile attempts to make a webcomic look nice and pretty, IMO. Sp@rkplug 21:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge authors' articles and conditional keep - article is too long and too messy. Suggest more relevant information. Igor the Lion(Roar!) 22:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you're going to merge the author's pages into the main page, then you might as well merge all authors' pages into the main pages of their works. You're talking about trying to unclutter the page and now merging the authors' entries with the main one would just clutter it up more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robin47 (talk • contribs) .
  • The reason some people want a merge is because there is so little content in the authors' pages. They're not worth their own pages, whereas many authors have a lot of information on their pages, so have them separately. --Tim 23:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any evidence that this meets the criteria of WP:WEB. The Google test isn't usable here; only a quarter of the hits for "wotch -wikipedia" are relevant to the webcomic, and "wotch webcomic -wikipedia" only nets a few dozen unique hits. If kept (which I'm certain it will be), merge all spinoff articles (the authors, characters, spinoff webcomic, and hypothetical video game) into the main article. -Sean Curtin 00:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Keep Possible. As per other people keeping above. JONJONAUG 01:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a possible merge of connected articles. I think if a Wikiarticle is made, maintained and well kept, then it's notable for that. And for those of you saying it's just a fan article, what isn't on Wiki? Kirby Oak 05:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I say! Keep! Merge the articles if you want, but don't delete 'em. Wikipedia is meant to be a reference site. What if someone wants to learn about the Wotch and nothing is there? Besides, I worked hard to make this page, and I'd be crushed t osee it Gone. Hydragon 08:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge authors’ pages into the main article; although the latter does leave much to be desired, the subject looks relevant enough (cf. Alexa). —xyzzyn 20:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though merge authors to here. This webcomic has numerous references across wikipedia and deserves its place, such as all reasonably long lived webcomics Warmaster 22:15 28th May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 06:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Anti-Masons

[edit]

Given that this needed to be improved per the first AfD and has not been to any real degree and instead turned into a soapbox of unsourced claims by Lightbringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) socks, this article is a mere collection of internal links, which violates WP:NOT. MSJapan 22:42, 22 May 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. Petros471 15:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Malyszko

[edit]

nonnotable, kid's article about teacher, kid removed speedy tag twice w/o explanation NawlinWiki 22:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

he has actually written books and does lectures and that....so surely the article is justified.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.117.2 (talk • contribs)

http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=0582431883

http://www.bfi.org.uk/education/contacts/assoctutors/details?uid=54

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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☀ 06:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homohawk

[edit]

Patented non-sensical term not deserving of a topic on Wikipedia. MOE.RON talk | done | doing 23:02, 22 May 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☀ 06:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Omicron Kappa Society

[edit]

Vanity club article, no google hits [65] --Liface 23:06, 22 May 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 -- Longhair 22:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tipsy McStagger

[edit]

Appears to be a Hoax. Claims to be a writer for Politics1. Google search brings this up[67]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Flowerparty☀ 06:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tami chynn

[edit]

A Jamaican artist who has not actually released anything yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Francs2000 23:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 23:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although the article desperately needs cleanup and a thorough check for possible copyvios. Appears to be pretty well established in Jamaica and has a couple of singles already notable in both the UK & US. Has signed a contract with Universal for an album to be released shortly. Check Google search results for more details and take note of the wide variety of websites that mention her, including prestigious ones like BBC.co.uk and Universal Motown Records. While I tend to take articles about fairly unknown artists with a pinch of salt, I believe we're not dealing with the usual nn-bio, CSD A7 here. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 23:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This about the closest call (time-wise) I have seen on a band with such a clear keep. She signed a four record deal with universal about a month ago. I think she meets the criteria although we will be on the cutting edge. I think this is the exception to where the other bands say "but we're about to be big." She is about to be big. I listened to a little of her music and hated it though. Article in definate need of clean up though. Tag it as such.--Nick Y. 00:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fulfils some of the criteria for notability (see WP:MUSIC). She is signed to a major record label and has been featured by various reputable media sources. Additionally, as an indication of notability, she has collaborated with Sean Paul [69] and material is available on Amazon. To be succinct, keep per above votes. SoLando (Talk) 00:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per SoLando. --Starionwolf 02:11, 27 May 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 - (Only "keep" voter has revoked his vote) Speedy Delete. Deizio talk 00:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rotting Apples

[edit]

Seems to be vanity, keeps removing speedy tags, no proof of notability Yanksox 23:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Rotting Apples" does not show on Allmusic or Discogs. -- Scientizzle 00:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Page is not vanity, merely an entry for a band that is known in it's town. However, since those who want to delete it are not from the band's town, it is hard for them to know who they are. Notability has been established already, as the band is the leading figure in the early 90's alternative rock resurgence in Bakersfield. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoodvsEvil (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment You can't presume people know things, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Yanksox 23:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well then one should not presume that merely because you have not heard of Rotting Apples means that they should be deleted. A fair number of articles are on Wikipedia which I have had no previous knowledge of. That is why they are put on Wikipedia, for the spread of knowledge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoodvsEvil (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment But those articles have validity behind them. The only proof of this band's existance is a myspace page. You have been asked to prove notability, but fail each time. Yanksox 23:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And yet that proves that the band exists, and if you happened to live in Bakersfield, and go to their shows, you would know their position in the music scene. I've happened to watch the development of this band for some time. I do not know what other validity I can provide for this article, other than my own testimony and the proof of the existence of the band. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoodvsEvil (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment However, existance is not enough. To understand the true policy of Wikipedia in terms of this article read WP:MUSIC. This is to prevent anyone whom has just created a band by flogging Wikipedia down. I am in a band myself, but I don't post a page about us since we are not notable under that code. Yanksox 23:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WELL IF YOU WOULD ACTUALLY STOP AND LISTEN, as I have stated before, you do not live in Bakersfield. Hence, YOU would not know. If someone were to just "flog Wikipedia down" once the band was created, that would have been done when they were first formed in 2003. However, this article was not created until AFTER they made a name for themselves in their town. Which is a term of notability in WP:MUSIC, being the most prominent member of a musical movement in their home town. And that's what they are. Period. I don't know why you guys are making such a big deal out of this, clearly you have priority issues. And if you delete the page for that crack, then you've got even more problems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoodvsEvil (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment I know that none of you care about this band from Bakersfield, but people from Bakersfield do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoodvsEvil (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment There is nothing wrong with Bakersfield, however your logic is drastically flawed and skewed. If everyone in my town (Boston) suddenly just looked dirt and called it "adsaffasf," I don't think it warrants it's own page. That was the situation with the word Redonkulas. Just because something is popular in a concentrated area, doesn't make it noteworthy. Also, I fail to understand why Wikipedia is such a popular medium to generate buzz. Use Blogspot, geocities or stop posting here and just rock out. Yanksox 23:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Holy crap just leave the damn thing alone. I want these guys to have a damn entry, I don't know why you're making such a damn big deal about the whole thing. I don't know why you have to pick apart every single little thing, if you just left it alone, all would be well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoodvsEvil (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment Would a nice little groupshot photo of them suffice for whatever it is is bugging the hell out of you? Do they not look important or something that gets to you? They're an indie band in Bakersfield. That's how Korn started for christsake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoodvsEvil (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment Korn is NOW notable, this band isn't. Give them props by talking to some friends. Besides, having a wiki page means people have to search for it. It doesn't mean people will find it. Yanksox 00:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The leading figure in the early 90's alternative rock resurgence in Bakersfield?? If you can't get notability outside of Bakersfield, (along with several independent and reliable sources) your article does not belong in this encyclopedia. --Hetar 23:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment HOLY FLYING FUCK. You know what, fine. I don't care. It's not my fuckin band, I don't know why I kept fighting you dicks on this. All I have to say is that you guys have got waaaay too much fuckin time on your hands. Just delete the fuckin thing now and get it over with. And I really hope you guys are happy, cuz you guys really need to find something better to do with your time.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoodvsEvil (talk • contribs) .
  • Emphatic Speedy Delete Not notable. Someday hopefully they will be. Good luck to them.--Nick Y. 00:05, 23 May 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. Mackensen (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India (cat)

[edit]

President's cat!! Not notable by itself --Ragib 23:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved what looks like the only relevant piece of information to List of United States Presidential pets ( origin of the name ) - Peripitus 06:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what about the photo ? It is extremely important ;-) Tintin (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tried that but can't work out a way to not spoil the look of the table. Could just link the name to the picture - Peripitus 04:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think all the information about these pets can be merged into List of United States Presidential pets. None of them merit anything other than one or two lines, unless one is going to copy whole pages from whitehouse's website, which interestingly seem to be written for kindergarten kids. All the information about a pet could also be merged as a single sentence to the corresponding president. For example, in case of the subject of this AfD, a line can be added to George W. Bush's page saying he had this cat, named after this player, while he was in white house. Other than that, a separate article devoted to a presidential pet which is only notable in the context of the presidency, is ridiculous. We don't devote a whole page to the animals not notable by their own right. If the info about the animal is interesting, that's only so in the context of the owner. True, there are animals like Jumbo the elephant, or Coco the chimp which are notable by themselves, but certainly, presidential pets are not so. Thanks. --Ragib 04:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I can help update and maintain the List of Presidential Pets. --Starionwolf 04:21, 25 May 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. Rje 15:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayenee

[edit]

This article was submitted to advertise their site. When checked, there was no rating at all for the traffic to ayenee.org and very few sites that really link to it. According to policy, this is also a biased self made article by the owner/volunteer to the actual site itself, to promote it. Praedon 23:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete:nothing more than a non-notable game that an extremely small number of people play in Yahoo chat rooms. There are no reliable sources for this, and I doubt there ever will be (since the article and its talk page admit that the game is dying off). --Hetar 23:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nom: This Entry is largely unverifiable, and at one point in time was filled with inacurate information. Even after several attempts to edit it. The question still remains why this article is here. It seems like shameless self promotion. --Drkvamp 23:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hetar Optimale Gu 08:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 23:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article only started as means to self promote a single realm by a former admin. Its been based on inaccurate information and self publicity. Through the course of edits it has been used to promote the individuals who edited the article without ever providing accurate information except as personal advertisement space for other offshout. The article shouldn't be a billboard for unrelated content and the supposed related content isn't unbiased. eNiasni
  • Update - The site itself, www.ayenee.org is closing itself down, from what was said, forever in its current state. I do believe this should help speed up the process for deleting this article. Praedon 19:05, 26 May 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. Rje 15:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russell F. Roark, III

[edit]

Prod removed without comment, so bringing here. Flirting right on the edge of notability, but I don't think he quite makes it under WP:BIO - seems like his credits are similar to those a lot of upper-ranking police officers would have. I leave it for discussion. Tony Fox 00:21, 23 May 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. Rje 15:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Huston

[edit]

Authors have removed several tags along the way, and after a mention that the article needs to show notability, some added information has been added - in Japanese. A bad Babelfish translation suggests it might try to offer notability, but I'm just not sure. Bringing here for discussion. Delete Tony Fox 00:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete There should not be Japanese on the English site. Poorly written. Notabiliy not clear from article. Is he an actor or something?? Lacking specifics to notablity claim. Which television shows has he been on?? Why is he a celebrity other than his personal habits?? I know the Japanese are odd when it comes to celebrities but some explanation would be good.--Nick Y. 00:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no assertion of notability, and it strikes me as being phony. -- stubblyhead | T/c 01:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neither his full name, nor the name used in the title+'Gaijin' gives any results on Google. Nor does the search "Ben Huston" site:.jp". Other Google results don't lead to any such person in Japan. Also something like He is famous for .... eating curry at the Makuhari Citibank Building makes it sound very non-notable. Optimale Gu 08:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Big celebrity", myass. Bob Sapp is big celebrity in Japan, this guy isn't. --Calton | Talk 21:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete! LMAO, this is hilarious! I don't know who wrote up this article, but I see a photo of this guy's face posted up on the outside of 'Mahuraja', an indian restaurant in Kaihin Makuhari (near a CitiBank) everyday. The photo looks like it was taken during the filming of a 'variety tv program' at the restaurant or something. Additionally, I saw this same guy, named 'Ben Huston' (written in Japanese katakana) appear on the 'waratte iitomo' show, two days ago. From what I understood, this guy seems to be dating a superfamous japanese model/actress named Aya Ueto. She is crazy hot! Anyway, whoever submitted this article, please update with more info. How is this guy dating Aya Ueto?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristocrat4000 (talk • contribs) 01:25, May 25, 2006

  • Comment If you can find some verifiable and credible sources for any of that, feel free to add them into the article. (Preferably in English, this being the English Wikipedia.) Tony Fox 02:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commnet User:Aristocrat4000's only contributions to Wikipedia are here and to this article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I certainly didn't write the article if that's what you're implying. Yes, and under my new username 'Aristocrat4000' this is the only article I've contributed to, so far. Additionally, I'm totally indifferent as to whether or not it stays or goes now. So, if there is some sort of lingering suspicion regarding my 'connection' with this article, that's your own hallucinated conclusion.
  • Delete - no specific details in the article that I can read. If this article is to be saved, a more complete rendering of his history (why is he a "big celebrity in Japan"? It is never truly mentioned). As it is, I cannot tell if it is a joke article or a legitimate attempt at a stub prior to the addition of the Japanese portion. B.Wind 13:49, 28 May 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 userfy then delete. Petros471 12:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Campopiano

[edit]

Seems to be nonnotable Yanksox 00:51, 23 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_22&oldid=1081096965"