Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Appropriate Username (talk | contribs) at 09:46, 18 April 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 17 >

Purge server cache

April 18

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- RHaworth 09:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tony Danza and The Tony Danza (sex move)

Found this under recent changes. Looks like it needs to be deleted. It's impossible to verify and very misogynistic. Erik the Rude 00:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating The Tony Danza (sex move). It's an exact copy. Erik the Rude 00:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Thryduulf 11:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Touchyball & Crazypants

This is the english version translation of the Spanish webcomic Picapolla y Chocholoco seen here. They are both hosted on the same domain, and that domain comes back with an Alexa rank of 350,000. Note that the webcomic is not the only thing at that domain. "Picapolla y Chocholoco" gives just over 70 links and the word touchyball gives back 12 links. I do not think that either the Spanish webcomic nor the English translation is notable. However, if it is kept, I strongly suggest having the article under the original spanish name. - Hahnchen 00:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend Of Anne Bunny

Please take a look at the webcomic in question here. Anne Bunny is one of the several webcomics hosted on the Magpie House Designs website. Are they notable? Is this specific comic notable? "Legend of Anne Bunny" gives 36 hits on Google, and "Magpie House Design" gives 23 unique hits. (The reason the latter search gives thousands of none unique hits is due to Google messing up it's forum page caching). Alexa also ranks the site at which it's hosted on at 600,000+. I don't think the entire domain is notable enough for an article, let alone a single webcomic on it. - Hahnchen 00:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mad World (comic)

Is this a notable website? Hosted on Comic Genesis, the webcomic can be seen here and is also mirrored on DrunkDuck. The article seems to be written by the webcomic author, Michael Wriston. The website is updated on a random schedule, so that is perhaps why it is not mentioned in the Alexa report for comic genesis. But I just can't find an establishment of notability online, it looks to be one of the thousands of small time webcomics on Comic Genesis. - Hahnchen 00:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gulfside United Methodist Assembly

not really a notable church, parishcruft Montco 00:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you are not African American, or is this site not for what is notable for American of African heritage? This is a state of Mississippi Historic site. C. Baker Motley used it a the base of operations during the court sessions to integrate the Law school at Old MS University. Judge Marshall came there to work with other NAACP lawyers. Leontine Price sang there because it was one of a few places where she could sing opera to her own people in the south. It is not a Church but a 65 acre campus. The only place in this country where a Black person could legally walk on the beach or swim in a part of the Gulf of Mexico until after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

It would have been a bit more civilized if I had been allowed to finish writing the article before passing judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLJQuinn (talk • contribs)

sorry am new at this. Jacqui Quinn

  • My criteria for an AfD are based on objective criteria. The retreat has all of 75 unique hits on google. Some of which include:Gulfport Timeshares. There were 2 AP stories, both of which had to do with the rebuilding of the camp. Big deal, lots of stuff has to be rebuilt after the hurricanes. We don't list every apartment building and hotel on the Gulf Coast that was destroyed. I found nothing to assert the sort of notability which you claim for the place. According to the state's historical preservation, there are 588 state historical landmarks in Mississippi. [1] including post offices. Not all of those are notable. Montco 01:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup. I think, as JLJQuinn shows, the church is indeed notable. THe article needs some cleanup, but presumably that will come in due course. (Jacqui: see your talkpage) Bucketsofg 01:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the tone of this comment and the use of the term "foolheaded. " However, the article was tagged for deletion one hour after JLJQuinn (talk · contribs) started it, and regardless of whatever the nominator found via google, I find that the eighth hit on the first page is a newspaper article that verifies the essential details [2]. I notice that JLQuinn has not edited the article since then; maybe this is just her night out. I hope she hasn't been driven away from the project. Thatcher131 04:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Montco has apologized on JLQuinn's talk page, which I find commendable. I considered blanking my comment immediately above but I decided to leave it; maybe this episode will give someone else some food for thought too. Thatcher131 04:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Deleted by Geogre with sumarry of (Vandalism). -- JLaTondre 02:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifitti


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABC idents

Comment. I think it is surprising that there are so many votes to keep this article even though it has no real text other than the heading paragraph. Georgia guy 22:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given the example from National Broadcasting Company logos, articles like this have some chance for expansion into a good article. Then again, articles like ABC idents and BBC television idents don't. I thinking moving to "List of ABC idents" would be a good idea, because "list of" articles are just that: a list, not an article. Jesuschex 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea_Rosen

vanity. Endless Shrimp 00:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The name "Fringe Festival" is self-consciously ironic; the event itself is well-known and extremely well-regarded. There are "Fringe Festivals" in major cities around the English-speaking world and more, including New York, Philadelphia, Boulder, San Francisco, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Ottawa, Melbourne, Prague, Singapore, Dublin, Brighton, Bath, and Edinburgh. Some are more substantial than others; the New York City event is extremely well-known, regularly covered in depth and treated as notable by media like the New York Times. The name, as I recall, goes back to one of the UK events in the late 1940s, staged in an area of the involved city known as "the Fringe". The last time I checked, an ironic name was not grounds for deprecating an otherwise substantial event. Monicasdude 15:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't aware that this discussion was about keeping or deleting any "Fringe" festival articles. And yes, the various "Fringe" festivals themselves are very notable. But what sort of individuals -- you know, the actual topic under discussion -- perform at the various "Fringe" festivals? Hmmm, the word "Fringe" should be a clue there, hoss. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's sort of a flimsy criterion. The festival is substantial—in a commercial sense—but the same can't automatically be said of individual participants. Should every single musician who participates in the CMJ Music Marathon or SXSW have their own wikipedia article? Endless Shrimp 20:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (ie - Hollywood Walk of Fame)? Nope.
  • # Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. A regular in a failed basic-cable series? Nope.
--Calton | Talk 06:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."--M@rēino 18:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And just because they got a listing on IMDB or collected a couple of paychecks doesn't mean they should be kept, either. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Downs/Archambault

Not a specific architect, it's a firm; reads like a business card or yellow pages entry; Brianporter 00:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete article seems to say that the firm isn't that notable based on the limited amount of projects that the company has participated in; google gives no non-wikipedia hits for the term Where (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. delete self-promotion Williamb 03:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karren Reissmann

Non notable, minor party failed candidate, little extra available. Mtiedemann 01:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. The only main-space incoming link was unnecessary, and I removed it, leaving an orphan duplicate dab page. Deleted as a housekeeping procedure. kingboyk 02:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion (disambiguation)

Redundant with previously existing disambiguation page at Motion. Also, I believe equal topic disambiguation and not primary topic disambiguation is appropriate in this case because of the genericity of the term "motion", the number of articles linking to "motion" which clearly do not mean the physical sense, and similar disambiguation organization on other-language Wikipedias. —Psychonaut 01:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied due to request by creator. Ingoolemo talk 23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States bomber scale-chart

I created this article some time ago, and I still believe that the information it contains is undeniably valuable. However, I have nominated it because I feel that the article is unencyclopedic in that it does not actually have a topic: it exists solely as a context for the scale-chart it contains—in fact, the article contains absolutely no information not already in the image it's built around. The GIF within it has been uploaded onto the commons, so no information will be lost. The commons is definitely a better place for this kind of thing. Ingoolemo talk 01:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with the exception of its subpages, it's entirely orphaned and has been for nearly two years. Ingoolemo talk 01:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweaty Brown Betty

Wikipedia is not for things made up while drunk one day. 0 google hits. {{prod}} failed. Delete -- stillnotelf is invisible 01:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austral-Asian Community Church

This was originally prodded by User:AYArktos on the grounds of questioning how this church stood out from others. User:Cynical then removed, on the grounds "churches are notable". I disagree that a religious centre is inherently important so here it is. I am unconvinced that the fact that this church was formed by a minority group adds any more notability to the fact that it is a church.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 01:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurfc


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ComSer

It's an internet forum with 167 total members. Interiot 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OCS Pakistan

Advertisement/NPOV, non-notable, not to wiki markup standards J.reed 02:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Athletic Amenorrhea axon atrophy

Take a look at Axon, Atrophy, and Amenorrhea. This article talks about all three of those subjects, but fails to join them together. :: Colin Keigher 02:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado supreme

This article is more like a biography of two people in a band, probably does not show up on Google, and has reference only on a myspace page. Funnybunny 03:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why dont you tell us why your voting delete?65.8.35.219 03:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S.A.R.X.

Article fails to assert notability of the band. It says that the group has "a large fan base in British Columbia", but does not state the source of that information, or provide statistics to support this claim. Thus, the article fails WP:MUSIC. Interesting name though, so a reluctant delete. Kimchi.sg | talk 03:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -lethe talk + 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theorem 1

Comment: Even with that revision, the problem remains that not every first theorem in books is called "Theorem 1". Oops, I guess I wasn't supposed to respond to that :-) --C S (Talk) 22:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Why did you call this theorem 1 -- or rather on what list is it the first theorem? The name is puzzling (there are lots of theorem 1s in mathematics articles and book, sometimes even within the same book) and seems nonsensical in the context of WP.--CSTAR 17:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klambino Ball

nn game, zero Google hits for "Klambino Ball" or "Klambinoball". User:Zoe|(talk) 03:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

save Klambino Ball!


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exotical

Seems to have been placed here by someone mistaking Wikipedia for a gaming discussion forum. u p p l a n d 03:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

York University Student Centre

Non-notable building at York University. Wikipedia is not a junkyard Delete Ardenn 03:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Comment, You know, you have a valid point... mind changed. :) :: Colin Keigher 04:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

York University Ice Palace

Makes no claim as to why it deserves an article. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete Ardenn 04:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Du Page 3

Neologism. I have lived in this general area for 15 years and I have never ever heard this phrase. Google has nothing of the sort no matter what combo I use. Moreover, DuPage County, Illinois is never spelled with a space between Du and Page. This just silly monikercruft or even vandalism & it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Trust me on this.Madman 04:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tait Mackenzie Building

Non-notable building at York University. Wikipedia is not a junkyard Delete --Ardenn 04:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Just enough for a consensus, methinks. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Ice Gardens

Makes no claim as to why it deserves an article. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete --Ardenn 04:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment, Pm_shef, please do not make false slanderous accusations, its very worthy of an article and is definetly not any kind of "cruft" as you attempt to claim --JohnnyCanuck 17:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment over 33,000 results in Google, originally called Ice Gardens, later sold naming rights to be called Beatrice Ice Gardens--JohnnyCanuck 21:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atkinson College Building

Makes no claim as to why it deserves an article. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete --Ardenn 04:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Rousseau (Lost)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 07:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election and Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election

Not encyclopedic. Pages for failed candidates of very minor party. brenneman{L} 04:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep for both. There are numerous pages like this on Wikipedia, and the article format is the result of a compromise that followed extensive discussions. CJCurrie 04:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for both. The CHP is just as notable as Marijuana Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. :: Colin Keigher 04:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I strongly feel that individual minor party candidates don't deserve their own articles, it is a good idea for an encyclopedic type production such as Wiki to keep a list of former candidates. Good reference material, without wasting space on non-noteable nobodies. pm_shef 05:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Ardenn 05:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Gives us a place to store information on candidates for a party without clogging the place with non-notable biographies often cribbed if not copied from the Party website. Capitalistroadster 05:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - At least some of this material belongs. If it doesn't warrant a separate article, then it may be merged to Christian Heritage Party of Canada, after discussion on the relevant talk page (not an AFD issue). Christian Heritage Party of Canada has nothing on individual candidates, and I think at least some, like those who's vote counts exceed the winner/runner-up spread, are worthy of inclusion in one or the other article. -Rob 05:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per CJCurrie and pm_shef. —GrantNeufeld 05:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks interesting, and much better than having articles on each of the candidates. Fagstein 06:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which sentence of it do you find interesting, choosing from those following the table of contents? The plain old results tables are, I expect, already summarised more sensibly elsewhere. -Splashtalk 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article on the Party is a different matter, but failed candidates are not notable. --kingboyk 06:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole idea was first proposed by AFD' as a solution to a very real and otherwise unresolvable debate. It's not an ideal solution, I grant, but it's the only way anybody's found to date to balance a very real and legitimate difference of opinion on the notability of electoral candidates. So, considering that this approach was AFD's idea to begin with, keep. Bearcat 06:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as status quo compromise. This 'List of...' article is a proactive alternative to individual candidate pages that spring up every election. Theoretically (in my mergist fantasy), all candidates get a redirect page to this kind of list page (or, more practically, as it is practised, all candidates get merged/redirected to such a page once someone creates an article on them). This page solves some rather annoying things, like endless afds on electoral candidates who just want the free ad space and get it for at least the 5 days the afd takes (hint: don't take it to afd, just merge/redirect it to the list pages) and a one-stop shop to monitor for abusive or peacock descriptions of the candidate (opposed to monitoring hundreds of pages during that grace period candidates are normally given during an election). This topic had a centralized discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates; and this proposal came up here: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates#A mergist's solution. --maclean25 07:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a solution since we just keep the (non-)information somewhere else! What does it matter which title you put it under? If we get a bunch of politico-vanity-adverts every election, then that's fine. Delete them every election. I do not see, like Hiding below, that that discussion has any particular 'consensus' so strong as to overrule ordinary notability standards and to justify a dismissal of this entire AfD on the basis of it, as some seem to be suggesting. -194.247.247.60 19:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not a "solution" to the problem you are posing, but it is a solution to the problem posed at the centralized discussion. This is an unofficial compromise, not a 'concensus' that emerged from centralized discussion (it never went to a straw poll). The reason the title matters is because it is much easier to deal with one article than a dozen. These are just little bios that illustrate what kind of people are running for these parties. They are not full-blown biographies that require hours of research. One of the reasons the centralized discussion occured was because the afd process was not working, some were kept, some deleted (some repeatedly) but most ended with 'no concensus'. --maclean25 01:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced, reading Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, that this compromise has any more consensus than any other. I'm also not sure we need seperate lists for each party, when they are of these lengths. I think I'd be inclined to keep merging these lists to a point where they aren't unwieldy and aren't potential forks and aren't granting undue balance. On the last point, do the major parties also have lists of their failed candidates? If not, we are creating articles on an undue balance basis. At the moment, delete. I could see a value in Candidates in the 2004 Canadian federal election, but we're not debating that here. Hiding talk 07:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems totally appropriate to me. While having a separate page for each of these candidates would be overkill, a list with some basic information certainly seems worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia of unlimited size such as Wikipedia. NoIdeaNick 09:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NoIdeaNick and others. Wikipedia is not paper. CJCurrie and others have gathered a lot of verifiable informaiton about these people into a small numbers of well-organized articles. It would be a shame to lose these. Ground Zero | t 11:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 12:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We need to get rid of the individual nn candidate entries, and need a place to put them. One article per party per election for losing candidates seems reasonable. Fan1967 14:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does keeping them get rid of them? Why do we need a place for below-average losers? One article per party that is actually relevant to the world outside their pub crew, I can understand. But an article just for signing a form once? That's a bit much. -Splashtalk 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm at a loss why a party that got way way less than 1% overall (yes, individual ridings varied but they competed in what, 15 ridings tops???) needs an article about a particular election outcome. I think merging this stuff with the main party article is the way to go. To those that cite other party articles, as examples that it should be done this way, I suggest perhaps that other minor party articles need the same merging/purging treatment too. Nothing much more could ever be said here, could it? As much as it pains me to do so, given my extreme detestation for Mr. Brenneman and his deletionist ways (KIDDING!) I must suggest that the right thing to do here is Merge with redirect... ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - This is the sort of information that politics researchers find useful; one of the things that constantly hampers my discipline is not having information on the minor parties in countries outside the United States. Even if the article was not useful now, I can state without any reservation at all that, based on the research being done today, it will be useful a few years down the line.Captainktainer 16:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as CJCurrie pointed out, it is a reasonable compromise. Useful information for future research on Canadian elections. Note that Wikipedia is not paper. Luigizanasi 05:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per CJCurrie et al. BoojiBoy 18:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as irrelevant to the local community, the national community, the world community, the election, the other candidates in the election and as a grouping together of a whole bunch of utterly non-notable bios, each of which would be a near-speedy candidate if it weren't masquerading as an election result. There is little to no information in these articles that is informative of politics and there is no reason to spend time writing about a collection of literal losers. Losing by a stonkingly huge amount is something that Joe Anybody can do without even leaving their bedroom: literally. Add a passing mention to a main article or two, or a table of percentages somewhere. No need for a full-blown merge and redirect. -Splashtalk 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Above user has no prior contributions. CJCurrie 19:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I have about 25,000. -Splashtalk 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My apologies, but you signed anonymously the first time. CJCurrie 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I did. And I imagine my comment sounds quite harsh to the author of the article. But really, did they have any impact on any of the things I mentioned in my first sentence? Are they likely ever too? Did they even get any significant media coverage, apart from some presumable stuff about being a fringe party (or whatever the terminology appropriately is)? Is the detailed info on the candidates actually of connection to anything other than this article? If you cut that out, at least we'd get a more focussed article. -Splashtalk 19:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't create the 2006 article -- someone else did. As has already been noted, the list system is a compromise: the candidates don't need to be individually important to qualify. To the party's importance, it might be noteworthy the Stephen Harper, Canada's current PM, once wrote about adding the CHP's support base to a broad "right-wing coalition" (not that I'm suggesting that the page should be kept for this reason alone). CJCurrie 19:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A minor party, but at least a notable one. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 19:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. RexNL 19:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where has everyone got the idea that Wikipedia should onlyu include things that are important or "notable" (which is as vague and useless a term as one could imagine)? The main advantage that Wikipedia has over paper encyclopedias is that is can cover the nooks and crannies of the sum of knowledge in this world. There is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See the grounds for deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and, for interest, Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. Ground Zero | t 20:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is an endlessly rehearsed argument. It fails on several key counts: Jimbo's ordinary opinions, whilst of great interest, do not form policy or guideline absent some authority being granted to them, or him speaking ex cathedra. Also, "non-notable" is such an accepted deletion criterion that non-notable bios, bands etc, can be deleted on sight per CSD A7. "Non-notable" is a frequently successful argument for deletion because it is simply a collecting-together of many different things: WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information, of unencyclopedic information, etc etc. It is not as simple "i don't think he's interesting". It is clearly enough not a "useless" term, it is actually a usefully adaptive term that is just oft-debated as people differ on individual items. The nooks and crannies of the sum of knowledge indeed; it is questionable whether the school-days employment of a random loser qualifies as knowledge. -Splashtalk 20:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the counter-argument is that there are hundreds of articles on minor characters in Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Buffy, Pokemon, video game and lots of other fictional universes. There are articles on weaponry, spacecraft, battles, religions, languages and institutions of these universes that do not exist. These articles exist because people are interested enough to write about them, and because Wikipedia is willing to be the host for information about them. Here we are talking about real world candidates of real world political parties for real world political offices in a county that is, for the most part, a real place. There are people who are interested in writing about and reading about these people. How is Wikipedia diminished by allowing the stories of these real people sit alongside all of the articles about the stories of minor fictitional characters? Ground Zero | t 21:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Keep per Ground Zero's excellent argument. If we can have articles on every single damn pokemon that (N)ever existed, this should be a no brainer. Jcuk 21:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the party is notable and the information here could be useful to researchers. Wstaffor 23:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that records on small party candidates are important for historical reasons. Also, CHP canidates tend to run multiple times and in multiple ridings. This info will almost certainly be useful for future elections. Just nbecause you didn't get a lot of votes doesn't mean that a candidate didn't make an impact. NDP Johnny 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per pm_shef. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, as above. Samaritan 07:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. While an article about the party is perfectly acceptable, these "list of failed candidates" pages are not appropriate to the encyclopedia. This is just a thinly veiled attempt to include content which would be unacceptable (per WP:BIO) if listed separately. If this trend is allowed to continue, Wikipedia will be flooded with these unmaintainable pages. Rossami (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry R. Heather

Has lost a few elections and made some ludicrous statements, but does not appear to pass guideline for inclusion of humans.
brenneman{L} 04:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you meant premier... Ralph Klein :: Colin Keigher 09:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I meant prime minister Stephen Harper, though he wasn't prime minister at the time, I suppose. Fagstein 18:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kempling

High school teacher suspended for being anti-gay. Does not appear to be notable per guideline for inclusion of people.
brenneman{L} 04:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJCurrie says. Otherwise keep, relatively notable court case in Canada. Luigizanasi 06:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article survives the afd process, as the primary author, I'll take responsibility for addressing all the concerns regarding references. Having said that, Browned, is there someone who wouldn't consider this to be a pro-homosexual agenda (the link was in the article but deleted by Brenneman)? That page starts with the terms "social justice activists" and "homophobia and heterosexism action group" to describe their approach. I still intend to keep all relevant facts in the revised article. Pointing out the activism of a group that identifies iteself as activist, is not an "attack", especially when it relates directly to the topic at hand. Deet 00:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that the term "pro-homosexual agenda" is itself slanted and POV. Anyway, this isn't relevant to the afd; please address the matter on the article talk page. CJCurrie 00:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Activists don't have agendas? Anyways, I take your point on discussing this in the other section.Deet 01:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: All who are familiar with this case should know that the Kempling case has enormous ramifications. Certainly the College of Education saw it as important or they would not have pursued the matter so far. The BC Teachers' Federation saw it important in that even though they were against Kempling's statements they gave him financial backing at a higher court level than, I understand, they were required to. Practically everything in this article is neutral, and it would only take one or two minor ones to make it totally so. The facts of this case, including the decision which effectively bars teachers from independent public discussion of education unless they are politically in line with the correct thinking, is enormous. User: Ted Hewlett 21 April 2006
  • Article is now updated Deet 01:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coppola Group

Relevant policies: WP:CORP, WP:RS, WP:V

There is no indication that this corporation even exists, let alone meets the notability criteria of WP:CORP. "Coppola Investment Group" gets zero Google hits. The author, Awhitfie, has promised to add sources to this article (see his talk, my talk), but hasn't in fact done so yet. See also the Nathan Coppola AfD nomination. Sandstein 04:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Coppola

Relevant policies: WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:V

There is no indication that this individual even exists, let alone meets the notability criteria of WP:BIO. "Nathan Joseph Coppola" gets zero Google hits. The author, Awhitfie, has promised to add sources to this article (see his talk, my talk), but hasn't in fact done so yet. See also the Coppola Group AfD nomination. Sandstein 04:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election

Nothing encyclopedic here that could not go into parent article. There are lots of political parties that don't get elected, and lists such as this serve only to bulk up their on-line presence. brenneman{L} 05:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Wikipedia has an established precedent of permiting pages like this, and there is at least one instance of a similar page surviving afd [4]. I don't interpret this as "bulk[ing] up their on-line presence", so much as preserving information for future research. CJCurrie 05:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This "established precedent" seems to be, well, you. Looking at the discussions linked in the CHP pages AfD above, I'm mostly seeing the strong feeling that there is not a place in wikipedia for lists like this. If you'd like a wider net to be cast, feel free to use the WP:PUMP but right now there is no consensus. - brenneman{L} 05:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with your assessment: I was the one who proposed the compromise and I obviously take a strong interest in the matter, but I'm certainly not the only one who supports the continued existence of such pages. The list pages provided a functional resolution to a bitter debate, and they've worked as a compromise for over a year. CJCurrie 05:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per comments above. It is useful to store information without clogging up the Wikipedia with articles cribbed if not copied from the website. Capitalistroadster 05:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as CJCurrie pointed out, it is a reasonable compromise. Useful information for future research on Canadian elections. Note that Wikipedia is not paper. Luigizanasi 05:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per comments above :: Colin Keigher 05:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CJCurrie. —GrantNeufeld 06:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. -Rob 06:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article on the Party is a different matter, but failed candidates are not notable. --kingboyk 06:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as status quo compromise. This 'List of...' article is a proactive alternative to individual candidate pages that spring up every election. Theoretically (in my mergist fantasy), all candidates get a redirect page to this kind of list page (or, more practically, as it is practised, all candidates get merged/redirected to such a page once someone creates an article on them). This page solves some rather annoying things, like endless afds on electoral candidates who just want the free ad space and get it for at least the 5 days the afd takes (hint: don't take it to afd, just merge/redirect it to the list pages) and a one-stop shop to monitor for abusive or peacock descriptions of the candidate (opposed to monitoring hundreds of pages during that grace period candidates are normally given during an election). This topic had a centralized discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates; and this proposal came up here: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates#A mergist's solution. --maclean25 07:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced, reading Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, that this compromise has any more consensus than any other. I'm also not sure we need seperate lists for each party, when they are of these lengths. I think I'd be inclined to keep merging these lists to a point where they aren't unwieldy and aren't potential forks and aren't granting undue balance. On the last point, do the major parties also have lists of their failed candidates? If not, we are creating articles on an undue balance basis. At the moment, delete. I could see a value in Candidates in the 2004 Canadian federal election, but we're not debating that here. Hiding talk 07:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per CJCurrie. NoIdeaNick 09:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per CJCurrie if there is an established precedent for these articles. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CJCurrie. --Terence Ong 13:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm at a loss why a party that got way way less than 1% overall (yes, individual ridings varied but they competed in what, 5 ridings tops??? even less than the other party articles Brenny put up today) needs an article about a particular election outcome. I think merging this stuff with the main party article is the way to go. To those that cite other party articles, as examples that it should be done this way, I suggest perhaps that other minor party articles need the same merging/purging treatment too. Nothing much more could ever be said here, could it? It is with great and over-riding (get it?) joy that I support Mr. Brenny in his noble endeavour. (KIDDING!!! about the noble part I mean...) and therefore I must suggest that the right thing to do here is Merge with redirect... (from the GRR airport, yay for wireless access) ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the Christian Heritage Party. I find this information useful, and I find its unmerged location helpful.Captainktainer 16:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per comments above  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a vanishingly small amount of encyclopedic information in this article, and the others. Why do we care what some irrelevant loser (yes, really, he lost) describes himself as? Why is the percentage information not properly in context in the main article about the election? Why do we care a fig, frankly, who failed to get a single candidate elected and who, judging from the article were of approximately zero impact at all levels. Add a passing mention to a main article, and delete. -Splashtalk 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to the first point: the page is a work-in-progress, and more information will be added. CJCurrie 19:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Also, the above user has no prior contributions apart from the CHP afd. CJCurrie 19:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...and apart from my other 25,000 or so. Deleting it now will save you the trouble of writing a collection of nn-bios on the used car salesmen that lost elections. Add some encyclopedic statistics to a main article and move on. -Splashtalk 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • To the first point: my apologies, but you signed anonymously the first time (subsequently corrected). In any case, I'll reiterate that an afd decision and afd precedent supports the compromise. CJCurrie 19:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • One prior AfD decision (that was probably wrong) and little to no precedent. I don't think that either justify spending pixels explaining what someone with <1% of the vote "describes himself as". Adding a summary percentage somewhere relevant, would be fine, of course. I don't understand the reluctance to do so and be done with. -Splashtalk 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A minor party, but at least a notable one. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 19:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notable for what? All they seem to have done is sort-of exist briefly, once. -Splashtalk 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They still exist. CJCurrie 19:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have the run in any elections other than in 2004? What I'm getting at is that neither the party nor the people have ever had an impact on anything and so don't belong anywhere, save a mention that the party scored a vote or two in the main election article. That really is all they've done, right? Or have they done something else that is mentionable? -Splashtalk 19:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • They fielded candidates in 2000 and 2006 (and they didn't exist before 2000). The party most certainly did have an impact on the national debate on cannabis legislation. I believe it's established that the individual candidates don't (automatically) deserve bio pages, but they remain public figures and merit some coverage in a review of the nation's political history. Anyway, I'm not sure this debate is getting us anywhere. CJCurrie 19:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure that is established, and I'm reasonably conversant with AfD. I don't think that a single AfD in which the key assertion was "other articles exist" i.e. a repetition of the argument used here, making it at best a tail-biting assertion. The statistical info in this article can be and already is elsewhere. There is not much added by this article: I mean, why does it matter that "Zupansky has described himself as a business owner and salesperson"? The only reason this debate might not get us anywhere is if people decide not to engage in it: asserting that it should be overruled by a largely non-existent precedent. -Splashtalk 20:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the party is notable and this information could be useful for scholarly research. Wstaffor 23:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CJCurrie and others. Ground Zero | t 04:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CJCurrie. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CJCurrie. Bucketsofg 22:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep informative. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:48
  • Delete. The article about the party is fine (and is not up for deletion that I know of). This "list of failed candidates" page, on the other hand, is not inherently encyclopedic. I do not agree with the statements above that there is any precedent to keeping such pages. Note: This page has already proliferated to Marijuana Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. If allowed to continue, Wikipedia will be flooded with such unmaintainable pages. Rossami (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Ttranswiki to Wikisource. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Order 12711

Not encyclopedic, this article is simply a verbatim excerpt from 1990 U.S. document without context Richard 05:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was moved to WikiSource. Mailer Diablo 15:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WP:Cleanup

December 27 2005

This should be deleted. It is simply an excerpt from a 1990 U.S. government document (executive order), posted by an anonymous user, probably copied from here: [5]John Broughton 23:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion. Richard 05:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TJ2K_Software

This page is basically an advertisement. While there is not a specific "no adverts" policy, it comes close enough to a vanity page to merit deletion. Don't you have your own web page or something? Pfagerburg 05:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Nitrate Prize

Not a single result in Google, Yahoo, or Ask.com. Violates WP:V and should therefore be deleted. The redirect page Digial nitrate prize should also be deleted - Mboverload 06:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello.. it is a real prize and, like the X-Prize, is constantly raising new funding. That will go on until the initial prize is won. There is a Yahoo group for the prize and several film festivals are announcing participation. It involves many members of the film and archive community and will become better known over time. The fact that fundraising is going on (perpetually) shouldn't count against it. It also takes forever to show up in Google! :-) The "official" website is under construction. Thanks. Movieresearch 19:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the verification of this? When it becomes better known, then it's time to put it in Wikipedia. --John Nagle 21:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I know this whole process seems kind of anal to you. But you are MORE than welcome to resubmit once you have a website and some media coverage. --Mboverload 21:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyNetSpot.org

Website does not seem to meet WP:WEB. ~ PseudoSudo 06:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated Wire

NN band :: Colin Keigher 07:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep.... Mailer Diablo 07:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexual slurs/old

(Previous nomination is here.)

I categorically demand removal of this page from main article space. It blatantly and openly defies the major requirement of wikipedia: Verifiability. What is more, the fans of sexual slurs persistently link it from the normal article, List of sexual slurs. This is total disrespect of the major rule of wikipedia. Also article forks are forbidden in wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 07:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. The last AFD closed a little over three weeks ago and this is actually the third nomination. There has been no dramatic change in the article, Wikipedia policy, or the Wikipedia community in general since the last AFD. Thus, the will of the community has already been determined. Can another administrator please close the debate.--Primetime 07:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE This page was again linked from main article space, which is inadmissible by wikipedia standards. What is wrong with the common sense? I genuinely fail to understand why the unverified content cannot be stored at the Talk:List of sexual slurs while the fwork is in progress? `'mikka (t) 23:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storing it on the talkpage would make the slurs harder to find for visitors. We were considering placing them on a subpage of the talkpage and then adding a link to it. Would that be acceptable to you?--Primetime 23:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely my point: Making nonverifiable content visible to wikipedia users (as you say, "visitors") is inadmissible. If you start doing this, it will open doors to all kinds of legalized POV pushing in subpages, linked from main article space. I have nothing against slurs; I am liberally using them myself (and sometimes reprimanded in wikipedia). In this case I am pursuing the major rule of wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 23:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand. Viewers must have a way to see the list. It can either be a subpage of the talk page linked from the article, or a subpage of the main page linked to the article. Either way, there must be a link to it. If I created a subpage on the talk page and linked to it from the main article, would you remove it?--Primetime 00:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand. wikipedia:Verifiability policy says that encyclopedia readers must not see unverified information. Encyclopedia editors can find this page, e.g., by link from the article talk page. `'mikka (t) 00:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 18:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaliyah Yya

Page is empty Deon555 07:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aibotteam

Relevant policy: WP:CORP

Advertisement, no indication of being notable. Contested PROD. Sandstein 07:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you cite these sources in the article (see WP:CITE) and explain what specific notability criterion of WP:CORP this company (or group, or whatever) fulfils. Sandstein 18:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Being mentioned in print" is not enough. As per WP:CORP, the corporation must have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion excludes: Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories." Please cite these sources in the article. Sandstein 19:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not familiar with the publications mentioned (if there are any) but I've checked google and there are no other companies using this name, so I think this article can stay as there is no risk of misinformation. 213.158.197.33 20:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Misinformation is not the problem. Notability is. Read WP:CORP. Sandstein 20:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mobster lobster, you voted already above. Please stop the sockpuppetry, it's not helping you. We can see if a user is very new and the administrators will discount such opinions. As to the company, it does look very much like a for-profit entity (with links like "Portal for Business Partners" etc.) and even if it were not, it would still have to establish notability. Sandstein 07:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I am new here does not mean that I cannot state my opinion. Is this place for people who search for informatio or for people who spend their time harrasing other people ? Sorry for the double voting, but double voting is NOT a sockpupettery ("A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name.", I use only one, the undersigned). Moreover I suspect you Sandstein (a.k.a. Fagstein, not to mention TheBernFiles on Wikimedia Commons, am I right ?) that you use sockpuppetery yourself. I would suggest that the authors re-classify the article to something less controversial like 'non-profit organizations' or move to a domain-related classification (like: 'search techniques' or 'NLP'). Mobster lobster 08:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Nice try though. Check our edit histories. Fagstein 08:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate vote crossed out. Fagstein 08:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What with this edit histories ? I don't think I understand :((( Mobster lobster 08:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit histories (also known as User contributions) are a usefull test for sock puppety (not for meat puppets though), if the edit times over lap then it is very dificult for the two users to be puppet and master. For example if you check the edit histories for Fagstein and Sandstein you would find at least one over lap, with the edits at 05:10 (UTC) on 7 April 2006.--blue520 10:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure this is the sockpuppettery ? Please show some evidence, because without any your comment sounds just like pure insult.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 07:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Theological Society

Article tagged for a merge in Feb.[6] and received no attention. This page should be deleted because the information is redundant and offers no reason why it should be a separate article. In fact, the article admits its "an extension of Tyndale Theological Seminary." Arbusto 07:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Athletics: All-Time Team

Delete I think this article gives somebody's analysis on who they think what the all-time A's team is. In other words, it's sombody's opinion, not fact. I think that would constitute a "critical review" and violates WP:NOT Dspserpico 08:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lords of Pain

Contested PROD. A pro-wrestling website that does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for articles on websites. Delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete the article. Categories go to the CfD if needed, not AfDs. Mailer Diablo 07:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of drug scandals

Delete. Criteria for inclusion unclear - as its worded it could include countless incidents. The article has been here since October 2005 and has not been expanded beyond a single entry, which makes me wonder if it's there only to make a point. Category:Drug scandals should also go for the same reasons. I@n ≡ talk 08:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by User:Davodd (vanity). - Mike Rosoft 11:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There and back agian

Vanity. The title is incorrect, so could at least be moved; and after listing it for speedy deletion, the user (Thereandbackagain) removed the template. Obviously self-promotion. – Jared Preston 08:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Kiss

Comment: Will you please investigate before you claim nn. They are notable all around the World and not just an ordinary cover band. --ElectricEye 13:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:BAND are "merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind". Electric eye also notes that WP:BAND says: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: ... For performers outside of mass media traditions: ... Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. NPR has covered them after many many many local publications around the world have covered them". For great justice. 22:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See MiniKiss: Life in a Little People Cover Band, NPR, Pop Culture, April 14, 2006 --ElectricEye 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: They also had a bit on MTV's Best Week Ever this past week, and pretty much treated as a sick joke on a par with circus geeks of a bygone day. This may be crossing the notoriety bar, if not in a way they might appreciate. RGTraynor 14:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per ElectricEye. NPR is a reliable source for determining noteworthiness. Captainktainer 16:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is being deleted because the nominator is not interested in little people bands, and so thinks that no one else should be able to read about them. This highlights the problems with the concept of notability. Just because they have a relatively targetted audience, someone will think we should remove them. For great justice. 21:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:For great justice, many articles go through this process and it helps to bring about discussion. Stay objective and comment on content. Making personal comments about others ("nominator is not...."), can get one into trouble in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Wikiki!!! ^_^ --User:ElectricEye (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks EE, I did not think that there was anything in my comment that could be called a personal attack. I don't think the nominator would disagree with my reasoning, but if they do, I would invite them to correct me. For great justice. 22:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep:I have seen them multiple times on VH1. They are definitely notable. -Bottesini 23:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but the article needs to be expanded and sourced. Wstaffor 01:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cult band, treated as notable by media like Village Voice, even though the whole spectacle reminds me of what Lenny Bruce said about well-intended freak shows. Monicasdude 03:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Although I don't believe the band to be of particular notability in the music realm (I'd be wary of them calling a cover band, perhaps cover performers would be the more accurate representation...), I do believe they are notable. ALthough I hadn't heard that particular NPR piece, they were mentioned in a question in last week's Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me! (stump the listener I think?). Although I don't particularly respect this kind of exploitation (the one in process by the performers themselves), I won't allow that bias to ignore the likely notability of this band. However, the article needs and will need a lot of work. &#149;&#149;\\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\&#149;&#149; 03:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to have received news converage. Fagstein 05:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep they're notable now (why, for the life of me, I don't know) due to a spat with another (you, dear reader read right-- there are two) all-"vertically-challenged" KISS tribute band over whom should exist... Pat Payne 22:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Blue Book

A database of movies that is designed to help independent filmmakers connect with film agents. The fact that it only started this year has been edited out. Advert - the creator user:Lachiusa has contributed nothing else. Sorry Lachiusa, as always, wait until someone else writes about it. -- RHaworth 09:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by User:Davodd ("hoax/fiction/test"). - Mike Rosoft 11:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demigod slayer

Clearly nonsense. I'm also attempting to "bundle" Omega Delta (legend) in here because the two pages only link to each other and are both apparently of the same origin. Appropriate Username 09:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a related image Image:Insignia.jpg, which I am attempting to figure out how to add in as well. Appropriate Username 10:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_18&oldid=48978173"