Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 17: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:22, 17 April 2006 editPKtm (talk | contribs)2,652 edits Oceanic flight 815 website← Previous edit Revision as of 15:27, 17 April 2006 edit undoTomstoner (talk | contribs)252 edits adding articles for deletion: russ bakerNext edit →
Line 75: Line 75:
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jedi Religion}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jedi Religion}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oceanic flight 815 website}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oceanic flight 815 website}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Russ Baker}}

Revision as of 15:27, 17 April 2006

< April 16 >
Guide to deletion Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

April 17

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 00:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Pulp Stiktion

This is another amongst the non notable webcomics which proliferate on Misplaced Pages. You can find the comic here, and it's 12 member forum here. Smack jeeves is a small webcomic hosting site with an Alexa ranking of over 100,000 and the pulp stiktion page isn't even mentioned on their report. Google gives back 11 unique hits. - Hahnchen 00:17, 17 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. Sango123 (e) 00:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Here Is A Question

Here is a Question, is this webcomic of note? It's hosted at stage-select.com, what that portal site is for I don't know, but you can see the comic here, however, the comic subdomain is not mentioned at all in the 300k+ Alexa ranking traffic report. The website is labelled JNVComics, and that terms gives back 9 google hits. Here is the answer - No. - Hahnchen 00:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: With an Alexa rating in the 350K range for the host site? I'm certainly willing to credit that the comic has a topic on a forum where all twenty people who read it avidly discuss it. RGTraynor 15:43, 19 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. Sango123 (e) 00:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Point Guardian

This webcomic can be found here and has no Alexa rank. (However, it probably has an alternate Comic Genesis mirror). Is this a notable website? Has it seen serious review in respectable sources? Google gives 182 hits for "point guardian", however, the majority of these hits have nothing to do with the webcomic in question. - Hahnchen 00:17, 17 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 Speedy Delete. A group of 4 people with no assertion or indication of notability. kingboyk 00:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

TTK

Fraternity with only 4 members. Delete as non-notable. Speedy/Prod removed so listing here. exolon 00:23, 17 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Gaius Stern

Gaius is a friend of mine, so this AFD is nothing personal. However, I don't believe he meets Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines for living people. The only article that links to this is Carper Award, and whether the Carper Award is notable or not, I don't think its notability implies that everyone who has received the award is notable. The article doesn't mention that he co-founded the predecessor organization to the Academic Competition Federation; however, I don't think that affiliation automatically makes him notable either. Perhaps someone will edit the article so as to better assert the notability of the subject, but I don't think it's possible. Delete. Catamorphism 00:53, 17 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 05:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Slow dancing

Delete content-free dicdef ("Slow dancing is when a couple dance slowly"?) At best might be transwikied to Wiktionary. Was speedied, then prod'ed, each time the original editor removed the notice without comment Gwernol 01:28, 17 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. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Omerta (Online)

spam. prod removed by author. Bachrach44 01:48, 17 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 05:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

LIC

- Originally a disambiguation page with the bio of a rapper being added later, the disambiguation content has been moved to a new page LIC (disambiguation). The remaining content on the rapper LIC seems not to meet notability criteria guideline WP:MUSIC. Delete.--blue520 01:50, 17 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 05:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Alex Riggen

Appears to be a NN musician, according to guidelines in WP:MUSIC. No entries in the All Music Guide, and the hits that show up via Yahoo! imply he is a lead singer to an unsigned band which doesn't have an entry on Misplaced Pages nor on All Music Guide. --Ataricodfish 01:54, 17 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 05:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Videohypertransference

Aside from Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages mirrors "Videohypertransference" does not appear to exist. I'm not sure whether this counts as original research or just nonsense, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't belong here. Delete AlistairMcMillan 02:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. Delete - it's a neologism, bordering on psychotic. Parts of the text are good, but not in an article of this name. - Richardcavell 12:46, 17 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 keep. Good work, people. DS 15:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Patricia graham

Delete. Individual fails to meet the guidelines established by Wiki guidelines for academic notability. See WP:PROFTEST. No one has attempted to adhere to the guidelines after a request was made in the article's talk page. Established guidelines are:

  1. The person is regarded as an significant expert in their area by independent sources.
  2. The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field.
  3. The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality).
  4. The person has published a well-known or high quality academic work.
  5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.
  6. The person is known for their involvement in significant events relating to their academic achievements.
  7. The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student.
  8. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

--Strothra 02:11, 17 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 05:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Tag Bodyspray

Do we really want to list every new product that comes out? That's over 100,000 new products per year. I think we should wait until a product gains some notability (other than self-promotion) before we consider it encyclopedic. As a minimum, this one fails the notability test. In my view, it fails the SPAM test as well. Rklawton 02:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC) (I think we're about to see viral marketing at work...) Rklawton 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per above. _-M P-_ 02:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
So what? There's nothing notable about a product that's advertised "all the time" Rklawton 03:09, 17 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 05:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Alex Severin

Apparently a NN author with no published books by a major publishing house, per Amazon.com. Search at Amazon shows a single collection of short stories released on electronic format only by an independent publisher, #3,290,833 in Books according to their sales. Ataricodfish 02:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Agreed, except that with a sales rank of three million, two hundred and ninety thousand, eight hundred and thirty three -- meaning that in an average week, Amazon sold 0-1 copies -- this did not sell 5,000 copies and it's no different than including a download on an unsigned band's website. --Ataricodfish 15:01, 17 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 05:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Cat Names

This article isn't really encyclopedic, but I'm not really sure what category it would fall in, so I wanted to do an AFD to check. Delete. _-M P-_ 02:28, 17 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 06:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Alan Gratz

Article appears to be for a NN author, per guidelines for living people in WP:Bio stating "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". Author's only book has not yet been published per Amazon.com . As the creator of this article's screenname is AGratz, this might also be self promotion.--Ataricodfish 02:44, 17 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 06:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Art of Butchery


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 06:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The Super Flash Bros.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. After some investigation of the discussion, the band really does fail WP:MUSIC, and the votes that state it fulfills the criteria there are, well, not right. Proto||type 10:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hollywood Undead

The band still fails WP:MUSIC. Nothing personal. Previous discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Hollywood_Undead. Delete. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ 03:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, of course, but isn't 'deleted article re-creation' a speedy candidate any more (I haven't been around much the past 6 months or so)? Niteowlneils 03:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article went through proposed deletion before coming here. Oh, and as for speedy deletion, I think that only applies to articles restored to their pre-deletion state. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ 03:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- still fails WP:MUSIC.--blue520 03:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is tough, because, until recently, the concept of a "notable download band" didn't exist. But with over 4 million hits in Google for "Hollywood Undead", it looks like we're there. They seem to meet WP:WEB. Myspace Records, which is a joint venture with Interscope, does sell Hollywood Undead on a CD, and that CD can be purchased from Amazon.com.. --John Nagle 04:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete and protect as a recreation of previously deleted content. Releasing one album via a myspace album does not satisfy the requirement that the band have "released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." --Hetar 04:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't like the band but they've worked up a sizable buzz. I think those aforementioned four-million hits would consider Hollywood Undead a notable band. As John Nagle said, they released an album on a label which is a joint venture with Interscope - a rather major label which has been around for a number of years. They're really an Internet phenomenon more than anything else, and since there are pages for pretty much every Internet phenomenon ever, I think it should be kept. Jesustrashcan 10:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)contribs) .
  • Comment: This might seem like the pedant's march, but the Myspace records album is a compilation. WP:MUSIC reminds us that compilations or soundtracks are NOT enough by themselves to warrant an article, excepting those which only consist of one artist (I can think of Highlander and Mortal Kombat right now). Also, even if that album counts, it takes two such albums to qualify under WP:MUSIC. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ 05:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and others above Deleuze 06:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above and nom :: Colin Keigher 08:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There's a page for O RLY?, so why not a page for Hollywood Undead? Jesustrashcan 10:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 11:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Of those four million Ghits, 265 are unique. Adding the qualifier "band OR group" to the searchstring returns a total 356,000 total hits.
Ah, interesting. Thanks. I withdraw my "Keep" vote. That's worth sending in to Google Search Improvement as a bug. --John Nagle 16:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, actually that mention in Slate isn't quite "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works". It's a brief mention of them as a wannabe band, in a list of "a cast of demi-celebrities of varying talent", not an article that features them.--John Nagle 01:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I have limited access to news archives, if they made Slate, they've certainly made something else, and I'm fine with erring on the side of caution on this one considering Slate's reach. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- Notable Band--GorillazFanAdam 01:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails - Hahnchen 00:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- Taken right from WP:MUSIC "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show." Myspace is considered very notable media, therefore it should in fact be kept. --GorillazFanAdam 02:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment- Also, not to metinon Hollywood Undead pioneers the fusion of Hip Hop, Screamo, and Hardcore, a very bold step taken that qualafies for notarity. --GorillazFanAdam 02:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment MySpace is not a media source, it is a platform on which anyone can make a place for advertising. Also this non-notable band are certainly not the first group to fuse such music genre together. This non-notable band should make it in the real world first before they can make it here doktorb | words 12:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: MySpace is not the media. MySpace is a user-generated social website designed and instituted primarily to facilitate dating. More importantly, the music made by Hollywood Undead is not licensed to nor intended primarily for use by MySpace, but is only hosted on MySpace's servers. Also, if I was feeling irascible and pedantic, I could make and push the idea that Linkin Park fused hardcore and hip-hop a long time ago. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ 05:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A bit of Googling and looking at the various sites with them has convinced me that they are indeed notable in their own way. Perhaps WP:MUSIC needs an update to take "Internet fame" more into account. TH 07:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Uh-oh, be careful with that. This particular band are, strictly speaking, non-notable by the rules of WP:MUSIC. Attempting to stretch the boundaries of those rules for one specific case will only make subsequent debates even harder to undertake. I thought the non-notable band argument had been sorted, but obviously not! doktorb | words 07:58, 22 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 no consensus (note that there's nothing stopping someone subsequently merging this, which was a fairly popular choice) Proto||type 10:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael Hill

The article seems to be meaningless; it refers to an individual but there is little or no context given PaddyMatthews 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Appears to be a joke article, like the similar article I found for Michael Hill (21st century composer) and nominated for deletion below. --Ataricodfish 03:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Weak delete My initial Google searches found nothing, although having read the below and now finding the Guiness Book note here , it's obviously not a joke article. That having been said, I still don't know if I consider it notable, despite the Guiness record, so my vote for delete remains, however weakly. --Ataricodfish 03:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Largest Object Removed From Human Skull
The largest object removed from a human skull is a 20.32-cm (8-inch) survival knife, which was plunged into the head of 41-year-old Michael Hill on April 25, 1998. Michael survived the ordeal and the next day astonished doctors by functioning normally, although it was soon clear the knife had caused permanent damage to his memory and paralyzed his left hand. Looking back on the nightmare, the father-of-one says, "I didn't feel the pain initially and it was only when I was at the hospital that it hit me and I felt like my eyes were bulging out. I know people in worse shape than me now and so I consider myself lucky."

The first google result will get you an X-ray of the knife in the skull. I suggest that before voting on AfD it would be beneficial to make some research first. It is not beneficial to Wiki to "guess" whether an article is true or not. Tyrenius 15:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, this is a good examply why WP:W point 2 & 3 are nessary. As for the "guessing", I did try Google (for example "Michael Hill" +attack +April 25, 1998) and seemed to cum up with nothing, which was one of the basis for my "seems to be un-verifiable" response. It just goes to show how the choice of target words can effect google.--blue520 16:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for that it should have been WP:V.--blue520 04:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well done for the search. Understandable that you thought it was unverifiable in that case. Tyrenius 17:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Tyrenius. --Saforrest 16:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The debate stays open for one week. Bearcat 01:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment;why did you move the article back to the disambiguation,since there are only two cases where there is an article,its easier to direct michael hill to one article,then at the top of that article the link to the other,like i did,what do you think?

  • The rule on Misplaced Pages is that your approach would only be permissible if your Michael Hill could honestly be said to be significantly more notable than any other person of the same name with an article. Since that clearly isn't the case, your Michael Hill does not get the undisambiguated title "Michael Hill". Bearcat 21:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • i dont mean nececerly this michael hill,but you couldnt apply it to the other michael hill either because there both not notable enough?192.30.202.14 21:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No...a disambiguation page at the main title is the appropriate solution in this kind of situation. Bearcat 01:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Actually, the other Michael Hill article was deleted per its AfD nomination, so there's currently only this Michael Hill article active in Misplaced Pages. See here for the AfD nomination showing delete. I have updated the disambig page to remove the composer link. --Ataricodfish 17:48, 22 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 07:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Alberto Baumann

Appears to be a NN artist and the only entry by User:Alandbaumann. Yahoo! search for name locates approximately 100 pages including the Wiki articles and mirrors, see . In my opinion, does not meet notibility Per WP:Bio, "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field".--Ataricodfish 02:59, 17 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 07:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael Hill (21st century composer)

Similar to the Michael Hill article mentioned above and nominated for deletion, article appears to admit to being NN and after a quick search on Yahoo, no listings of this composer could be located. Dates of birth / death in article give the appearance he died at age 14. Likely a joke article. --Ataricodfish 03:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't delete- I am aware of the group pish posh and there information can be easily located.Being that he died so young, it is hard to find information on the ninternet. They also were very esoteric and have more of a cult following than a mainstream internet one. I don't think's its fair he should be deletead just because you cant find information. If you cantact me i would be happy to direct you to the people closest to him and his family( who wn the irhgts to his hundreds of composistions and contributions from such a young age.
Comment Despite this, Hill remains nonnotible. I've tried several searches, including one for "Michael Hill" and "Pish-Posh" on Yahoo!, and obtain 5 hits, and only related to this article or completely unrelated . As a musician, Hill does not qualify per WP:Music for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. As well, the article fails WP:V, since no information can be located to confirm the article. Per WP:V, "If an article topic has no reputable sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on that topic." --Ataricodfish 03:27, 21 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. DS 16:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

List of interracial, interethnic or intercultural couples

I really have no opinion on this article, but it has been called into question on its talk page, so I thought I'd put it up here to get some more opinions. (Ibaranoff24 03:46, 17 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, anon IP interventions notwithstanding, there's a strong consensus here. Proto||type 11:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

People for Change

Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.
  • Delete nn political forum website. Alexa ranking of 683,268. And, from the information given in the article, does not appear to meet any of the three WP:WEB criteria for notability of websites. Jersey Devil 04:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete same as above. :: Colin Keigher 07:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep : Delete request politically motivated , related to the Progressive Independent Article delete request. Amfortas 14:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Why does every political site AfD have to be politically motivated, what ever happened to assume good faith? Anyway while the article is pretty well written the notability of the site in question is questionable. While it got to 8mil hits per day on 1 day in Feb it rarely gets any traffic in the last 6 months and was barely hitting 2m in Oct last year which was a Presidential election year where as a similar site was receiving 200mil per day in same time frame. Again as with all nn deletions if it becomes notable the article could be written then.--Tollwutig 18:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB and because it is my goal to rid WP of all progressive topics. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 19:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like polispam Jordanmills 22:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just curious , what is the threshold for notabiliy ? I mean what if the alexa rating was 60,000 rather than than 600,000 , would it make a difference ?
  • Delete per nom Fishhead64 02:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment These online games batting Misplaced Pages around like a child caught in an ugly divorce are ridiculous. As the site owner I really have no desire to be in Misplaced Pages if it's going to attract the various denizens of internet trollery who deem it necessary to remove anything anywhere not related to praising the Neocon movement.

God, put yourselves out of your misery and take the People for Change article down. It's not worth a thing one way or the other. Alexa the harlot , who will boost your rank if you advertise with her sponsors, is not really germane to anything. None of this is important, and to those of you who actually took the time and posted "delete", I fart in your general direction. Screw you, and your little internet games, you whiney douchebags! Sincerely Yours 70.32.164.21 02:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Mike Hickerson , owner, People for Change.

  • Delete Is that even a site? There seem to be 5 active users, and mostly petty posts. The entry is entirely misleading as to the nature of the site. If this entry still exists for historical reasons that would be fair, but then ALL verbs should be modified to be in the past tense (People For Change WAS this and that). Currently, there is nothing going on there of the sort described in the entry: this statement is objectively verifiable by anybody who cares to look. --FairGirl 03:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. User's one and only contribution. That being said, while normally I know how I'd vote on this, the partisan meatpuppetry of the CU crowd's disgusted me enough to force an absention from me. RGTraynor 07:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep For the simple reason that it was good enough for 2 years and relevant to the Democratic Underground page. Our intent in mentioning this page in our comments was to show how partisan the fight over Progressive Independent had become. Both sites were created in protest of Democratic Underground's policies and attest to the disatisfaction of Progressives (properly filed under criticism). If some people here feel that neither PFC nor PI are notable, that's fine, but the criticism of DU remains and the fact that many people, (even though they're still carried on DU membership rosters), have left it to form other projects, remains. Both instances should be noted under the criticism paragraph of Democratic Underground because it IS criticism. And as in a printed encyclopedia, when a reference is made to a person, place, thing or organization, there should at least be a corresponding description, in my opinion. Otherwise you stem the flow of knowledge for which we rely on encyclopedias.
Misplaced Pages is about facts. Facts are that people die and statistics change but the notable events of the time remain notable. When approximately 1000 mostly Dean supporters abruptly left left DU in 2004, taking their pocketbooks with them, that was notable at the time- very notable.
Thank you --Tinoirel 4:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Delete" - Few political threads and zero references to Howard Dean on this site - description seems outdated.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.145.158 (talk • contribs) .

Note: The above is 70.17.145.158's first contribution to Misplaced Pages.--RWR8189 16:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This AfD nom is politically motivated, a CYA response to defense of the Progressive Independent article. Moreover, 'notable' is not the same as 'important'. 'Notable' is an artificial quality that can be created with enough money even absent any sort of real value at all. The advertising and public-relations industries make billions of dollars every year doing just that. (I would add to Atlant's comment, above, by noting that User:Jersey Devil's ascription of meatpuppetry is completely one-sided: his and other deletes are motivated by high-minded principle, but the keeps are nasty meatpuppetry. This is consistent with bad-faith political motivation, since it implies that persons urging keep are not stakeholders in the issue, but were merely recruited 'off the street' as it were.) Katzenjammer 16:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you maybe check your facts more closely before making such unsupported statements? I'd suggest starting with the definitional article about meatpuppets. Katzenjammer 21:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Obviously, contributors to this entry are people who are interested in the topic and read the Board in question. Why else would they care and how else would they know? The fact that one's first edit is in an AfD means nothing about where this someone comes from; it certainly does not imply recruitment off the street for disruptive purposes (statement, which, in itself borders WP:NPA ).
Could you clarify your meaning a bit so I know whether to jump up and down on you for it? :-) Katzenjammer 21:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's a startling series of assertions; do you genuinely believe that someone whose very first contribution to Misplaced Pages is in a AfD voting "KEEP!" (generally with an extremely passionate defense that makes no attempt to address or refute the reasons for the nomination) is in fact not invariably a supporter of the article launching in with the sole purpose of plumping up the totals? There's a honking big template sitting at the top of the page that seems to disagree with you. Whether they intend to be "disruptive," per se, I leave to the mindreaders and soothsayers, but it is unmistakable that their purpose is invariably to defend their article to the end -- or alternately, as in this particular case, fight those they perceive to be their "enemies" on every battleground they can find -- as opposed to dispassionately gauge whether the article satisfies Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines for inclusion. RGTraynor 16:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I see more Delete than Keep votes here, both by first time users. In my opinion, the "Delete" votes are more factual than the "Keep" votes, at least in this case. I agree, some of the "Keep" votes by first time users are quite passionate and kind of irrelevant. So, they are suspicious. But, not just because they are by a first time contributor.
  • Delete Complete mismatch between the content of the entry and that of the actual Board. Specifically, as it has been pointed out above, there is nothing about Howard Dean on the Board. At minimum, the entry should be updated to describe the Board as of 2006. PS: this is my first contribution to Misplaced Pages, like it is for many contributors on this page. --Shadowfrog 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, with editing: JerseyDevil, a DU member, has argued for the deletion of TWO articles about former DU splinter sites. There couldn't be a political motivation, here? Nahhhhh...and OF COURSE we must judge this RfD "objectively", no matter what the nefarious motivations of those arguing for deletion may be. Funny how Misplaced Pages mirrors real-life, with Democrats and Republicans collaborating to squelch dissent and alternate viewpoints. Well, as someone who was BANNED from People For Change and strongly disagrees with the political agenda of that site, let me state that although I do believe this article violates NPOV, reads like an ad, and is need of some serious editing, it should be kept. Unlike some people here I'm not gonna let my political bias or a petty grudge drive me to try to censor or silence articles that reference a website or organization I disagree with. The Progressive Independent article has already fallen victim to censorship egged on by vindictive and politically-motivated Misplaced Pages editors/users, it should not happen again. --Nicky Scarfo 03:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: So ... stipulating that JerseyDevil is arguing for the deletion of this article solely out of political motivation (and that's presumably Wrong), it is therefore alright for you to argue for the retention of this article out of political motivation (and that's presumably principled and Right)? Hm, fair enough. RGTraynor 16:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, plus the little fact that I am not a DU member nor have I ever even edited the DU article (the only political forum I am a part of is Utopia-Politics which I list on my user page, it doesn't have an article here because it does not meet WP:WEB and thus is in fact by wikipedia standards not notable). Maybe it has to do with my deep hatred of people trying to use Misplaced Pages to promote their non-notable sites. You could easily prove me wrong, and show notability per web in the article forcing me to change my delete vote but you won't because your forum is not notable and thus you must come here (as a meatpuppet mind you) and smear other veterans users here who have earned their reputations by...you know, actually contributing to other articles.--Jersey Devil 00:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it simply doesn't meet WP:WEB. These claims of "politically motivated deletion" are a bit disingenuous in my opinion. If anyone can prove this meets WP:WEB, please do so, hit me on my talk page, and I will reconsider.--Isotope23 14:10, 20 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 07:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

TDSB Gifted Program

Delete A municipal school district's gifted program doesn't seem overly notable to me. Objectivist-C 04:14, 17 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 keep improved version. Mailer Diablo 07:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Bay Currents

Vanity. Author (who has since been banned) created article on small local newspaper with practically no text about the paper, but uploaded images of three articles, about himself. If anyone can think of a speedy category that fits that would be great. Material is tied to Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/The Long Island Project. - Fan1967 04:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. The pictures are ridiculous, and I've removed them. Despite the vanity motives involved in creating the article, we should judge the stub on its own merits. Gamaliel 04:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Is there enough of a stub left to justify an article? Local paper with a circulation of 75K seems iffy. Fan1967 04:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Brooklyn has 2.5 million people. Seems possible. Gamaliel 04:47, 17 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 CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

EVE Online Acronyms and Abbreviations

Misplaced Pages is not a collection of terms specific to a single game. I put prod on this awhile ago and it was removed; time for a full AfD, then. Cyde Weys 04:58, 17 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 no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 07:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Abyss (Thelema)

non-notable concept of fringe religion 999 05:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per my nom. 999 05:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There should be a section for "religioncruft". Danny Lilithborne 06:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Argument for keeping The Abyss (and it's spirital crossing) is a major concept in a global religion, and while certainly not mainstream, it has tens of thousands of adherents (if not more). The concept of the Abyss is a core theme of arguably the most notable occultist of the 20th century, Aleister Crowley. Moreover, the concept appears in many books, by Crowley as well as more recent authors. The Abyss represents a culmination of spiritual attainment, and the current stub is but a placeholder for a potentially rich and useful article that can bring further insight to a complex and growing religion. Give it a chance to grow before judging its merit. Ashami 06:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment per my nom means: per my nomination. --Eivind 13:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Thelema. --Eivind 13:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Since when is "fringe" an excuse to delete? What kind of discrimination is this? Somecallmetim 13:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Fringe, maybe, but a notable fringe religion, and a notable concept within that religion. Fan1967 13:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge to Thelema. The religion is significant enough to be encyclopedic, while the concepts within it may not be notable enough to merit separate articles and should be included in the main article, if at all. Ekajati 14:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. The concept is significant not only in Thelema but also in some versions of the Kabbalah, where it divides the highest and most abstract manifestations of the Godhead from the lower and more concrete ones. A finished article should also mention Crowley's claim to have crossed the Abyss: in essence, Crowley announced his self-deification. Smerdis of Tlön 14:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Thelema, and be sure to have a link to the related, but seperate, concept of the Abyss in Kaballah. Alba 15:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ashami. As this article was only created yesterday, I think it deserves some time to expand beyond its current state. Merge if it does not. --Joelmills 01:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge per above. Fishhead64 02:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The Thelma article is large enough on it's own and since Misplaced Pages isn't paper, there is nothing wrong with having more information on it. Since Thelma is the basis of most modern occultism, it's pretty far from nn. That Thelema is a "Fringe religion" doesn't mean anything. Greek polytheism could also currently be considered a "fringe religion" but Greek mythology is still important from a historical perspective. Shadowoftime 22:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - to correct misrepresentation, Thelema is hardly the basis for "most moderrn occultism" - modern occultism is an extremely large topic, and there are many large, well-established occult organizations which are non-Thelemic, even anti-Thelemic. The second supporting argument is ill-conceived as well, but I will leave the reason for that as an exercise for the reader. :-) -999 15:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment If major, well-established occult organizations consider themselves anti-Thelemic, that shows the influence of Thelema just as much as if they considered themselves pro-Thelemic. (why bother considering yourself anti-Thelemic if Thelema is just a non-notable fringe religion?) The question here is the verifiability and notablility of Thelema, not whether or not people like it. Shadowoftime 22:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment - you like to mischaracterize people's positions, don't you? I never said that Thelema was non-notable. I believe that it is notable. It is the specific concepts that are not notable enough to have separate articles. They can all be described in the main article. -999 01:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, avoid merging, and expand The Thelema parent article is already pushing the boundaries of useful size, and the actual topic (of the Abyss) is barely scratched upon by the current article text. For similar odd once-stubbish articles about minor beliefs in fringe religions, see Kolob, or Xenu (the latter article eventually became a front page FA). Ronabop 05:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge: I have created the Thelemic mysticism article, which includes the info in this article. Although I would like to see this article remain and become expanded, it would not be unreasonable to have it redirect to the new article. Ashami 23:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. The Thelemic mysticism article is a good place for it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:53, 22 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 07:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

City of the Pyramids

non-notable concept of a fringe religion 999 05:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: topic is both notable and Thelema is a recognized religion with tens of thousands of adherents. Moreover, the "fringeness" of a religion is not a reason for deletion. Ashami 06:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • REDIRECT- To the Thelema page. TydeNet 06:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: topic is notable. Thelema is a recognized religion, large enough to have texts in multiple languages. This is one ref. to CoP; however, CoP is not strictly a Thelemic construct and therefore should not be merged. Cannot find any reason for deletion cited in Misplaced Pages AfD guide in THIS article. Clea023 07:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC).
At the moment, this new user's only edit is to this AfD. Weregerbil 12:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a useful article. 'Per my norm' is inadequate reason to delete anything. Daimonos 10am GMT April 17
This new user's only edits are to Thelema-related AfDs. Weregerbil 12:55, 17 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 07:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Night of Pan

non-notable concept of a fringe religion 999 05:13, 17 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 07:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Aeon (Thelema)

non-notable concept of a fringe religion 999 05:19, 17 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 07:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Planetcricket

Alexa rank 286,156. Created and primarily written by Duffarama, a staff member, a violation of WP:VANITY and is also self-promotion (WP:NOT). Other staff members have also contributed. Nothing links here, short of a couple userpages. Loaded with crufty information. Articles have been created on team members, that have either been speedied or userfied. Prodded a couple days ago. The tag was removed by an anon, who only addressed a rather small concern, and none of the rest. Drat (Talk) 05:39, 17 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. --Fang Aili 00:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Berkeley College Republicans

If the state-wide organization isn't notable enough for an article (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/California College Republicans), then a local chapter certainly isn't. Calton | Talk 05:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I would have voted "keep" for the statewide organization, but university-level organizations like this one are not inherently notable. Although being at an overwhelmingly liberal university adds a little quirk to it. Grandmasterka 06:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep I don't see anything wrong with it. Checkerpaw 15:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: Up until twenty hours ago this user has made only 7 edits.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONS• • 17:41, 17 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 07:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

James river assembly

This page is not acceptable as the church has no significance :: Colin Keigher 06:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Um... What are you talking about? Nom has only one edit to the page, to put the AfD notice there. Anyway, I don't think this is notable enough. If it expands to becoming a nationwide thing, or a widely recognized megachurch, I'll reconsider. Grandmasterka 06:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

UTC)

Note from the logs: 03:27, April 17, 2006 Slendidlydelicious (New user (Talk | contribs | block))
—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONS• • 17:50, 17 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 redirected NSLE (T+C) at 06:30 UTC (2006-04-17)

Cyclone Monica

Non-notable cyclone, Australian Category 1, has not even made landfall; see this page for typical layout of non-notable cyclones in the region. This is just plainly superfluos. Delete. TydeNet 06:20, 17 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 Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Berkeley Design Automation, Inc.

Nothing notable here :: Colin Keigher 06:21, 17 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 07:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Steinhice

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. One of a series of recently created articles about obscure collegiate "quizbowl" participants for which several AfDs have been filed. RGTraynor 06:22, 17 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 07:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Don Windham

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. One of a series of recently created articles about obscure collegiate "quizbowl" participants for which several AfDs have been filed. RGTraynor 06:25, 17 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 07:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

MayDay Group


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 07:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Works For Piano

Contested {{prod}} brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 06:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. There are certainly notable piano recordings, but no evidence is provided here as to why this is one of them - there must be hundreds of recordings more notable than this one. As an aside, Works for Piano is not a helpful title for this article. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Agreed. A search for this CD will turn up 200,000 hits that will lead to other terms. This seems like a generic CD from the late 80's that you'd see in a bargain bin anyway. :: Colin Keigher 06:58, 17 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 07:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

KURSK

Google gets almost no relevant hits for this band. Delete unless notability is clearly established. GeorgeStepanek\ 07:26, 17 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 07:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

ORION ERP


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 07:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

American Buddha Online Library

  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 this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Misplaced Pages editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Misplaced Pages are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy for more information.


Subject fails WP:WEB; article is largely an attack page Alphax  07:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as the website has an Alexa rating of just below 100,000. The website seems to be of little significance and doesn't fit with Misplaced Pages's guidelines. :: Colin Keigher 07:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nomination. Slendidlydelicious 08:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The website itself is non-notable, and the wikipedia article about it seems like just a pretext for a rant. Jonas Silk 13:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ranttackycopviocruft and per nom —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONS• • 18:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No comment. (request for vote stacking removed) Buddhism's rotted masters cannot be left alone. Geir Smith 22:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The article consists almost entirely of frothing attacks, and the Alexa rating around 100,000: clear delete. Geir, your opinions of the teachers named are not relevant; the question is whether ABOL meets WP:WEB, which it manifestly does not. bikeable (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • POV views of my wanting vote-stacking not receiveable; I'm on the contrary just making it known that this issue about ABOL is now adressed directly to the widely read ARBT newsgroup for judgement and will not be judged among some peer-pressuring insider-voting done by disciples of the teachers and fraudulent gurus that ABOL denounces. Know it. Geir Smith 07:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Since, with the exception of me, everyone who has spoken up on the issue so far is a regular AFD patroller, <sarcasm>it is quite obvious that there is an organized movement to bring about the destruction of the religion.</sarcasm> What you have implied is that you are organizing a meat puppet army. Please note that this is not Votes for Deletion. It is based on community consensus. Random folks from some newsgroup are not the Misplaced Pages community and are not in a position to pass judgement. I don't even know what you mean by insider-voting. I will also note that if you are in favor of the ABOL, you might want to consider rewriting it so that the ABOL is cast in a good light. Or just leave the discussion and article alone since you clearly don't wish to give an opinion in the context of the debate.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONS• • 13:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article consists almost entirely of terrible POV attacks, the article itself is terribly written, and most importantly of all, it fails notability criteria. --Halloween jack 13:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all the above. BTW, Geir, you're not helping this by leaving your propaganda messages in talk pages. I'd forgotten AFD patrol after a short wikiholiday, but you reminded me I had to get into it again. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Jonas Silk and others above. -999 04:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I personally find ABOL fascinating, and a valuable and interesting viewpoint, and a good resource -- However, I don't feel that its article, as it stands, fits in with WP's standards. Zero sharp 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Mind you... Delete ALL T'ebay'tan guff - would get my vote. JulianLZB87 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC) -- vote cast by 172.143.96.154, and is that IP's only edit. User JulianLZB87 has no edits. bikeable (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • False, the person says he has been on Wiki since last year at least contributing to http://en.wikipedia.org/Lotus_Sutra#External_links so that claim is just false and misinformed/ Actually the person must be a regular poster to Buddhsit articles just like all of you here. So, this is a case of fellows fighting together. Not my fight. This is yours seeing the same people that post for years are now pitching up and digging into ditches to fight it out facing each other on some front. I'm on no agenda. New kid in town. I'm just passing on the info to others, that's all. Geir Smith 21:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • ABOL also is just passing on information and not POV. It's just about people with courtcases pending against them in Buddhist erroneous worlds. Geir Smith 21:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Not using sock-puppets. I don't know this person myself. Geir Smith 18:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have blocked Geir Smith (talk · contribs) for repeated disruption of this process, attacking editors and spreading misinformation. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:27, 21 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 07:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Marks & Spencer locations

An unencyclopedic list of shops. Listcruft. kingboyk 08:04, 17 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 Speedy Delete by Geogre as G4 and vandalism, as the user moved it to user page and then reposted.. --Hetar 17:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Homeworks The Homecenter

Blatant advertisement, deleted once before.. &#149;&#149;\\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\&#149;&#149; 08:10, 17 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 keep - definitely not a delete, may be a merge, but perhaps not since the rewrite. Proto||type 11:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

44 Scotland Street

This article has nothing of relevance. In fact, I have no idea what it is about. :: Colin Keigher 08:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment If it is a novel, this article needs to be explained more in-depth. :: Colin Keigher 08:49, 17 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 Speedy delete (A7: Unremarkable people). TigerShark 12:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ayesha Naveed

NN person :: Colin Keigher 08:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC) -- Re-added comment as author removed it :: Colin Keigher 08:41, 17 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, if it's not verifiable, it really shouldn't be merged. Proto||type 11:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Kallahkhel

The only source of information on this is Google and it links back to this article. :: Colin Keigher 08:35, 17 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 per consensus of registered users. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

James Ross (conductor)

Dr Ross has impressive credentials and a promising future: however his accomplishments thus far do not merit a Misplaced Pages entry. The ensembles Dr Ross has conducted are all minor. As far as I can tell, none is a professional group, and none is significant enough to have its own Misplaced Pages entry (as of the time this article was listed for deletion). The article reads like a resume, which perhaps it is.

Interestingly, Dr Ross doesn't even seem to be the most distinguished orchestral conductor named James Ross: a Google search reveals another James Ross born in Boston, Massachusetts, who has studied with Kurt Masur, Seiji Ozawa and Leonard Bernstein, conducted the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra and has a position at the University of Maryland, but no Misplaced Pages entry. Grover cleveland 09:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Re "interational touring": the article mentions a list of countries where Ross conducted but has no references to back up the nature of these engagements -- he could have just been taking masterclasses/lessons or conducting local amateur groups. His publications don't qualify him for notability under WP:PROFTEST. Couldn't find out anything about the conducting competition via Google -- only hits were pages promoting Ross. Grover cleveland 15:39, 26 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 No Consensus (defaults to Keep). kingboyk 08:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Re-exportation

This should be in Wiktionary, it's not of encyclopedic value. - MB (Talk) 11:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 11:28, 25 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. --Sam Blanning 12:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

DataObjects.NET

Non-notable proprietary library for .NET. RayaruB 11:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 11:28, 25 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 Transwiki to Wiktionary - I did so, so delete the article. --Celestianpower 19:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Scundered

Northen Ireland slang. Very small websearch results Dangherous 12:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 05:15, 25 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 Proto||type 11:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Tank commander

unuseful stub, prod tag was removed as well as wikictionary tag Melaen 12:57, 17 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. A close one, but consensus seems to be that this is not notable enough for a standalone article. However, it was a close call between deletion and relisting (or closing as no consensus), so the poor article quality swung it. I have no objections to recreation at any time if a better article explaining why this branch is notable is written. kingboyk 11:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

East Coast Queensland Branch Pauline Hanson's One Nation New South Wales Division

POV fork. In itself this organisation is not notable. Delete and redirect to Pauline Hanson's One Nation RicDod 13:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Nobody on Earth will search for that title, Delete no real need for redirect. --Eivind 14:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Comment.This article has a number of problems. Firstly, it has verifiability problems given that the sources consist of minutes of the Branch meetings and no sources outside One Nation are cited. Secondly, notability given that individual branches of political parties are generally not notable. Thirdly, this appears to have problems with WP:NPOV given that it is written and authorised by a party official. Lastly, it may well be a copyvio. No redirect as noone would look for One Nation under that name. Capitalistroadster 23:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Please see A. Y. Artos's comments below. Delete vote changed. If it is more substantial than a branch and there is verifiable evidence for it such as Electoral Commission registration or some independent verification such as third party media reports then it might be worth keeping and renaming.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 23:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think it should be redirected to Pauline Hanson's One Nation which we say ceased t exist from 2005. It seems to be new as it claims to have been formed in Ipswich Queensland on the 11th of April 2005. Needs to be verified as registered.--A Y Arktos\ 00:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep and rename: From the electoral commission site: "Application by Pauline Hanson's One Nation (NSW Division) to change its registered Party Name and Party Abbreviation" was refused June 2005. There is however One Nation Queensland Division which was registered on 22 April 2005. This is a separate party to Pauline Hanson's One Nation. Article should be kept and renamed. I think, ironically, it is not clear if One Nation is indeed one national party or a series of separate state entities. For example, if you look at those who objected to the renaming of the NSW branch you will find it is their One Nation colleagues in WA who did not want any confusion. Accordingly I support keeping a state branch article - this is not quite the same as an individual branch as per comments by User:Capitalistroadster. I agree it may well be a copyvio but I did not find evidence of that when I searched.--A Y Arktos\ 00:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually I might be confused and it might be a Queensland branch of Pauline Hanson's One Nation (NSW Division) which wasn't allowed to change its name in June and thus a separate entity to the Queensland One Nation mob registered in April last year. Still should be kept on the grounds of notable wierdness. Next election, state or federal, it will be useful information if wikified, verified and otherwise improved.--A Y Arktos\ 00:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. I am inclined to think that the NSW Division might deserve a page as a separately registered and separately operating political party which has had members in parliament. Info on Queensland branches should be included there (or all of it included at Pauline Hanson's One Nation, but I don't see that this branch is significant enough for it's own article. JPD (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Response: Taking the article at face value - and it does need to be verified - and lining it up against the Australian Electoral Commission's reports of registrations and name change refusals, it would seem that there are now two One Nation parties.
This article states: "Was formed in Ipswich Queensland on the 11th of April 2005. The branch was the second in a growing list of New South Wales division branches to form in Queensland. The first Queensland branch of New South wales division of P.H.O.N was Darling Downs/Locyer Branch which was formed in January of the same year."
The AEC registered a Qld One Nation Branch on 22 April. In June the AEC refused to change the name of the NSW Branch of Pauline Hanson's One Nation - the objection to the name change coming from the WA Branch of One Nation. In Qld therefore we have branches of Pauline Hanson's One Nation and One Nation - the former party being only registered in NSW but having branches in Qld.--A Y Arktos\ 19:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing worthwhile or salvageable in this article, which seems as though it were copied from an obscure pamphlet. Besides which, in all instances the party is dead or dying; consequently, a "branch" or "division" of it scarcely warrants its own article.--cj | talk 15:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Response: I am not sure that wishful thinking that something is dead or dying is a reason for deletion. I can find no evidence of a web based copyvio, although I agree it may have been copied. However,it doesn't appear quite fluent enough for any publication, even a pamphlet with dot points that have been compressed. Salvaging might take some work and one would have to muster up the enthusiasm and the Reliable sources.--A Y Arktos\ 19:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It wasn't my reason for voting delete. My stance is that a branch or division of PHON does not warrant its own article - not even the major parties have separate articles for state divisions. Ultimately, however, I can see nothing in the article that is worthy of publication.--cj | talk 05:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. While the information (while poorly written) is interesting in explaining the machinations of One Nation politics, surely the One Nation article can include a paragraph on the goings on explained here, rather than a whole new article. --Roisterer 14:11, 20 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. --Fang Aili 04:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Danys

Meaningless pseudo-religious nonsense, unsourced or verified.--Zxcvbnm 13:59, 17 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. --Fang Aili 04:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Glaswegian Postman

Another made up phrase. Zero hits on Google. Zero hits on MSN Search. A single hit on Yahoo Search that is referring to something else. OR. Delete AlistairMcMillan 14:18, 17 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 Proto||type 11:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Badock Hall

It's a dorm. There are no sources, and no indication of significance. It's already mentioned in University_of_Bristol, which I think is an appropriate level of detail. Thus, I suggest deletion rather than merging, since the relevant info already exists elsewhere. Friday (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Obviously your example is a ludicrous one and one that must be edited/abridged, etc. But I don't see that each hall of residence has to have its articles deleted. It isn't just 'something with an address' - I still vote for expansion. Benbristol 16.12 19th April, '06 (GMT)
  • I'm at this Uni, and so I'm not goint to notvote on the issue at hand. However, I'd suggest that if you want it to stay 'deleted' that you make it into a redirect back to the Uni article. Otherwise, it will spring back into life before long. If there are multiple Badock Halls in the world, we can deal with the disambiguation when we find them. -Splash 14:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I would generally tend to agree. The main reason this is on Afd is the redirect I did previously was already reverted. This doesn't seem to be getting a lot of attention from experienced editors, so I thought Afd might help. Also, I'm hoping to propagate the general opinion that simply being a building isn't enough to warrant an encyclopedia article, among people who participate in Afd. Friday (talk) 14:09, 21 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, with a recommendation to use PROD for these sort of nominations in the future. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ravestar

Either delete or redirect to rave culture. Dangherous 22:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:50, 25 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 keep. While it may have copyright issues, those are not settled here, where the consensus is clearly keep. Turnstep 13:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

WHU-Otto Beisheim School of Management

pure advertisement text (reads like a brochure MaxE 14:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete || we,we,we,...

"The personal, almost family-like atmosphere at the School is characterised by the fascination and commitment of everyone involved." this is not wiki MaxE 14:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:50, 25 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. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Quantified Marketing Group

Advert for a company Edward 14:37, 17 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 keep. This does seem more of a content dispute than anything else, but the fact that this it is a name used at least somewhat commonly in India rules out a complete delete. Of interest is the fact that the word "Gurunath" does not even appear on the Shri Gurudev Mahendranath page, which certainly does not help the argument that the Gurunath article should be about the word coinage claim. The page will be kept, but primarily to mention the use as an Indian name. The other section should be removed, or put at the bottom of the page *after* it is at least mentioned (and referenced) on the Shri Gurudev Mahendranath page. Turnstep 14:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Gurunath

Insufficient notability with respect to content. There are between 4 and 50 google hits when you search for "shri gurudev mahendranath" and "gurunath" or "mahendranath" and "gurunath". Most of these don't even apply to the content. Whereas "Gurunath" alone gets almost 52,000 hits, since it is a common name in India. The individual who gets the most hits (1,140) for "gurunath" is "yogiraj gurunath". I suggest deleting this article and redirecting link to his article. Hamsacharya dan 14:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep - nominator has made it clear below that this is actually a content dispute. He is also guilty of harrassment, having stalked me to this article in retaliation and in an attempt to intimidate with respect to a content dispute in Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ---Baba Louis 16:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Who was the first person to even edit a Gurunath page? I suggest you look before indulging in accusations. If anything I would point to the reverse scenario. Hamsacharya dan 20:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - you were. And because it was an inappropriate redirect, it was listed on Redirects for Deletion, and is in the March archives . The result of the nomination was "Keep: Rather than deleting, edit into a description of the title." which was done by your old friend Adityanath... Here's a copy of the archived entry:
The nominated redirect was speedily kept as the nomination was withdrawn. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment This doesn't address the topic of this AfD, which is the issue of notability. Google hits for Gurunath consist of 50,000 given names, titles, and religious proclamations. The only individual that gets more than a few Ghits for Gurunath is Yogiraj Gurunath. Misplaced Pages has already deemed twice (based on two AfD's - you and I both attempted at different times to have Yogiraj Gurunath page deleted) that he is notable enough to keep on wikipedia. I don't think "Gurunath" by itself has any use to be on wikipedia. So either the page should be deleted, or it should be a simple redirect to Yogiraj Gurunath. Also don't forget that until proven otherwise, you are still a confirmed sockpuppet of Adityanath per wp:rfcu.. Hamsacharya dan 03:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Since the word is a title and not a name, it would be inappropriate to redirect to any one individual. User:Hamsacharya dan is a student of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath who is trying to inappropriately promote his guru on WP. In point of fact, his guru is no more prominent than Shri Mahendranath. "gurudev mahendranath" gets 920 Ghits and "Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath" actually gets a few less, 910 Ghits . Surely if it is true that the use of the word as a title predated Shri Mahendranath, it must be listed in a dictionary or two which can be cited. Other editors have provided no cites, only anecdotes. ---Baba Louis 15:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Question: What do you think the word "Gurunath" means? Guru + Nath = Spiritual teacher + Irradiant Lord . These are ancient words that come from an ancient spiritual/religious context. Isn't that how we often name our children in the west - based on religious or biblical connotations? Well it's no different in the East. That why the word Gurunath came to be used to name children in India. Isn't that obvious? Not the other way around - Mahendranath didn't take a "given name" and turn it into a religious title. That's ludicrous and probably unprecedented. It's like saying "You have achieved a great spiritual stature. I now bestow the title of 'Jimmy' on you." Maybe in Misplaced Pages getting a title of "Jimbo" might mean something great...but that's neither here nor there. The term Gurunath has been used as a title for saints and avatars for thousands of years. "Bolo Sri Sat Gurunath Maharaj Ki Jai" is a proclamation that is perhaps millenia old. Here are some refs to appease the skeptics: Hamsacharya dan 19:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - what's obvious is that if it was previously used as a title, it would have a dictionary entry or academic reference. Feel free to visit the library. I've looked myself, but didn't find one. ---Baba Louis 20:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - and it still doesn't have one, even AFTER Mahendranath. So that tells us absolutely nothing. Compounded with the fact that most sanskrit texts have never been translated. Hamsacharya dan 15:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - it doesn't really matter, does it, whether Gurunath is a name or a title, you cannot redirect it to Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. As a title, it has been given to other documented individuals. As a name, it is the name of numerous individuals. Would you redirect "John" to some individual named John who happens to currently have more Google hits than any other John? You are not making sense. This AfD is a bad faith effort to delete this article only so you can make an inappropriate redirect. I suggest you withdraw it. ---Baba Louis 17:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - whether they decide to redirect it is up to the voters. It was just a suggestion, which I feel to be a valid one. Hamsacharya dan 19:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - nomination is clearly in bad faith. -999 03:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - just because one cannot find references in libraries or the Internet doesn't mean it cannot be apart of a living, breathing tradition. For example, buying a Lonely Planet book on India will give some information about local customs and sayings that one wouldn't necessarily find in a formal publication. Also, there are some publications that are either out of print or very hard to track down - further still remember that India is one of the biggest publishers of books...the wealth of literary gems found there beggars belief when one takes time out to look for things (again some translations not always being available in English). The religious tradition in India is VAST. It is impossible to have it all readily available for us all that are information or reference hungry. Also, it takes alot more than taking a short visit or googling and then thinking one knows India (and Her manifold religious traditions) inside/out in actual fact. 86.10.229.248 19:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Shaninath
    • comment - Please note this is a delete vote. User has forgotten to clearly embolden the delete nomination. Hamsacharya dan 05:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Thanks for reminding me to embolden Hamsacharya Dan!86.10.229.248Shaninath
    • Comment - Yes, but without a reference any such information cannot be included in Misplaced Pages due to the no original research rule. This article cites the necessary documentation and thus is acceptable. According to WP rules, if you would like to include additional uses of the word, you simply need to provide a reference. The onus for providing a reference falls on the editor wanting to include the information. —Hanuman Das 00:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Shaninath (86.10.229.248) and Redirect per Hamsacharya Dan - This article only has notability in the same way the word John has notability - a generalized word will have plenty of google hits, but wont merit an encyclopedic entry in and of itself. That's why Ghits don't tell you everything. Kalagni Nath 20:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - obscure, but well-documented from primary sources. Also, since it has been stated to be a common name and surname in India, it should not be redirected to a specific individual even if the existing article is deleted. -Ekajati 22:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - no reason to delete. —Hanuman Das 00:59, 25 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 - Turnstep 14:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

GayCork

Non-notable website.

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:50, 25 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 keep. No Guru 22:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Guess Who's Back

{{prod}} removed by anon Computerjoe's talk 15:18, 17 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 no consensus. There would just barely be a consensus to redirect, counting FreplySpang's "Redirect or Delete" vote as "Redirect" since no one else voted to delete, but there is also some indication the article was cleaned up in response to one or two redirect votes. Of course, anyone is free to redirect or merge it, provided there's no consensus against that. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jedi Religion

WP:NOR Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 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. --Fang Aili 00:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Oceanic flight 815 website

  • Delete. The info on this "official" website is there for fans, and consists completely of teasers, potential red herrings, easter eggs. Fancruft by definition, and not notable. PKtm 15:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not assert its notability. Misplaced Pages articles should not be about a single promotional site, no matter how interesting to fans. --Leflyman 17:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an official ABC website & thus official for the series Lost. I would prefer that the article was merged into an article about all of the official US Lost websites, each detailing the Easter Eggs, trailers, etc in each website. I discovered this website through wikipedia, I feel it should stay on there - Shaft121 17:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It may be an official ABC website, but that does not mean that it requires its very own encyclopedia article! There are literally dozens of websites that detail all the easter eggs and trivia and websites of Lost - Misplaced Pages is not the place for that. Danflave 19:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

--I feel that it should be as it is a perfect example of synergy within the media & therefore a fantastic encyclopaedic resource. As a media studies teacher I know that synergy is taught every single year & several of my students this year have chosen Lost. I'm sure this number will increase in the future - Shaft121 19:10, 17 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 CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Russ Baker

Vanity article consisting of text copied from non-notable subject's website and written by Russ Baker. Tomstoner 15:25, 17 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.