Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 22 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coren (talk | contribs) at 04:37, 22 April 2006 (Broken subst. Oops.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:37, 22 April 2006 by Coren (talk | contribs) (Broken subst. Oops.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< April 21 >
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 22

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FireFox (υ|τ) 12:22, 23 April 2006

Lugola

NN linux user group. No alexa ranking (not suprising considering the problems Alexa and linux have). A google search reveals 273 unique results, most of which are sites which simply list large numbers of linux groups. Delete. --Hetar 00:02, 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. — FireFox (υ|τ) 12:23, 23 April 2006

Furfire

This is the second time that this webcomic has been nominated. The first nomination can be seen here and resulted in no consensus. My grounds for the nomination are similar, that this is not a notable website. You can see this furry webcomic here. If you take a look at the original nomination made last year, you'll see that it had an Alexa rank of 1.5 million, it has now fallen to nothing. A look at their forums here, which have been online for around 9 months has managed to attract 45 users. Googling "Forrest dreams studio", the website name, gives back less than 50 hits. I don't think this website is notable. - Hahnchen 00:04, 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 05:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Pete is a Pogo Stick

A series of Macromedia flash cartoons hosted at Keen Toons. The Keen guys usually do webcomics, and have some professional flair in that area, so I don't normally nominate their comics. However, their foray into Flash cartoons is merely a sideshow distraction. In the world of Flash animation, KeenToons do not have clout. Googling "Pete is a Pogo Stick" brings back 10 unique hits, which is less than Super Monkey Poop Fight and Excitebike: Trouble on the Tracks did. This really isn't Xiao Xiao. - Hahnchen 00:04, 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 keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 06:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Double vaginal, double anal

Impossible sex act. It's a prominent joke in the movie Orgazmo and the source of the name for Trey Parker and Matt Stone's band DVDA, but it doesn't need its own article. Brian G. Crawford 00:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep This sexual position may be rare or even mythological, but if the term is fairly common (see Google) and if it deserves some discussion, it belongs here, and NOT just as a South Park or band reference. Besides, I went to Misplaced Pages just now to look up DVDA to find out where this term came from and whether or not this act is even physically possible (results of my search: inconclusive, but articles can grow).

172.149.64.186 13:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know what you mean by "weird nonsense type stuff." It's obviously not an orthodox sex position, but it's pretty well known and featured in pop culture as well as countless pornographies. -Cheapestcostavoider 01:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? This sex act is not even physically possible, and I made that clear in my nomination. Double vaginal is possible. Double anal is possible. Double vaginal and double anal at the same time is impossible. It's nothing but a joke. The movies are named DVDA because they feature double vaginal and double anal, but not at the same time. Your comments in this discussion indicate that you clearly don't understand that the structure of the human body prevents anyone from actually doing this. Countless pornographies (sic)? I found only two. In pop culture? Only in Parker/Stone projects. This is supposed to be a general interest encyclopedia, not a Trey Parker and Matt Stone fansite. Brian G. Crawford 16:04, 23 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 06:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Friz (KeenToons)

Who is Friz? He's the guy behind Pete is a Pogo Stick, nominated above, and also the guy who tried so hard to get his neologism Knunder into Misplaced Pages. You can see the fruits of his Misplaced Pages neologoism insertion here. Although his article suggests similarities between Dave Gorman and Danny Wallace, this just isn't true. His biggest claim to fame is being covered by BBC Local News Lincolnshire, wow. This man is not notable. - Hahnchen 00:10, 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 06:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Danny Washington and Educational Egg

Another non notable flash cartoon. "Danny Washington" "Educational Egg" returns 30 hits. There are literally thousands of more popular and notable Flash animations out there, and having just endured one, there are thousands of better ones as well. They really are bad. no, really - Hahnchen 00:21, 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 keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Pirates! in an Adventure with Whaling

Also nominating The Pirates! in an Adventure with Scientists. Non notable books, about 2000 Google hits each. Rory096(block) 00:27, 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. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 06:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Bui

Asserts insufficient notability, and appears to be likely a vanity page. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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}}.
In what way? If he's notable, the notability should be shown. --Nlu (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Being a "gifted doctor," even if true, is insufficient for Misplaced Pages's general consensus on notability. Please explain why he should be considered sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia. --Nlu (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
And? Again, "being impressive" is not a notability criterion. He can be the most intelligent person in the world; until he does something that makes him notable, that still wouldn't warrant an article. --Nlu (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
-Obli (Talk) 00:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Many of these citations to "JD Bui" are not to this person. --Nlu (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, "Jonathan D. Bui" leads to nine papers. I am looking over them right now to see if they're the same person. --Nlu (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Eight of them appears to have his name on them. I was unable to verify one other since the link leads to the wrong page. --Nlu (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
And many of the ones that the Google Scholar search comes up with the search string "JD Bui" don't seem to contain that name at all; it's not just that it's the wrong J.D. Bui, but appear to be complete false positives. --Nlu (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The way your search is structured, there are way too many false positives. One of them that I was finally able to track down, , for example, had an co-author named "JD" and an co-author named "Bui." Our hero here is definitely not involved in 71 papers. --Nlu (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'm glad that my note caused you to do some actual research on the notability, but I would assert that all you've managed to confirm here is that according to limited online sources, the individual has contributed to at least 9 papers. (actually, according to this link in the article, 14 papers.) I do note the fact that this is the only article edited by the originator of this article. We're talking about a clinical fellow at Harvard who's published, I'd rather hear someone with expertise in the field say if he's made lasting contributions (as some of the above Keep votes seem to say). Why are you so eager to delete? KWH 05:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The way that the keep IP comments were going, one can easily draw the conclusion that this was a vanity page as well. If I were "so eager to delete" the page, I would have speedy deleted it as non-notable. As it stands, I'm looking for debate, not for unsupported and unverified claims of "but he's a great doctor!" or "he's a great scholar!" If there's verifiable information that he's notable, fine, but these comments are not verifications of his notability. --Nlu (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I want to give the best good faith to the article creator and other keep votes who claim to be familiar with his work, and they do need to be clearer on asserting notability... but it does seem to be a slightly different case from the average "nn-band". KWH 01:23, 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. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Freewebs

Non-notable free web host, fails WP:WEB. Delete Ardenn 00:47, 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 Speedy Esteffect 02:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

JIMMY

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Paul Zaia

Non notable priest. 149 Ghits, and his only claim to fame is supporting an American Idol contestant. Rory096(block) 01:15, 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 nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 06:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

List of National Basketball League (Australia) venues

Prod tag removed with the explanation: "possible candidate for Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight". I don't believe that supercedes the official policy regarding lists at WP:NOT. This needs a WP:HEY standard of improvement, right now it's listcruft. User:Kappa has been extremely busy removing prods this evening... Deizio 01:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • WP:NOT for "Mere collections of internal links", except for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles (offical policy), with structured lists defined as "lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists". Nobody is suggesting that a list of these venues should not be maintained somewhere on WP, but it's not suitable for a stand-alone list with no context or information, which is the job of a category or template. Deizio 15:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

(Some lists are useful for Misplaced Pages development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. Like categories, lists can be used for keeping track of changes in the listed pages, using the Related Changes feature. Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of pages from it, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available.) , so why do individual editors think they have to remove an article just because it IS a list?? Also there is a precedent for this sort of thing at List of Premier League stadiums, for example. Jcuk 20:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Premier League stadiums contains information about the home team, city, capacity and date built as well as a trivia section. It's something for this list to aspire to, sure, but by no means can that be considered to set a precedent for a list such as this simply because they are both about sports stadiums. I don't feel that we should remove lists, I feel we should adhere to the offical policy which dictates what Misplaced Pages is not. Deizio 00:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This list now contains much the same information as List of Premier League Stadiums Jcuk 19:22, 24 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 merge to Hispanic Business Inc.. MarkGallagher performed the merging. SushiGeek 07:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

HireDiversity

intially proposed deletion, anon user removed the {{prod}} tag. Article is a advertisement for website. J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  01:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It would help if you could provide some reliable sources that mention the site. The only things I can find are press releases from the parent company. The site itself has an Alexa rank of 120,000, so I don't think it's notable per WP:WEB. Cheapestcostavoider 23:08, 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 all articles. Category and template is separately nominated. Mailer Diablo 06:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Online Soccer Project Alpha

This is a multiple nomination and indeed 2nd nomination for the principle article, the original nomination resulted in delete and can be seen here There are many articles and they are listed below:

Online Soccer Project Alpha is a fantasy football league, hosted on Freewebs and started by TN Fantasy Sports Group. Now, this is not a notable fantasy football league in the slightest, and even if it were, the individual teams and leagues would not merit individual articles. And if the company behind it, the TN Fantasy Sports Group, were indeed a company and not just a bunch of high schoolers, then they would have bought their own domain and managed to get more than 6 Google hits, all of them Misplaced Pages. Goodbye. - Hahnchen 01:52, 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 speedy delete both as non-notable biographies, verging on attack pages. Joyous | Talk 02:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Emza and PleaseDeleteThis

As per WP:NN and as unencyclopedic and nonsense... It is clearly a derogatory reference to *somebody* and deserves no place in Misplaced Pages - Delete --Valermos 01:56, 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 06:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Lee Dennison

British born actor. I am nominating this on principle as vanity/self-advertisement since the only contributor so far has been user:Leedennison. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 02:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I have been concerned about the verifiability of the subject from the article's creation, and I continue to be concerned. Notably, a Lee Dennison search at IMDB returns no relevant results, and the full credits for The Transporter, on which, according to the article, Dennison worked, don't list him. However, if the (perhaps tendentious) bio provided by a company with which he works is to be believed, then he has indeed been involved in the production of sundry notable films. Assuming arguendo that the bio as provided is entirely accurate, I am nevertheless convinced that Dennison is notable neither as an actor nor as a casting director. Joe 02:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The creator/subject has e-mailed me, taking umbrage at my questioning the veracity of the bio. I think I ought to note that my concerns were as much about verifiability as about truth. In any case, though, as I noted above and as others also seem to believe, even if the bio is wholly accurate (which is eminently possible), the subject is non-notable. Joe 21:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough; it appears likely that the article was created by the person himself, and that's no good. - Richardcavell 09:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wether the person himself created the article or not is immaterial-- Non-notable and fails to meet WP:BIO and WP:V. Coren 16:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Commnets have been emailed to both users and they are not withstanding. One does not need to be verified nor registered at IMDB to be an actor/crew member nor do the majority of films have CD listed in their crew as the CD role is required before production takes place. This is not a self advertisement (no companies details/web site information has been given) and unlike other people including one user here no vanity picture has been posted. Tendentious is the users own opinion and therefore not legally binding nor fact and the user even comments that "if" the details are fact he is still not convinced - again this is just a matter of opinion and not fact. It should be stated that other actors have placed their own bio here and have passed therefore RH and RC comments are also not valid. If I am wrong please let me know the correct page where it says actors/artistes etc cannot create their own page. I would also request they re-read the following before continuing with their comments. Thanks.

AfD etiquette

  • Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, civility, and assume good faith before making a recommendation as to whether the article should be deleted or not, or making a comment. (— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedennison (talk • contribs) )
  • Delete, unverified, non-notable autobiography. Comment to anon above - Hi, AfD etiquette does not and will never deny editors the right to nominate and vote for non-notable material to be deleted. Please check out WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:AUTO, and take some time to get a better feel of the house style and groove here at WP. It;s a great place and a fab resource, but there are rules... having one's autobiography deleted is a rite of passage for many, many editors - some go on to become dedicated Wikipedians, others never really get a handle on the project. I'm seriously glad I'm in the former group. Deizio 15:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable, nn-bio and probaly hoax. --Terence Ong 16:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, self M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Vanity? Hoax? It would suggest a little reasearch is done befoire casting doubts. The etiquette still states do not "bite" and "assume good faith" which the majority of you have not. Some of you who have commented have displayed a touch of vanity on your own pages and some are rather self indulgent to say the least. (— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedennison (talk • contribs) )

  • Hi Lee. Do you mean information on editors "userpages"? That's a place to be creative as you like, and you are very welcome to display biographical information on your own user page, which appears when you click on your user name at the top of the screen or in your signature, which can be appended to comments on talk pages simply by typing ~~~~ before you save the page. Information stored in the main encyclopedia (often referred to as "articlespace" or "mainspace") such as the article nominated for deletion here must stand up to high levels of scrutiny per the policies and guidelines pointed out above ("WP:xx"). Many, many pages with the problems identified with this article appear on the deletion board every day, and as you can imagine many original authors contest the deletion. However, not displaying a solid grasp of[REDACTED] standards and practices when defending such an article is not a way to endear yourself to other editors. Again, I encourage you to stick around and get a better feel for the place. Best regards, Deizio 16:58, 23 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Taunton Antique Center

Delete Prod failed. One reference has been added but I believe it still fails WP:CORP Joelito 02:33, 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 keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Degree completion

No sources, no references, appears to be original material, and the title doesn't seem to fit the description. Arbusto 02:35, 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 again. SushiGeek 07:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesse Cowell

Unremarkable person, except for his work on a single film. And shouldn't someone who was "made famous over the internet" get a little bit more than 379 google hits?. Article was previously deleted for simlar reasons. The only reference is to his official site, which of course won't cut it as a sole source. Drat (Talk) 02:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete author of article appears to have only one interest at Misplaced Pages--to promote this individual and his film. -Jmh123 02:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Shades of Gray (film). The film is notable, and any verifiable notability that Cowell has most likely comes from the film. — TKD::Talk 05:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete on-sight, per CSD G4 recreation of deleted material. Deizio 16:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TH 21:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per TKD M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I know who he is. Famous enough for me. --SeizureDog 21:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are much more than 379 Google hits for him, search for Jeskid, you get about 31,100 hits --GrahamGRA 19:28, 25 April 2006 (GMT)
  • Delete or redirect to the movie, which seems notable.--Cúchullain /c 23:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm working my way through the article and trying to edit it to be more encyclopedic in nature and also show that Jesse has a bigger following in his own right than was initially laid out in the entry - i.e. his fan site that has only been going since March this year has had 1.4million page views in the past month (I've included links to references) - and that Shades of Gray is just a part of his works (all be it a major one), and not just his sole achievement. Please bear with me, today is my first attempt at editing a wiki :) 81.79.54.144 07:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I am the creator and author of the Jeskid Fan Club website. Jesse brings more than the sum of his movies and online TV, obviously enough to warrant the creation and participation of a full scale fan community. I personally put hundreds of hours into the coding of the website alone, which in itself speaks to who and what Jesse stands for. There unfortunately are some somewhat disgruntled and jealous would-be writers, actors and film makers who have had little success and therefore feel the need to tear down something which is more than they could have hoped for - not to mention, we have come across some of these individuals who have made it their purpose in life to bring an end to Jesse's growing following - "just because". Since going live with the website in march, it has grown at a steady pace of 100+ members per week, and participation includes over 75% of all registered members on a daily basis - and half of that 75% participates every few hours. The fan site alone is anticipating a 2 million page view month, which includes nearly 450,000 site hits. This is, as I mentioned, only about a months time of being live. The most recent addition to JeskidTV, "SPAM" episode, sparked the same flurry of "water cooler" conversation that some better known network programming would. The idea that Jesse Coweel or his best known film Shades of Gray should be deleted in ridiculous, and I would encourage the individuals who requested such action be restricted and/or ignored for future deletion "requests". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.64.255.203 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment. I am not a "jealous would-be writer", nor have I made it my purpose in life to make Jesse fail. I'm just another editor. Like Jmh123 said, it seems GrahamGRA registered here with the sole intent of promoting Jesse. I also took into account (but forgot to mention in the nomination) the fact that Cowell previously created an article on himself. Do you have an independant source for those pageviews? I'm not trying to say that you are lying, far from it. What I mean is, I could just write something on my own site and make a claim, you know what I mean? Oh yeah, I was just checking the fansite, and noticed this encouraging people to "GO forth to Wikkipedia and FUCK THEM UP!" (first post is at the bottom). Though one poster is thankfully encouraging reason.--Drat (Talk) 02:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment You yourself clearly are showing prejudice, you do not check your facts before posting suggesting that Jeskid has few Google hits. When infact he has over 30 thousand. You appear to take every attempt to sabotage this article dispite the obvious fact that Jeskid has a large respectable fanbase. Pure Pwnage has a simmilar fanbase to Jeskid, but it's article is untouched. I feel you do not show considderation as to when credit is due, since Shades of Gray is only a small fraction on work that has been produced by Jesse. As far as Jesse Cowell and[REDACTED] themself go, he uploaded one image, there is no big deal in that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrahamGRA (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment. People here are not recommending deletion because they have some vendetta against Jesse; they are doing so because they feel that the article does not or cannot meet Misplaced Pages's standards for verifiability. — TKD::Talk 01:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Not all of Jeskid's fame comes from his Shades of Gray work. JeskidTV is watched largely by his fan base as well, and his Fan Club website and chat are extremely popular. Sticking that all under SoG would be wrong, because they're not all related. He should have his own individual entry, where you can reach all of his works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.81.79.187 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep The only suggestion is to edit the article to make it more encyclopedic. A seperate article should be made for Jeskid TV work since his work on Shades of Gray (film) has one. There's about 15 hours of Jeskid TV content on http://www.jeskidtv.com. Q&A articles reviews and director bios found within google searches when searching Jesse Cowell and Jeskid. The Google results tally over 30,000+. The Fansite has many numerous active accounts. Seems notable enough. --Microbefox 22:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The difference between Shades of Gray and Jeskid TV is that the former has been reviewed by independent organizations/critics and has won some well-known awards. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but Jeskid TV has not. Most of the third-party reliable (non-forum, non-blog) hits are about Jesse's role in Shades of Gray, right? The fact that Jesse has a fan club is great and all, but such doesn't contribute much to verifiable encyclopedic content because of the inherent bias involved. A Google search for +Jeskid -forum -wikipedia yields 517 results, which seems to indicate that most of Jesse's popularity stems from forum communities, which are not citeable as reliable sources. If someone can provide some reliable third-party sources for Jesse's popularity/notability outside of Shades of Gray, I'd happily reconsider. — TKD::Talk 01:21, 29 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 16:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Dark Eden (band)

Band is non-notable, does not meet music notability requirements, and page reads like bad fiction. Google reports only self-submitted band info. Probably vanity as well given there is exactly one (human) editor to the page. Coren 03:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. From what I can, or rather can't, gather, the group is not significant on the New York scene aside from their own claims. Since members "leave for college" and the group has had ever a dozen members, I really don't think that this is any sort of serious band. Additionally, I don't think the national touring they've done is what MUSIC had in mind; even I could book a dozen shows around the country, rent a van, and have a national tour. Lastly, the stage name Kleibold Harris is just wrong. Teke 18:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
One last nail in the coffin (I think the band would like that phrase), The message board has 43 members. Teke 18:21, 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 redirect to Hellwars. - Liberatore(T) 17:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And, since Hellwars was WP:PRODded for more than 5 days, delete it, and speedy delete Pkbr labs under WP:CSD R1. I'm evil. - Liberatore(T) 17:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Pkbr labs

Found while working on dead-end pages. Company is the creator of the online MMPORG Hellwars. I'm not a gamer so I have no opinion on the game but is the company notable by itself if Hellwars is its only game. The article content basically describes the game, so if kept it wil have to be stubbed and started over from scratch. No opinion at this time. No one of consequence 03:11, 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 06:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Decomplexity

This orphan page is undisguised marketing copy serving as advertisement. Coren 03:20, 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 Sent to WP:CP. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Device locking

Device Locking is a patented process of recognizing a devices non user configurable components for the purposes of generating a license to run software or access a system. This is not advertising, but actual fact. Pure advertising copy. Coren 03:25, 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 06:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Where da moviez at

Should be reviewed for deletion, the previous deletion in 2005 was in my opinion uinfair. I, the author, am posting this page as AfD to avoid it being speedy deleted because it is a repost of an already deleted article. However i believe the original article was unfairly deleted and this should be given a second chance. It is valid information which is not false and should be given a second review perhaps.Crakorjack 03:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This quote from the page itself says it all: Because of the nature of WDMA almost all of the soruces stating WDMA's existance cannot be verified. Okay then. Eron 03:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Just because the sources cannot be verified does not mean that people should not be able to read the arguements on both sides. Just because some sources are not verified does not mean that the verified facts about the site should not be showcased in one place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crakorjack (talk • contribs) .
  • Speedy delete: The article references its own deletion on Misplaced Pages, it has been deleted before, and to quote the article, its "existance cannot be verified." Misplaced Pages is not the place for this. --Hetar 04:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - As per comments above, lack of verifiability. If it's so secret, then why is it being promoted here? --Valermos 08:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fairly clear from te article itself that there is no place for it here doktorb | words 09:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article is rubbish. - Richardcavell 09:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I vote to delete if a mention of it is made in the "somethingawful" article or other relevant topics. This is a relevant article, but the whole point of the page, the whole reason this website is well known, is for its secrecy. Keep it as a rumor article, a joke article, a footnote in another article, a fragemnt, a stub, anything, but it needs to be mentioned somewhere, because it is notable and because it is unresolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.140.52 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 22 April 2006
  • Speedy delete as above. A section on its original deletion? The article claiming that this topic is unverifiable? And the fact that this should have {{db-repost}} on it (the nominator would likely remove it, unfortunately)? I understand the nominator wants a "fair vote" (in quotes because AfD is not a vote -- the term "clear consensus" fits better), but it's still a G4 speedy candidate. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:I agree this should in theory be speedy deleted for repost, but because of the conditions of the original deletion, i believe it could be much more beneficial to keep this article as a hoax and have a dispute about whether it is true, it would benefit the article to see what people can dig up on the truthfulness of the site, because that is the issue truely in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crakorjack (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete - this is real. It was a spinoff of a Something Awful forum, although no illegal files were shared there. The admins deleted the forum for various reasons at the beginning of 2005, leading to the setup of this site. From what I can tell, passwords to it were given out to a select few SA members. However, this is not endorsed whatsoever by the site's admins - members that join the forums to ask for the password are banned. Of course, this is all completely unverifiable (there is a section on this in the SA forums "SAclopedia", but only registered users can view it) and so this article should be deleted. --Doug (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I just realized something... if he wanted to review the deletion, why couldn't this had been on deletion review? WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete I used to be an SA goon, so I know this isn't a hoax, but there's so much wrong here it's hard to pick where to start. I'll just mention that the article claims that the RIAA, a trade union, is a "government administration". Pugs Malone 17:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- article says it may be a rumor, or may be real, or something. Whatever it is, it fails WP:V. They also complain about the previous deletion a lot, but that isn't the reason to delete this page. --Elkman - 19:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Question - If the article were to be shortened to simply "the illegid name of the site the BTB forum on something awful was moved to." or something of that type could it be kept? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.140.52 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete -- Violation of WP:V --Llort 20:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is not useful due to WP:V -- if the network really exitst at the scale claimed, it does deserve a mention but please someone, expose it first :) TH 22:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment sounds a bit like nonsense, and it's too hard to verify. It's like some joke about some invisible thing, but i can't remember what the joke was... M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete wishful thinking. More people have seen "space aliens". Shenme 05:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Way too many doubts in regards to verifiability.--Cini 16:03, 23 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 06:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Globalist manifesto

This page gives no historical or social background as to the topic. Instead, it merely reproduces a document, with no information as to the author or the source, and with no assurance that the document is not, in fact, copyrighted by its (unnamed) author. In fact, it may very well be entirely fraudulent. Either way, it is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. Manifestoes should be posted on private webpages. Charles 03:36, 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 06:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Mankind: Saving Humanity

nn self-published vanity book Amcfreely 03:46, 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 Deleted by Doc glasgow. --Arnzy (Talk) 12:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Flawless (Phife Dawg)

Non-notable song. Tagged for speedy delete; creator wiped the page. Keppa 03:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, withdrawn by nominator . Stifle (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Anna Ivey

Author is not broadly notable. Not widely published. Unknown outside the small minority of law school applicants who are familiar with her work Interestingstuffadder 03:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: this may be a keep but is certainly not a speedy keep. As the article stands it points to only very limited publication history. Publishing one book and being quoted a could times is not nec sufficient for notability, at least not conclusively enough to justify a speedy. Let's see how the debate comes out and not rush this process. Interestingstuffadder 05:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why not. She's easily notable enough as an author, although you seem to be inventing new, ambiguous criteria that go well beyond the guidelines (Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)). If the NYT, Washington Post and Chicago Sun-Times all think she's notable enough to quote as an admissions expert, and Vault thinks she's enough of an expert to have her own column on their site, I don't see why there's any need to prolong debate.Cheapestcostavoider 14:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: All I can base my reasoning on is what is referenced in the article -- she has put out one book, has been interviewed by a major newspaper once, she maintains a website and she used to serve as an administrator at an American law school. This infi may hint at notability (though I'd like to see more). But no, this information doe not make her such a slam dunk on notability that we should cut off the process of discussing whether she belongs on wikipedia. I just don't see anyting here that makes it clear that she meets speedy keep criteria. It is unclear to me why you are so afraid of letting this discussion run its course if you are so convinced of her notability. Interestingstuffadder 15:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I created the article. I'm not adamantly attached to it or anything, but I do think she is notable enough to merit an article. Misplaced Pages:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies#People_still_alive states "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" merit an article. The article as it now stands cites such a publication ("The Anna Ivey Guide to Law School Admission") and a link to the Vault.com column to which she contributes. Given the murkiness and contentiousness of "notability," I think it is best to err on the side of keeping an article. Moreover, judging from interestingstuffadder's comment on the pages's history, it seems that even the nominator for this AfD has reconsidered. --Wikiwriter706 23:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: the strong response to this AFD has prompted me to do some research (which I am not required to do -- it is up to the article to provide a basis for its notability) and I am getting to where I think it would reasonable to keep this. Also, a review of Wikiwriter706's fine contributions make me think that we can count on this article's ongoing improvement. However, I also still do not think this article reaches the criteria for wikipedia:speedy keep (though I imagine it will be kept when 5 days elapse). Interestingstuffadder 23:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: You're right that it seems likely to be kept so it doesn't matter too much whether or not it is speedily kept, but I do believe it currently meets the criteria for wikipedia:speedy keep since you, the nominator, seem to be stating you don't actually want the article deleted and there has been no other delete vote, valid or otherwise. --Wikiwriter706 23:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: although I am coming around, I have not yet formally withdrawn the AFD. The speedy keep guidelines indicate that in order for the article to be kept based upon my will I would need to withdraw the AFD. But I agree that you probably have nothing to worry about. Interestingstuffadder 23:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment. The speedy keep is not binding, it's just one user's opinion. Consensus amongst the keeps and deletes will provide the concensus. As I mentioned in my weak keep, I would be hesistant on the article (in other words, I wouldn't have voted; I don't vote when I'm hesitant) had I not looked up Wikiwriter's contribution history, which I thought I linked to but appearantly I just linked to the userpage. Teke 04:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I really don't appreciate being accused of bad faith. As the article has developed I have in fact engaged in a dialogue with the author about it and have acknowledged that it has become a solid article and I would not nominate it for deletion again. When I nominated this article it simply did not make a case for notability -- now it does. I am an experienced editor and I really resent being accused of bad faith in a public forum. Interestingstuffadder 00:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Let things like that ride, keep cool :) After all, you get the credit of being flamed on the user's first contribution! Teke 04:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what else you would call a violation of AfD etiquette like this. An experienced editor really shouldn't be using AfD as a first resort without using a more appropriate tag or making a good-faith effort to discuss issues. Sparklemotion 17:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
There's a lot seperating bad faith from poor etiquette. Look around the wiki -- plenty of articles are AFDed soon after being created, especially when created by inexperienced editors (which this page's creator was when he/she created the article). Frankly, when I first saw this it article it seemed like non-notable vanity to me. I have since been convinced otherwise. Maybe I should have waited longer before adding the AFD tag, but "bad faith" is an extremely strong accusation around these parts. Obviously I wasn't aware of the articles "obvious" notability. Bad faith implies that I AFDed this article out of some ulterior or nefarious motive -- there is absolutely no evidence of that. Thus, if you are truly interested in being part of a community that values civility perhaps you should pause before levelling such pointed accusations at other editors. Interestingstuffadder 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
So can we shake hands? There are 2,000 to 3,000 articles/stubs created every day. About 500 get speedy, 300 get prod, and up to 150 on AfD. It's all in process, Sparklemotion. Interestingstuffadder, perhaps you might not want to argue your own nominations so seriously. Sometimes it's best to throw it out there and get out of the way. Teke 06:34, 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 merge with Extraterrestrial real estate. Apparently done already, I'll just place a redirect here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Moon for sale

Marginally unencyclopedic, magnet for advertising sockpuppets, and generally useless even if arguendo not unencyclopedic. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:54, 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 merge with Extra-terrestrial real estate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Dennis Hope

Similar to Moon for sale above, except that here, notability is a major question as well. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:56, 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 06:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Tuscarawas County Rabblerousers

The article is either a joke, or a vanity page, but it certainly is not, in any way, an article about a real Major League Baseball team. A Google search gives 0 hits. Charles 04:06, 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 06:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Unit 2

Useless trivia. Could probably be merged somewhere but I don't think it's worth it Hirudo 04:18, 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 keep and rename to List of radio stations in Spain. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Spanish language radio stations in Spain

Yet another useless list. At most there should be just a page with Spanish radio stations in any language instead of this Hirudo 04:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, no idea why prod was removed with no explanation or maintanance to the page. Appropriate Username 07:30, 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 06:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Nursing and Healthcare Management

This article is not about nursing and healthcare management in general, just a joint degree program at a single university. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An individual academic program at a university is generally too narrow a topic to warrant an article of its own. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 04:24, 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 Speedy delete per CSD:A3 - article's entire content is rewording of the title or links elsewhere. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Pokémon world metropolitan areas

Original research/fanfiction; while these areas exist in Pokémon, they are never referred to by these names or even referred to as "regions" or "metropolitan areas". Hirudo 04:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: List of pokemon world metropolitan areas should also be deleted (it is basically a redirect)--Zxcvbnm 21:43, 24 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 16:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

EA Web - East Anglia Forums

Article fails to meet WP:WEB and reeks of advertizing. Coren 04:38, 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 redirect. Mailer Diablo 06:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Eddie plugins

Merge has been done; can't prod so listing here. Hirudo 04:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect--blue520 10:07, 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.
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 22 Add topic