Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 30 - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yaksha (talk | contribs) at 04:16, 30 April 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:16, 30 April 2006 by Yaksha (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< April 29 >
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 30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Major Redmon

Hoax. Unreferenced info about a barely notable (if real) player. No relevant Ghits. Unverifiable Srikeit 00:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete As nominator. --Srikeit 00:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Whether it's a hoax or not, the article seems to be about a high-school level athlete, and would thus be non-notable anyway. On closer inspection, it seems strongly like a hoax, especially the statue part and that the named high school gets no Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:17, 30 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 19:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Gamma Delta Pi

Non-notable sorority. Page was PRODed by me but was removed without explanation by article creator. ...Scott 00:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that Gamma Delta Pi has nothing to with the article written meaning it's probably a bunch of non notable sororities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jklin (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. I was going to vote keep until I realized that this was a misleadingly-titled article about an indivdual chapter of the sorority rather than an article about the sorority itself. If someone wants to rewrite this as an article about the actual sorority, I wouldn't be opposed to keeping it, but, until then, I support deletion in that articles kept on the grounds that they should be rewritten never seem to actually get rewritten. If someone wants to start an actual article about the sorority itself later, I have no problem with that. As mentioned above, this article is also extremely NPOV. BTW, are there really sororities where members are only known by numbers, rather than their names (as this article asserts)? ergot 13:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete into Ithaca College article, let normal editors of that article to decide if this group is notable enough. -- ReyBrujo 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per ergot Melchoir 00:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this is so interesting— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.93.243 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom.--Joe Jklin 10:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard Williams (actor)

Hoax. The "achievements" of the actor should make him notable enough to have google hits, but no relevant hits found. As said on the talk page search made in the Internet Broadway Database yields no result. Srikeit 00:12, 30 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 keep appears to be keep by unanimous decision  ALKIVAR™ 03:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Cock rock

What a load of WP:BALLS, no pun intended. If it were sourced, it would still be a neologism. Brian G. Crawford 00:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 

cock rock slang, rock music, esp. heavy metal, characterized by the ostentatious male sexuality of its lyrics and performance; so cock rocker.
1971 M. SAUNDERS in Creem May 74/2 As much as I hate heavy music—*cock rock, macho rock, or whatever the current name for it is—I have to
admit to having every Blue Cheer album ever made. 2003 Kitchen Sink Winter 19/1  truly were the creators of ‘cock rock’, in the
hyper-masculine sexuality of their sound, their songs and in the presentation of their actual packages, which were often practically visible
through their tight-ass bell bottoms. 1977 Creem July 50/3 I can't help but wonder if part of their popularity is due to the fact that they're
the last of an era of *cock rockers who play dirty and, if you'll excuse the expression, ‘chauvinistic’ rock 'n' roll. 2002 Independent on Sunday
10 Feb. 3/1 It's big enough to mean that..student bands don't play there and small enough to deter cock-rockers on the enormo-barn circuit.
  • It has potential for quite a bit more expansion: examples of songs, tracing the history (and demise/rebirth if such exists as the current article seems to support) of the 'genre', origins of the term if we can find it. —porges(talk) 01:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You claimed that even if it were sourced, it would be a neologism. Clearly this shows otherwise. Darquis 02:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Darquis
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Holistic Centre Group

Advertisement. Non-notable company. No Google hits. Violates WP:CORP Srikeit 01:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is being local an unallowance for inclusion, and what does one mean by non-traditional? If someone has suggestions for article amendment, please let me know...User:yabasto 23:37, 30 April 2006
There is a basic standard for inclusion of businesses in Misplaced Pages (WP:CORP). A local clinic in a small town in Surrey, whether traditional (local doctor or dentist) or otherwise, doesn't meet that standard. Fan1967 00:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Well maybe its about time that wikipedia changed it policy and understood that macrocosmic phenomena is supported purely by the microcosm below it. Sieg heil the wikipedia MacDonald supporters...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yabasto (talk • contribs)
Look around your town. How many small businesses as big as yours or bigger? Restaurants, stores, pubs, garages, realtors. At least a few dozen, maybe more. Multiply by at least 1000 to cover the rest of England, multiply again by 10 for US and Canada. Imagine all these businesses get articles. You're looking at a couple hundred thousand entries, and Misplaced Pages would become the world's largest yellow pages. Fan1967 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete —BorgHunter (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Art De Vany

Vanity article. Should be speedied Srikeit 01:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment If you think it should be speedied, just put {{db}} on the article with your reason as the parameter. Or, {{nn-bio}} in this case. Night Gyr 01:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I've tagged it for speedy and notified the uploader. Night Gyr 01:57, 30 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 00:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Matt Malley

Possible hoax. Note: the original nominator for this afd was User:83.70.64.254, but the process was never completed. Bige1977 01:14, 30 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 keep per nominator's withdrawal and other comments.. --Hetar 06:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Gargamel! (band)

Non-notable band. Probably a vanity article. Google has hits but mostly from blogs & their own site. Change to Keep after article proves its notability & adds citations Srikeit 17:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete As nominator. As above --Srikeit 17:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A Google search is not a fair indicator because the character from the Smurfs has thousands of links. This causes links from the band to appear less prominently than they would if the band had a less ambiguous name. The criteria for notability is ambiguous; the band is well-known in Florida, but perhaps not established in other regions. I have added a couple of links to articles about the band, both from established Orlando newspapers. A brief entry seems commensurate with this band's modest level of notoriety. Upon reflection, I have removed the line about the lead singer's "stage presence" to keeps things more NPOV.(Disclosure: I contributed the article. I am not actually in the band nor friends with any of the band members.) Mister Tog 02:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm going to vote keep on this. Not only did the Orlando newspaper link in the article sway me, but their website claims they were voted best metal band in the Orlando Weekly reader's poll. Media mentions fit WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It would have been nice had the article had sources to show notability before now. Hopefully more will be added soon. Darquis 03:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I added a link to a 1999 article about the Orlando Music Awards, where the band won the "Hard Rock" category. The band also received a positive review in a 2002 edition of Metal Edge magazine. However, the Metal Edge website does not include online content going back that far. A scan of the review is available here (Metal Edge Review) but I assume that posting an image of a copyrighted article would violate one rule or another.Mister Tog 04:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, sufficiently cited now; marginally notable regional band. Kuru 15:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets WP:MUSIC criteria. --Terence Ong 15:47, 30 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.

If it shouldn't be modified, shouldn't the Wiki interface be changed to prevent modifications??!

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Doc 00:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

History of Sectarianism in Scottish Football

  • Delete. No factual basis.

Initially the page was written in the first person and contained numerous debatable points, the page has since been taken over by user:TheMadTim who wants to turn the page into his platform on the issue. The page now lacks any balance and I suggest that it should be merged into Rangers, Celtic or even sectarianism. Alibabs 01:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment This discussion was in the AfD log for April 30. I have moved it to its own article. Fan1967 02:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, as nominator.Alibabs 01:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as a contributer. Firstly, I have no problem in removing the first section of the article. It's unencyclopeadic, and, frankly, rather poorly written. My own contributions, which interestingly, themselves have not been questioned, are short, all sourced, and all are pertinent to the subject matter of the article. Alibabs has alleged that my edits are partisan and sectarian. When asked to provide some sort of evidence to back up these statements, none has been given, other than that my edits make the article allegedly unbalanced. I did invite Alibabs to make amendments to the article to rectify what they perceived to be unbalanced editing, but they have chosen to list it here instead. The fact that the nominee wants to split this article over both the Celtic and Rangers articles would maybe indicate that it is not as unbalanced as originally stated. No explanation as to how my edits allegedly make the article unbalanced have been given, therefore I vote to keep. Hell, it doesn't even qualify for deletion using the criteria set out in WP:DEL --TheMadTim 01:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

EDIT : The article has been accused of being original research. In fact, the article contains 4 sentences, and 13 (thirteen) verifiable sources, for those four sentences. I'd be most interested in seeing someone quote exactly which portion of the wikipedia policy WP:OR they mean. --TheMadTim 17:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you obviously don't include the 13 sourced statements I have added as being original reserach do you? --TheMadTim 02:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Dude, you're not related to Metamagician3000 are you?--TheMadTim 02:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Dude, which parts? I've provided a source for each and every single statement in the section of the article I editied! --TheMadTim 02:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Dude, you're not related to Richardcavell are you?--TheMadTim 02:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

OK Chaps, I've checked out WP:OR (I don't know if you have) but it says, and I quote,

"What is original research?

Original research is a term used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material added to articles by Misplaced Pages editors that has not been published already by a reputable source."

Now the sources from the article nominated include the BBC, The Scotsman and The Sunday Herald. Are you saying that they are not reputable sources? --TheMadTim 02:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I assume TheMadTim's section starts with the sentence, "Examples of possibly sectarian behavour might include, for example,". This whole section reads as a discussion on what is and is not considered sectarian, and as such is Original Research. The other question I have for this user is in what way is this historical as every article seems to be under 5 years old? It also seems that you are using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox, as every source seems to be critical of Rangers and there are none which are critical of any other Scottish teams, I am not knowledgable about the subject but the article does not appear to have a NPOV, your incessant pestering of every contribution to this discussion is also quite strange. Big Jock Knew 03:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Assuming that Big Jock Knew will not take me replying to his questions as 'incessant pestering' (I assume that if you are asking questions you must want replies?) then I shall proceed. You have said that your 'other question' (I'm not sure quite what the first one was. Are you asking me which section of the article is mine, or are you enquiring about some content?) is what way is this historical? The first bit of it, which deals with history, is not my contribution, and in this version at least, not something which I am personally inclined to provide sources for. Given that I only found the page 12 hours ago, I'm not quite sure what sort of contribution you expect in that timescale, and given that it's currently 5 AM where I am, I'd actually be inclined to think that I had done rather a good job in improving a rather shabby article. Perhaps you think I should have this article ready for listing on the main page a few hours after first seeing it? It seems to you that I 'seem' to be doing a lot of things. I'll thank you to keep your argument based around the contributions I have made, and not to formulate and foster opinion as to any suspected ulterior motives without very good reason. WP:AGF ? Oh, and which parts of the text read like a discussion? Quotes please. --TheMadTim 04:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (possibly merge) Aside from the disjointed, inconclusive nature of the article, there is very little here that couldn't be included in Sectarianism or Scottish Football (if it's merited within either), and certainly nothing worthy of it's own individual article. Darquis 07:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The article as it stands is worse than useless, and clearly a single user's hobbyhorse currently. But some information about this would be notable. I dont think it should be linked to Scottish Football or sectarianism - too specific. And not to Rangers, Celtic, or Hearts or Hibs for that matter - too general. But I think some information on the historical associations of particular clubs with particular sects/ethnicities is definitely notable. If nothing else, it would have made all the references in Ian Rankin's last but one a bit clearer. So leave it in, and someone will clean it up soon enough. (Also, I seem to remember there was an American Political Science Review article some years ago that dealt with this stuff. So another blow for notability there.)Hornplease 09:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:NOR: "I personally believe that the fact of having separate schools for Catholics is one of the biggest factor's...". If an editor wants an article under the same title and under the form described by Hornplease, they can recreate one later. It's not likely to get a substantial rewrite in its current form. --BillC 09:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless the many citations required can be fulfilled. The opening paragraph (if one can call it that) is also a virtual non-sequiter to the article. I would also suggest that it would be nigh-on impossible to clean-up this article so that it met WP:NPOV Ac@osr 09:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- An encyclopedia might well have a good article with this title. This isn't it. -- GWO
  • Delete for being original research Tuf-Kat 15:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 15:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. KarateKid7 17:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • To clarify for anyone that needs it: This article is original research because it comes to conclusions that aren't supported by the external links. You've combined a bunch of news reports of sectarian behavior and come to the conclusion that this constitutes a "history of sectarianism in Scottish football", a conclusion unsupported by any of the links, AFAICT. Tuf-Kat 17:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Dude, I haven't concluded anything. I've presented a series of sourced and verified examples of sectarian behavour involving Scottish football. I've not once made reference to any conclusion, as far as I can tell. Maybe you know differently? --TheMadTim 22:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is poor, but it's not OR as it's referenced (please!). It has the potential to be a fascinating article if it's done properly, which hopefully it will, when existing or additional editors get to grips with it. Tyrenius 05:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. If I wrote an article entitled, say, The Great Pyramid of Giza was built by time-traveling Furbies, I could cite a dozen books telling where the Pyramid is and what it is made of. I could provide a score of webpages about Furby anatomy, and I could cite something by Stephen Hawking to show that at least a few physicists think time travel may be possible. It's still original research (crackpot at that), and it's still not an encyclopedia article. Anville 10:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: this article, while badly-written, has merit. It certainly does not constitute Original Research: unlike The Great Pyramid of Giza was built by time-travelling Furbies, sectarianism in Scottish football is a well-documented and dangerous phenomenon which has damaged many people in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I hope that editors (I am not qualified, alas) expand this article to make others aware of the problem. --die Baumfabrik 20:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Alibabs, the original nominator, is a sock puppet of the permabanned Karatekid7. KarateKid7 is also a sockpuppet of permabanned Karatekid7.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Doc 00:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Air_Disasters_Picture_Gallery

only images, and a duplicate of a section of 'Accidents and incidents in aviation' Marminnetje 15:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this was ever properly listed, relisting for consensus. Night Gyr 01:48, 30 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 00:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Facty

Originally prodded as neologism, dictdef - that was disputed and there's some discussion on the article talk page. It was left as a candidate for Wiktionary but that hasn't happened in a month and I don't think it's suitable anyway.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Doc 00:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Waterhead

Delete - Dicdef of term that "has not yet found its way into accepted dictionaries". Does not seem to be a term that people use or have used. Wickethewok 02:22, 30 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 06:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

North Star Academy

Delete - no useful information of any kind. Wickethewok 02:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Keep - per being an actual article now instead of "NORTH STAR ACADEMY LOL!L!!" or whatever it is before. Wickethewok 20:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I have redirected the misspelled entry. I didn't see anything there worth keeping, but you can check the history and see if there's anything there you'd like to add to this one. Fan1967 19:33, 30 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 18:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Simpsons Upcoming Episodes (NZ)

Misplaced Pages is not TV Guide Darquis 02:27, 30 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 19:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Streetlight effect

Delete - Looks like original research/pseudo-science. Wickethewok 02:30, 30 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 06:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Trickery.net

nn website, alexa ranking of 661,736, only 190 unique Google hits - . User:Zoe| 02:33, 30 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}}.
Comment You misused the test. Zoe's search said "start=180" but came up with nothing past 129. Your test said "start=130" and came up with 130-140, but there are plenty more. Fan1967 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
No so. Try doing Zoe's test, then simply type "Microsoft" over top the text. In both cases the number of "non-similiar" results was well under 200 (provided quotation marks are used). In both cases the actual number of "raw" results was well in excess of the number that Google will allow you to display. The purpose of my point, is that the test fails to reflect the true number of "unique" results. Yes, of course, I know there are more results for Microsoft, then that small number. My point was to show the flaw of the test given by Zoe. No matter how you do the test, Google will never display more then a thousand results. The "non-similiar results" (what Zoe called "unique") is a subset of the first thousand results. For searches with over a thousand "raw" hits, this figure is wortheless. --Rob 22:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Added: Feel free to re-do the test from scratch. Go to Google. Search for "Microsoft" (be sure to include quotes). Now, proceed to the very last page of results. When you get there, you'll see you get the same figure I did. --Rob 22:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I did just as you said and got far more hits than you claim you got. And even if I did, your comments don't address the notability of trickery.net User:Zoe| 00:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
How many "unique" hits did you get for "Microsoft"? As we know, they likley have over a billion pages in Google. However, the "unique" figure (which is what you're using) is guarenteed to be under one thousand. My point is that this figure grossly under-represents what's actually out there. Also, if my comments don't address notability, then how did your original comments about google do so? --Rob 00:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. --Srikeit 00:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN by the Alexa ranking --Deville (Talk) 02:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment subject of this article is of similar notability as this. Currently this article is lacking in some detail, but it is still young and I am sure will be filled out. Internet search engines are not omniscient - despite how you may act as typical Misplaced Pages power-trippers, you are not experts on this subject; as such you are obviously not aware that this "entity" has gone under several names in its time and so a simple google or alexa search using a single keyword is utterly pointless - for example did you google searches find this or this or this or this or this or this? Thats just a few examples from notable international websites, there are lots more outthere. With time this article will be filled out with more detail.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattd (talk • contribs)
"despite how you may act as typical Misplaced Pages power-trippers" — please be civil. Attacking others who comment here is not going to raise the chances of this article's survival by a smidgen. "you are obviously not aware that this "entity" has gone under several names in its time" — we cannot just take your word for it. None of the links you've provided mention trickery.net or what it was renamed from/to... is this some sort of trickery on your part? Kimchi.sg 15:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Again the point is missed! "trickery.net" is what this "entity" is called now - it has had previous names in the past (e.g. "BY Games"), this is why just searching in google is a pretty poor way to decide if something is important or not. Maybe, just maybe, if you dont delete the article other users will be able update the article to show its complete history...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattd (talk • contribs)
The article is still editable during this discussion, you can go add in any information that might help save it from deletion. The only thing you can't edit away is the deletion notice at the top of the page — removing that is a blockable offence. Kimchi.sg 16:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
"None of the links you've provided mention trickery.net or what it was renamed from/to... is this some sort of trickery on your part?" http://itvibe.com/news/1025/— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.73.94 (talk • contribs)
Based on information right from this very link, bygames and trickery.net are 2 totally unrelated entities. Sure, trickery.net was founded as a direct result of bygames' closure, but since "bygames, the Internet Gaming Service Provider (GSP) has today closed its doors", how can it be currently closed (which implies it is non-functioning) and at the same time be operating as trickery.net? Kimchi.sg 16:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Well one could say "The" Nazi party (think Hitler) is officially no more, yet there are still Nazi groups operating. Anyway go ahead and delete it if you want - if you do I feel that you are undermining the very ethos of wikipedia by deciding about what should be said (or not) about things you know next to nothing about, instead of letting those that do know about it provide the information, but that appears to be "the wikipedia way" these days - its a shame its come to this really.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattd (talk • contribs)
Comment - I think that earns the article an automatic delete per Godwin's Law :) -- Hirudo 17:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, clearly fails WP:WEB. ergot 16:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kimchi. -- ReyBrujo 17:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete immediately after this discussion is over. --Slgrandson 03:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would ask regular Wikipedians to hold fire until some of the more notable members of the Wireplay/ByGames/Trickery community have had a chance to update and expand upon the entry, trickery is indeed only a single community but its formation and community history is a tale of the Dot Com era and the rise and fall of notable GSP's, please do not consider the entry upon the merits of trickery.net alone but on the whole tale (yet to be represented) of its formation and history.. Thank you. Burundi.
    • The discussion lasts five days. But you're going to need to come up with something besides Since its 2003 launch, trickery.net has grown significantly to aprroximately 2,500 users to let us know what makes this website notable. User:Zoe| 02:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also, what's the tag for the anon warning again? just for future ref. M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Obvious keep per nom's withdrawal and other comments.. --Hetar 07:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The Manitowoc Company

Delete - ad placed here by company employee. Prod removed without explanation. Wickethewok 02:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Change to keep - now presented with actual info, instead of "leading manufacturer of blahblahblah..." i go with keep. Wickethewok 04:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Deletion is just a form of Misplaced Pages clean-up. It isn't meant as retribution. Can you give some evidence the company is notable? Read WP:CORP for guidelines. --Ginkgo100 03:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe this meets WP:CORP. It's a notable manufacturer listed on significant financial indices and news stories are written when they file their quarterly reports: . Side note: A restaurant I worked in had two Manitowoc ice machines. They broke down constantly. I'm sure the other stuff they make is great . . . ScottW 04:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep 8,000 full-time employees, publicly traded, company more than 150 years old, revenue into the billions... need I go on? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:08, 30 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 18:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Simpsons Upcoming Episodes (England)

Misplaced Pages is not a TV Guide Darquis 02:44, 30 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 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Simpsons Upcoming Episodes (Australia)

This article attempts to provide airtimes and descriptions for The Simpsons episodes airing this week. Misplaced Pages is not a TV guide. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Simpsons Upcoming Episodes (USA). Delete. --Metropolitan90 02:46, 30 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 17:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Simpsons Upcoming Episodes

Misplaced Pages is not a TV Guide Darquis 02:47, 30 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 06:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Afro-denial

since when did Urban Dictionary become part of Misplaced Pages? nn, neo, etc. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Damn! - Richardcavell 03:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry — you mentioned the word; you didn't use it. Metamagician3000 04:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
You knew the AfD wasn't going to go through without someone using it, didn't you? Fan1967 19:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn neologism. MCB 04:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Ioannes Pragensis 06:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Urban dicitionary is meant to be humorous, not factual. Tobyk777 06:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep every single one of you has mentioned that wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that continues to be true for Afro-denial. It only explains two versions of what the term refers to. I defy you to say that Misplaced Pages does not include articles that list definitions of words as a single entry. For instance, a search of the word "entrance" on wikipedia listed 5 different definitions of the word rather than what I expected; a thorough explanation of different types of entrances (this same feat of wikipedia defining words can be repeated with the word "pop". As to the intent of Urban Dictionary, if it is truly meant ot humorous, perhaps Tobyk777 would like to explain why it is included standard under quick searches (along with Misplaced Pages, Google, and Dictionary.com) in the Mozilla Firefox bookmarks. However, I will promptly change my voting stance should someone formulate a reasonable idea as to why this stub should be deleted. TheMadjester (note: I do realize that as the article's originator I do have a notable amount of bias, however, I still feel none of you have given practical reasons for deletion and are hiding behind the "definition" arguement. Anyone willing to fight this on the category of "racist" be prepared to both be confronted with the actual scientific lack of race and justification of it being non-racist)— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMadjester (talk • contribs)
  • Comment "Something else on Misplaced Pages does it, therefore, it's ok for this to do so as well" isn't a valid argument for inclusion. Rather, it's an argument to improve those other pages. Further, regardless of the intent of Urban Dictionary (by the by, inclusion in Firefox isn't relevant (not that it seems to be included in the version I'm using)) it's in some form, as the name implies, a dictionary. The article itself is little more than a dicdef, and citing a dictionary as a source for a dictionary style entry isn't appropriate (as I understand it). Further, it's a non notable neologism (as the nominator said). It was used once, in a recent Boondocks. Maybe if the word catches on down the line, it will be worth having. Further, the external link to "Afro-Denial" has nothing to do with the article's sujbect matter, and in fact only has that hyphenated word in common (and at that, only once within the whole article linked to). Darquis 21:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Rebuttal As to whether lead by example is or is not valid: If this article is subsequently deleted on the basis that it is the same as others, then I expect those articles to be nominated for deletion as well, on the basis that those articles break the same lines of conformity as Afro-denial allegedly does. Perhaps I haven't read my wikiguides thoroughly enough, but it seems to me that someone citing webster's in an article would probably be accepted, people (specifically, the voters for Deletion) doubt the validity of Urban Dictionary on the basis that their definitions come from the same place our articles do: ourselves. As to whether or not Afro-denial is used enough, I've seen it used in a number of news articles citing it in use as a symbol of African-American attempts to conform to white society pressures (a search of google should make that apparent). The second link and through that, the second explanation of the term, is important not for the number of times that the word "Afro-denial" is used throughout (a shallow way to prove the invalidity of something, I might add), but important because in the Pallo Jordan's speech, he uses Afro-denial as the denial of things African, of African importance. You say Firefox inclusion isn't important, but as a multinational corporation with a very popular usage, it is able to reach a number of people, lending credibility to things it supports (for instance: Misplaced Pages). To get Deny Afro-Denial is to become Hypocrites in effect, and this you must not do! TheMadjester
Comment You are treating this as if this is a debate on the "validity" or value of the term. It is not. It is about whether it is notable. It does not appear so, as it does not seem to be a commonly used term (I get a total of 159 hits on google), and therefore fails the Misplaced Pages policy on neologisms. Fan1967 22:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment No I am treating this as a debate on the validity of the accusation of whether or not it is notable for wikipedia. I am saying it is. TheMadjester
Comment I think the following lines from the policy are relevant: (1) Protologisms are neologisms that have not yet caught on widely. (2) Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Misplaced Pages to increase usage of the term. If the word were in widespread use, this would be a different discussion, but it isn't. Fan1967 03:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 20:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

VPHybridCAD

Was deprodded, so here we are. Non-notable product by Softelec, the article for which was already deleted . Delete. BryanG 02:49, 30 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 06:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Outcast Bandicoot, Crystal Bandicoot

Delete - non-notable fanfic and character from that fanfic. Wickethewok 02:56, 30 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 01:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Galaxy Army Navy Store

I do not believe this meets the notability requirements for a company as per WP:CORP and Articles for deletion/Precedents (companies). Though not necessarily relevant, the store's URLs http://www.galaxyarmynavy.com/ and http://www.wholesalearmynavy.com/ have respective Alexa rankings of 506,587 and 1,360,048 (Misplaced Pages:Search engine test). CopperMurdoch 03:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment Just because the Galaxy Army Navy Store is related to other businesses that may be notable does necessarily make it notable. WP:WEB is irrelevant because it deals specifically with web-based content. Note 7 asserts that simply because content is hosted on a well-known site (specifically sites that allow anyone to upload content) does not qualify the content as notable. As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with this situation. I and others had suspected this article was a case of self-promotion and now you have said as much. This contrary to section 1.4 of Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not. -- CopperMurdoch 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I never said this page was a case of advertisement, I said it was a case of self-promotion. Further, I've already explained why I think the other sources you've cited aren't significant to the discussion. I'm sorry that you feel this is a personal attack, but personal attacks are by definition against a user, not a page. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. I’m not trying to be rude, but I get the feeling that you are not reading these policies before you refer to them. Referring to policies and citing sources will not affect my view unless they are relevant to the discussion. -- CopperMurdoch 09:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:WEB. Note to sambousak: a personal attack is necessarily against a person. Nobody has made any personal attacks. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment based on what has been submitted from other sources this is a personal attack against this page specifically, no form of advertisement is being made http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, if you decide to delete the page i would like all the others i have submitted be done the same than no bias actions will be acted upon as being done now -- sambousak
    • Comment sambousak, again I'm not trying to start a conflict, but it seems as if you are not reading the comments we've left, nevermind the policies themselves. To quote what Stifle, an admin, left above: "a personal attack is necessarily against a person". -- CopperMurdoch 10:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Again, there is no personal attack being made here. However, if you wish to nominate other articles for deletion, feel free to do so. See Misplaced Pages:Deletion process for further information. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

EPCST

This article is a list of students who go to a high school. An article about a high school could be acceptable, but this article doesn't even mention what "EPCST" stands for. Needs a complete rewrite and a new title. IceCreamAntisocial 03:22, 30 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 - about 66% believe that this content should be somewhere, but several of those assertions are weak, and there is no consensus at all whether to keep or merge. --Sam Blanning 19:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Seaton Hall

Delete - non-notable campus building. Campuscruft. Wickethewok 03:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User has 17 edits, all made within the last 24 hours. Kimchi.sg 09:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Response Yes, but just because those pages have their own articles here on Wiki isn't a justification for this one to have it's own as well. Each page should be looked at on it's own merits. Darquis 07:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There seems to be plenty of precedent for buildings like this to be considered notable. Metamagician3000 04:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Several other buildings of the Kansas State University have articles. I don't know if there's a precedent for keeping all college buildings, or only the most notable ones (i.e. those on the National Register of Historic Places or those of particular importance to the university). In the absence of any real strong reason to delete it, though, I don't think it's hurting anything. --Elkman - 05:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Response A quick Google search of Seaton Hall puts the top 2 results as sites that show pictures or talk about this building and its uses. (discounting the Seton Hall University which is an alternate spelling) User:Googletree 05:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Response That's hardly valid logic. If you google my Wiki user name, I show up 3 times in the top 10 results. My own ego aside, that doesn't make me notable. Darquis 08:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Note I have removed some copyvio from the article. Might want to check the other building articles for same. —porges(talk) 06:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The article fails to state how this building is special. ("In 1999 the East wing underwent major renovations... Ebert Mayo Design Group was responsible for the plans. This phase cost $4.1 Million" doesn't really count, since many buildings get upgraded with time.) And lastly, the article seems to focus more on the College of Architecture, Planning, and Design that occupies the building than the building itself. Merge information on College of Architecture, Planning, and Design into main Kansas State University article and then Demolish the article. Me runs off to start article on Nanyang Technological University Hall of Residence 12 hoping it will escape AfD... Kimchi.sg 08:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: removing merge suggestion, there is nothing on the other colleges in the main KSU article and I don't think there's enough material in this one to warrant an exception. Kimchi.sg 09:32, 30 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 to The Southport School, if any more content is needed in that article, follow the redirect back and look in the history. --Sam Blanning 19:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Old Southportonians Association

nn alumni association. A couple of sentences in the school article are sufficient. User:Zoe| 03:42, 30 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 07:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Eliza Osgood Vanderbilt

nn wife and daughter. User:Zoe| 03:54, 30 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 20:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sharting and Shart

"Shart" has been deleted 3 times already --awh (Talk) 03:53, 30 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 keep. Kimchi.sg 08:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest

waste of server resources to list each and every one of these things, unless we're going to make an article every single time a bunch of non-notable people get together in one place--ChaplineRVine 04:06, 30 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. --Sam Blanning 19:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hunter × Hunter story arcs

the content on this page has been put back into the Hunter x Hunter main article. The main article previously had nothing on the plot, i was going to just write a brief plot summary for the main article. However, the plot summary on this page was brief enough after the redundant character-information bits where removed (hxh now has a separate page for characters). Since all the information on this page is now a part of the hxh main page, this page is redundant. Unless someone decides to write a much more detiled plot summary, i can't see any reason why we need to keep a separate story arcs page for hxh. Yaksha 04:13, 30 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.