Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Log 9

This article is completely unsourced, and Google brings up no hits aside from MySpace TheWolf 23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: QD'd per WP:QD#G4, see Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Log 9#Ben Williams for earlier discussion.-- Lights talk 00:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros. Brawl: 2008 Leak

Super Smash Bros. Brawl: 2008 Leak (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This is about an intelligence leak. Should it be deleted or moved to Wikinews instead? Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 09:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exterminate, it's really not all that important. This info could be sourced and added in an appropriate places in the true Super Smash Bros. Brawl article. ^{Every atom...} The Wolf _{...and I divide it} 03:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough, not sourced. - Huji ^reply 06:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously, all of the information has been leaking since last December. Not notable at all either. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 06:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not notable, but perhaps Wikinews is an option. However, Snake said it's been ongoing, so maybe not. нмŵוτн τ 05:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Might be worthy of a mention in an article on the game itself, but not worth an article of its own. --Bärl iner 11:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worth its own article. Razor flame 15:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article at best, Delete at worst. No reason to keep as is. -- Creol(talk) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, unsourced.-- Lights talk 00:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resutlt: delete Oysterguitarist 00:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National College Comedy Festival

National College Comedy Festival (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article does not have notability. The article is written like an advertisement, it has no English Wikipedia article, and it only got 309 hits on Google. Also, it makes me ask the question, "What is this? I've never heard of this before in my life. Because of all of these reasons, I have put it up for deleteion. Razor flame 21:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claims of notability. нмŵוτн τ 01:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable.-- Lights talk 01:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to be a two day event held annually at Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs New York, and uses the college website. If the "festival" organisers cannot be bothered advertising the event, should we? Not notable --Bärl iner 12:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this was kept, then there should be an article on the Raffles Communtiy Leaders Forum (in my country) on Wikipedia too! Delete. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 12:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Number of hits is incorrect. I did it and i got 203,000 hits on Google.-- C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 19:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: - Which I could see why you got what you did since Razorflame added the Quotation marks on the search.-- C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How do you know that every single page that you got from the search pertained to the page that has been created? If you don't include the quotation marks in the search, it will search for every instance of every individual word that was put into the search box. Razor flame 20:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Quit fighting and face the truth. I'm right your wrong.-- C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 01:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exterminate, got only 372 hits with quotation marks. ^{Every atom...} The Wolf _{...and I divide it} 03:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: - what the heck...don't use the quotation marks...you'll only get hit that include those then.-- C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 03:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability. - Huji ^reply 06:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 06:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: delete Oysterguitarist 01:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the year stubs created by Durova and W7bot, and categories created by Razorflame

721, 722, et al. See [1] for a complete list.

I think that these constitute pages without any content, or as a page that provides (literally) no context. I hesitate to QD them all because of the sheer volume so I thought I would see what the community thinks. - BrownE34 talk contribs 16:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep them as they serve as skeletons to which we can add information to as we see fit. However, I do have to say that I did not like the fact that they were created without the community's approval beforehand. Razor flame 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should not be creating pages in anticipation of anything. And don't take this personally, but it goes unsaid that all the categories you just created would be deleted if the years get deleted. - BrownE34 talk contribs 16:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, as Tygrrr has already said something about that on my talk page. I have to agree with Browne34 on this. We should not be creating pages in anticipation of anything. Razor flame 16:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to the request to say that all of the categories that I just created also be deleted if all the year pages that were created get deleted. Razor flame 16:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone like me to start tagging them all for deletion? Razor flame 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't necessary. · Ty grrr... 16:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion about this on Simple talk too, btw. I think these should be deleted. No content. · Ty grrr... 16:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should postpone this decision until we reach an agreement about what to do on the Simple talk as a community. Razor flame 16:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No decision was going to be made until community consensus was reached. That's why I made a request for deletion, so that it can be discussed. - BrownE34 talk contribs 16:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted · Ty grrr... 16:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blak Tornado

Doesn't seem to be notable, only 3,490 Google hits, and no article about this person at enWP.-- Lights talk 15:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QD'd A4, by me. Oysterguitarist 17:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nobelprize

Template:Nobelprize (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Lazy and not needed. People can just type. C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 03:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is being used by almost every nobel prize winner on the Simple English Wikipedia. I see no reason why this should be deleted. Razor flame 04:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Provides a fast visual marker. And of course the whole point about templates is to save repetitive typing. It would also be interesting to know whether this user decided to RFD this template before or after I reverted his changes---Bärl iner 10:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - found on 50+ articles, why delete it? --Gwib^-(talk)- 10:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Used on many articles, and saves time typing. No reason to delete it.-- Lights talk 15:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - there is use a template to save time Like {{delete}} and there is being lazy like this one. Just cause it's used doesn't make it right.-- C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say it's sloppy & the image could go, but the general idea for a template like this is a good idea. нмŵוτн τ 01:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: - If something like what the person above me said became of the template, I would agree to the it.-- C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 07:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have moved the documentation to a seperate page, I assume this is what hmwith meant by "Sloppy", although the look of the template page did not, of course, make any difference to the operation of the template and its method of assigning to categories. I also took the opportunity to explain that the template can handle two prize cats, even though only there is only one instance where this is needed. --Bärl iner 11:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Same reasons as above. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 11:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've always thought the pic is on the large side though. I'm sure 75px was chosen so that "Nobel prize winner" can be read. But maybe we could make it smaller or even do something like this --> . Is it possible to add a message like "This person is a Nobel prize winner" when you hover on the pic? · Ty grrr... 20:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - I sized it down and they reverted it.-- C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 20:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - Huji ^reply 08:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: keep Oysterguitarist 00:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Deggs

This actress got only 2,560 hits on Google when I typed in just Dana Deggs, but when I had it search for all articles about Dana Deggs the actor, it only got 56 hits This justifies that this actress is not notable. The article in question also does not have an English Wikipedia page. Razor flame 20:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability. Birds Army Talk 23:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her acting credits appear to be "Angry girl #1" from a single episode of a television series and a breif appearance at a casting for a reality series.. Two bit/extras parts is hardly grounds for notability. -- Creol(talk) 00:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...Aurora... (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable.-- Lights talk 14:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable according to the IMDB page. - Huji ^reply 20:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Creol said it well... a few minor roles (if you'd even consider them "roles") does not mean she's notable. нмŵוτн τ 00:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. --Gwib^-(talk)- 10:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I added the imdb etc link to the article in the vain hope that something else might be known. Sadly no, and wikipedia does not exist to list everyone with an "acting" credit.Bärl iner

Result: delete. Oysterguitarist 22:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islands of Egypt

Category:Islands of Egypt (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Empty category Birds Army Talk 21:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Gwib^-(talk)- 22:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gutviga

Gutviga (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article has notability issues. I have never heard of this book before, and based on this google search, it only got 264 hits. Even though it has an English Wikipedia article, this is definitely not notable. Razor flame 16:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's got to be a better argument than "I've never heard of it" to assert that something is not notable or encyclopedic. Blockinblox - talk 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While not a fan of googletesting to support notability, the fact that essencially every google hit on the topic with as wide of a search as possible shows that the only reason the book is mentioned is because it is included in the "History of Witchcraft" article on en:wp that got mirrored all over the place. There seem to be no sources of information on the topic that are not wiki-spawned. -- Creol(talk) 00:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...Aurora... (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- Lights talk 14:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Bärl iner 16:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it is notable, the article, itself, does not assert it. нмŵוτн τ 00:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 04:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. --Gwib^-(talk)- 10:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Result - deleted. --Gwib^-(talk)- 18:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Williams

Ben Williams (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Notability. Apparently not worth keeping. --Bärl iner 18:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This google search came up with over 3.8 million hits. It also has an English Wikipedia page on the topic. These two factors makes it notable in my mind. It obviously needs to be rewritten, which is why I put my vote as weak keep. Razor flame 20:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 3.8 million google hits include "Treatment Options for Glioblastomas", asset management etc,etc. How many for this person? --Bärl iner 23:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does the 3.8 million hits count every page listing a person named Ben Williams, but that search would call up any page with Ben and Williams on the same page. As to the en:wp page, that is for another Ben Williams (the English goalkeeper, not the North Wales musician). -- Creol(talk) 01:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet any of the conditions for notability listed here. -- Creol(talk) 01:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Comment My mistake. I thought that it was for the goalkeeper. Razor flame 02:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. нмŵוτн τ 19:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...Aurora... (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted.-- Lights talk 14:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling

Wrestling (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

It is an obvious copy-paste from the english wikipedia. Kiamnomch - talk 19:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: although this page may be marked for deletion, if anone is willing to simplify it the please do so and notify me on this page. --Kiamnomch - talk 19:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As an en: copy/paste, the article falls under the group result for prior en: copy/pastes (result: tag, pause to see if anyone is going to clean it up, delete). It has been changed from {{RfD}} to {{encopypaste}} and will be give a few days to see if anyone wants to clean it up before it is deleted. RfD is not needed as it automatically fails. -- Creol(talk) 19:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll simplify it. нмŵוτн τ 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Result was: Changed from an RfD to an encopypaste. It was later deleted. Razor flame 23:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The king and the god

Provides no context. Maybe a translation of comparison of random paragraphs, or paragraphs of the same text. No definition of "god" or "the King"--Bärl iner 12:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I added missing context recently from English article, thus Bärliner's original reason for delete ceased to exist totally. There exists English, Latin and Polish versions of article. Please rather improve article than simply delete it, using current text as initial base. This "The king and the god" article is a translation of Sanskrit text original into Proto-Indo-European, and parallels "Schleicher's fable". It is one of two PIE sample texts listed here. Both texts has rougly the same notability. I recently radically reworded both article texts in such way, that they are no longer direct copies of English wiki, thus they no longer must be deleted, because I too added missing definitions of "god" and "the King", as cited from Bärliner's vote. I now made article as Simple English as possible, according to Majorly hints, and added context according to Tygrrr hints. CBMIBM (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I think the problem here is the article doesn't say why the writing is important. What it is? Where is it used and by whom? That is the "context" that is missing. It may be possible to fix the context issue, but it has not yet been fixed. · Ty grrr... 17:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Article now says already why it is important, what it is and where it is used and by whom. Thus context exists now already and original reason for deleting it is now totally null and void. CBMIBM (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This user obviously cares a fair amount about weather or not this page is deleted. So, I say give him a week or so to edit it and change it from the enwiki article which it is C&P'd from. If he doesn't, then I say delete it. IuseRosary ^(talk) 20:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This article is entirely copied from English Wikipedia. It does not seem to be significant as well. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 12:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC) No comment. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 13:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Comment. If a few more users support the article to be kept, then let it be, otherwise delete it. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 07:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete At least this article has an English Wikipedia page :) Agreed per nomination. I asked myself what the heck is this article about many times over when I read this article. Razor flame 14:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above points. Majorly (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no point in having an article completely copied. If there's no simple English version, they can just see this one at enwiki. нмŵוτн τ 20:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Terry 20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. SwirlBoy39 (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exterminate Per above, and per it being rather nonsensical and extremely difficult to read. The Wolf ^Bark 18:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Delete -- Creol(talk) 23:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schleicher's fable

Schleicher's fable (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Provides no context. See the request below for more information. Razor flame 17:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I added missing context recently from English article, thus Razorflame's original reason for delete ceased to exist totally. There exists English, Indonesian, Latin and Polish versions of article. Please rather improve article than simply delete it, using current text as initial base. This "Schleicher's fable" article is a sample of Proto-Indo-European language, and parallels "The king and the god". It is one of two PIE sample texts listed here. Both texts has rougly the same notability. I recently radically reworded both article texts in such way, that they are no longer direct copies of English wiki, thus they no longer must be deleted. I now made article as Simple English as possible, according to Majorly hints, and added context according to Tygrrr hints. CBMIBM (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This article has more latin in it than english. This is an English website, there is a sperate website for latin. Terry ^(talk) 18:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not latin, this is Proto-Indo-European itself, that is very similar both to latin and greek. CBMIBM (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whatever it is, it is not english. Terry ^{(talk) - (changes)} 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This PIE text and its variants must be displayed, because it is essence of this article, described in Simple English on the same page. CBMIBM (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does not provide context either (which is why it was nominated). If you translate all of the text, or at least explain what it says, I'll change my vote. Terry ^{(talk) - (changes)} 11:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Full explanation is in "English Translation" section. Rest of non-English PIE texts are variants dependent on various PIE hypotheses, with the same meaning as that present in "English Translation" section. CBMIBM (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Bärl iner 18:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How much of this article is even English? нмŵוτн τ 00:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Full explanation is in "English Translation" section. Rest of non-English PIE texts are variants dependent on various PIE hypotheses, with the same meaning as that present in "English Translation" section. CBMIBM (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to say delete. This is Simple English Wikipedia, I am somebody who has an advanced understanding of English Language and I barely understand what this article is about!

Result: Delete Oysterguitarist 02:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mental problems

Template:Mental problems (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Overlong and complex. Probably better suited to being a list of conditions, rather than a template. Only used on 10 articles. Brought from ENWP by Benniguy--Bärl iner 15:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Repurpose I agree with this as per the nomination, however, I think that this could probably be repurposed to make it be a better fit for the community. Razor flame 15:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Razorflame. - Huji ^reply 16:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- Lights talk 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have a mental problem. These are definently worth keeping.-- C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 04:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does you having mental problems relate to keeping the template? Oysterguitarist 13:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cause I know from personal experience that serious they can be. I ended up in a mental ward when I was 12.-- C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 21:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That still does not explain why the template should be kept --Bärl iner 22:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cause they are all notable enough and related that's why.-- C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 03:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but copy it from en again when there are more of these articles. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 11:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why to copy it? We can create one when we need one! - Huji ^reply 08:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, horribly long and bloated with unsightly red links. We can build our own template, and expand it as more articles on mental disorders are created. I am in favour of a template regarding this topic, but not if it's mostly discouraging and uninformative red links. TheWolf 15:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: delete Oysterguitarist 04:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Result

Template:Result (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

not needed, creates extra work for minimal advantage to the community as closed discussions on RFD/RFA are archived very soon after closure to a page which should not be changed therefore a "do not change" template is duplication --Bärl iner 11:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - The template can be changed into a header to be placed on the top of archives. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 12:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not needed. Oysterguitarist 14:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed as per Oyster. Razor flame 15:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Archive headers can be handled without a template too. - Huji ^reply 16:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per my response at WP:AN.-- C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think "creates extra work for minimal advantage" sums it up. · Ty grrr... 21:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.-- Lights talk 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Fine don't use it for RFD's but there are things it's useful for.-- C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 00:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's un-needed. Chenzw's suggestion of transforming it into a header is a good one, though. TheWolf 15:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: delete Oysterguitarist 04:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black bread mold

Black bread mold (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

No notability, reads like an essay, and brings up no Google hits TheWolf 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Quick deleted as non-notable user-written essay in the main namespace - Huji ^reply 20:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not deleted. It must have been recreated? нмŵוτн τ 05:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it was quick deleted then recreated. Oysterguitarist 05:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question So is it going to be deleted again? Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 05:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it does not meet criteria for quick deletion. Oysterguitarist 05:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - To be more accurate: it doesn't meet the criteria of quick deletion any more. - Huji ^reply 08:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Item QD'd. Moved to archive to prevent discussion of a new article which has not been RfD'd--Bärl iner 11:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

IM language

IM language (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Can be found at List of Internet slang words Terry ^{(talk) - (changes)} 23:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Drama queen solved the problem as I was planning to: she changed it to a redirect to List of Internet slang words. Viola! нмŵוτн τ 00:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Xhaferr Xhaferri‎

Bilal Xhaferr Xhaferri‎ (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Bilal Xhaferri (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Notability, only got 168 hits on Google. Possible spam. Razor flame 14:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. With this search, I get a lot more results than what you said, which includes some pages from other Wikipedias. Apparanetly, deletion of the page is also being considered on those Wikipedias. I'm not an expert of the topic but I don't think the articl "asserts" its subject's notability. - Huji ^reply 21:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't get why a Google search maters when it come to notability.-- Chri stia nMan16 03:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I agree with Huji that the article doesn't assert the notability, even if the topic is mildly notable. нмŵוτн τ 20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above. Is not notable. (Terry) 20:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Delete. Oysterguitarist 02:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krahu i shqiponjës

Krahu i shqiponjës (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Notability, only got 292 hits on Google. Razor flame 14:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but still Google search matters why?-- Chri stia nMan16 03:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:If something gets a higher amount of hits on Google, that means more people know about it. The less the number of hits on Google, the less known something is. Razor flame 14:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ChristianMan, check out WP:GOOGLE (on enwiki) for an elaborate explanation. нмŵוτн τ 20:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't assert its notability. нмŵוτн τ 20:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability. (Terry) 20:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Delete. Oysterguitarist 02:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchopedia

Anarchopedia (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Possible advertising, notability, grammar issues, if kept, would need a major rewrite. Razor flame 17:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable website, bordering on spam Whitstable 19:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 57,000 hits and I'd be happy to do the re-write. --Gwib^-(talk)- 19:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable per gwib, grammar is a reason to improve, not delete. --Bärl iner 19:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a serious comment (although sorry if it seems a bit of a "point proving" exercise), the amateur pornographic website "Wifey's World" gets 190,000 Google hits, so would that make the website notable? It would also be possible to find several real-world press stories about Wifey's World, too. Whitstable 19:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the title of an article gets a large number of google hits, then it means that people would generally know of it's existence. Therefore we should try to provide them with an article on it. Just because some less savory websites get lots of hits doesn't make them any less notable or arcane to us. --Gwib^-(talk)- 06:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have made the page..i know there are errors on the page,but my english is not soo good. I hope you don't see it like spam,there are articles about Anarchopedia on others wikipedia,and if one wants to fix the page that i've created,i will be happy.User talk:Italy90
Keep per above.--Yegoyan (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It just needs some work, but it's a good article topic. нмŵוτн τ 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I also withdraw this request. Razor flame 23:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: withdrawn. Oysterguitarist 03:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beaches

Blind Beach (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Jenner Beach (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Goat Beach (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Doesn't have an en:WP page and possible notability issues. Razor flame 20:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added Jenner Beach and Goat Beach for the same reasons as Blind Beach. Razor flame 15:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - popular tourist attractions. --Gwib^-(talk)- 21:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. Goat Beach does have an en.wiki page under w:Goat Rock Beach. --Gwib^-(talk)- 21:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gwib. - Huji ^reply 21:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They certainly seem notable. If en.wiki doesn't have article on all of them, maybe it should. нмŵוτн τ 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I withdraw this request. Razor flame 23:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: withdrawn. Oysterguitarist 03:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates FA, NA, Start, Stub -Class

Template:FA-Class (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Template:NA-Class (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Template:Start-Class (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Template:Stub-Class (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I believe the only use for these templates is on notifications on talk pages for WikiProjects. Since we are not allowing notifications until a project is moved to the mainspace, there really is no purpose for these, as far as I can see. There may be some other use that I'm not aware of, which is why I'm not QDing. · Ty grrr... 20:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Razor flame 21:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They will be usful one. Why delete just to recreate? Also, I beleieve they common protocal.--Chri stia nMan 16 23:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-existant wikiproject, we do not have FAs, we do not categorize stubs. -- Creol(talk) 03:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you missed the pupose of these templates. Read abou them on English then revote. I just wanna make sure you do the correct vote for your opinion.--Chri stia nMan 16 06:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChristianMan. I have removed the strikethough of Crol's vote. Do not change another editor's vote. --Bärl iner 11:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - --Gwib^-(talk)- 20:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted as this Wikipedia is too small at the time being for such intricate stub classifications. --Gwib^-(talk)- 21:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Quick-deleted - Huji ^reply 21:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Douala

Douala (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Not enough context. If decided to be kept, it would need a major rewrite. Razor flame 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is "not enough context" really a valid reason? "No context" would be a valid QD reason, but at RFD? If the page for London said "London is the largest city in the United Kingdom" there would be no problem. Surely it's best to have it there and allow editors to expand it? Whitstable 19:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I've posted a QD for pages like this, they get reverted. So, I've decided to give it an RfD because QD's failed. Razor flame 19:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it certainly is an interesting one. I personally think it falls somewhere between QD and RFD, meaning that if nothing is done about the article, nothing will ever be done. The problem with the gap is that pages can appear that are unlikely to ever expand and we are stuck with them Whitstable 19:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - The reason given is not acceptable. I'm going to expand the article so even this unacceptable reason would be ruled out. - Huji ^reply 07:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - valid article; perhaps not a great one, but certainly a valid article. --Eptalon (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - More than enough context now, showing the reason why so many of Razorflame's QDs fail --Bärl iner 12:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was made in error. I am sorry for making a fool of myself by posting this. I withdraw this request. Razor flame 13:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Request withdrawn, article kept - Huji ^reply 21:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herr Bukkefot

Herr Bukkefot (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Not notable, as far as I can see. - Huji ^reply 12:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. I agree. --Bärl iner 15:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Razor flame 15:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article gives too little background to see if the person is really motable; I think it can therefore safely be deleted--Eptalon (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "who the hell is he?" when googled. (or per nom.. that works too) -- Creol(talk) 21:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...Aurora... (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Delete Oysterguitarist 05:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exposure

Exposure (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Notability issues, is not an article in the English Wikipedia, and is unsourced. I am willing to withdraw this request once the author of it adds sources to it, but until then, this is being left up. Razor flame 18:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and even if the final conclusion is to keep it, it should be disambiguated, since there are some other (more important and more commonly in use) meanings for "exposure", like in physics, biology, etc. - Huji ^reply 21:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've already created a disambiguation page for it at Exposure (disambiguation). Razor flame 22:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of at least three other meanings of the word; I am not against deleting this article; I just think it is at the wrong place. Therefore create a disambiguation page here; and move this somewhere else--Eptalon (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig -- Creol(talk) 21:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've already created the disambiguation page for it at Exposure (disambiguation) Razor flame

Delete ...Aurora... (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Page moved to Abandonment; copied EnWP disambig page to Exposure--Eptalon (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Eight Shoes

Super Eight Shoes (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Non-notable artist (Google search), with few art works so far (Amazon). - Huji ^reply 11:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not Notable. Rates a you tube mention but nothing else. Not article in ENWP, or even listed on the disambiguation page as a redlink.--Bärl iner 12:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Agreed per nom. Razor flame 17:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom -- Creol(talk) 21:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Delete Oysterguitarist 04:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Nuckolls

Claims in this article are not verifiable. No info on English Wikipedia, and nothing prominent on Google searches. - Huji ^reply 21:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most likely original research. That shouldn't be alloweed. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 06:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hint of notability. Having more friends on MySpace than Tila Tequila and a little known band (unverifiable though since this apparently caused Myspace to shut them down and we can't see they had more) and being CEO of a "company" whose En:wp page is deleted/protected because the company/website had been recreated after deletion so often is not exactly notable. -- Creol(talk) 08:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Agreed as per nom and Creol. Razor flame 17:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom et per Creol.--Bärl iner 15:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Delete Oysterguitarist 04:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northhymn

Not notable, few ghits Oysterguitarist 16:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OysterGuitarist. --Gwib^-(talk)- 16:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
QD-A4 - no claim to notability. -- Creol(talk) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result article QD'd as A4. Oysterguitarist 16:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:F1-stub

For the same reasons as previous RfD's for stub templates. Razorflame (contributions) Talk 02:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Huji ^reply 13:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I would even say quick-delete such stub categories for now, until we have had another discussion about categorising stubs. --Eptalon (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oysterguitarist 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Delete Oysterguitarist 01:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carcinogen

Carcinogen (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

All copied from en:wp. Jet Lover ^Bam! 23:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to change it, don't you think it's easier than en? Cypher 00:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So close to encopypaste as to be worth deleting out of hand --Bärl iner 19:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Neutral -The only reason I'm voting Neutral to this is because I don't know if excessive red linkage deems an article appropriate for deletion off this site. Razorflame (contributions) Talk 19:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is pretty much an en copy paste and I think it would be much easier to delete it and write it from scratch. Oysterguitarist 19:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article is certainly not simple in its current form but an attempt has been made to simplify the language. Try copying our version here, going to the current version of Carcinogen at en:wiki here, pasting the SE version, and clicking "Show changes". Certainly more effort has been made in this simplification than the standard en:wiki copy-paste. The page needs a lot of work in order to be an outstanding addition to the project, and perhaps it might be better to stubbify, but it is just plain false to say that this is a direct en:wiki copy-paste. Also, who knows if Cypher was finished simplifying. We give plenty of other editors a lot longer than 5 minutes (literally) before requesting deletion--especially when an effort has been shown to simplify (for crying out loud, Cypher even says in his/her edit summary: "boy, it takes a while to copy edit these"). I just don't think we should shoot this down so quickly. · Ty grrr... 21:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, this article has had a good amount of effort put into it, but what Cypher should've done was created a userspace version of it so that he could simplify it without having to deal with issues like this. Razorflame (contributions) Talk 21:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People don't have to create articles in their namespace. That isn't the only way to avoid dealing with "issues like this". If an article has had a lot of changes to it, people usually leave it alone or add a complex tag to it, not request it for deletion. I don't think Cypher's done anything wrong and I'm not sure why this particular article was attacked right after creation. Why can't we just add {{encopypaste}} or {{complex}} to it and drop this silly request? · Ty grrr... 21:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it is not the only way to deal with things like this. I was mainly bringing it up because it is a good way to go. Razorflame (contributions) Talk 22:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with if it you gave the creator some time to simplify, but I think it would be better to delete then write it since it is a complex subject. Oysterguitarist 22:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that if I were writing the article, I probably would have started from scratch as well. But I didn't start the article and neither to you. Since Cypher did, he may have plans to simplify further--he may not. What I have a problem with is that he wasn't even given a chance. I think this situation was approached wrongly and attacks a user and punishes his hard work with deletion rather than encouraging him to improve by adding a complex or encopypaste tag and notifying him on his user page that his has some time to improve the article or it may be deleted. · Ty grrr... 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for closing this RfD down right now. This was very immature and I can't believe that JetLover would do such a thing to a new user. Razorflame (contributions) Talk 22:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone makes mistakes. I don't think we should attack JetLover either. Like I said, I simply think this situation could have been approached better. · Ty grrr... 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with {{encopypaste}} is that some admins follow a previous discussion about such articles and delete them out of hand.--Bärl iner 22:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do they, Barliner? I don't keep track of the encopypastes probably as much as I should, but I thought that everyone was waiting a few days or longer before deleting pages with that tag. I could certainly be wrong about that though. · Ty grrr... 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my vote, the creator seems to want to simplify the article(has already started to) further, so I think they should be given a chance. Oysterguitarist 22:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Tygrrr. - BrownE34 talk contribs 22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am trying to simplify it, but some of it I can't. I'm getting the hint that I should remove the largest of the sentences, along with the binomials. I don't know how to show you my last change, but I am trying. Cypher 22:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find this nomination quite silly, actually. I agree with Tygrrr. The author was even going to simplify it. Even if Cypher didn't, it didn't take much time or effort to simplify it. I took the time to simplify it and clean it up a bit, and I personally believe this nomination is a bit obsolete now. --Isis §^(talk) 22:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Isis! ^_^ Cypher 22:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in spite of the fact that simplification has been paused, it is no more an encopypaste. - Huji ^reply 15:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but try to simplify more- I couldn't resist, I also had a try at it. ;)--Eptalon (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Keep Oysterguitarist 05:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marble Blast Platinum

NotNotable. This page seems to be about a game some people wrote. Perhaps this should have been a quick delete. It doesn't seem notable, and there is reason why it is notable given on the page. Whesse (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Quick deleted - no claim of notability. -- Creol(talk) 07:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irreplaceable

Irreplaceable (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I don't think Irreplaceable is notable enough to be on Simple English Wikipedia. Irreplaceable is a song by Beyonce Knowles. There is also only one contributor to the article. Alexhl (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The main requirement for notability of a song is placing on a national or significant music chart and having enough information available to warrant its own page. Irreplaceable placed on the national charts of almost every country in Europe, North American and Australia. It placed in the top 5 on 19 charts and was number 1 on 10 of them including the United World chart, most of the Billboard charts, Australia, Brazil and Ireland. As to available information, the En: article for the song is 32K long so that does not seem to be a problem either. -- Creol(talk) 12:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Needs to be rewritten/simplified. Otherwise, it is alright to have on here. Razor flame 22:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, proven notability. · Ty grrr... 22:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Creol. - Huji ^reply 10:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Keep Oysterguitarist 03:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - --Gwib^-(talk)- 20:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlango

Atlango (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

An artificial language based on artificial languages. less than 6000 google hits, the top three being its own websites and us (SEWP). No ENWP. The internet equivalent of vanity publishing.--Bärl iner 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Only got 5,950 hits. Razor flame 20:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Creol(talk) 21:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete merely because of lack of sources. There are pages about languages spoken by less than 10 people on English Wikipedia, as well as some artificial languages! However, they all cite good sources; this article does not. - Huji ^reply 21:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...Aurora... (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete would vote weak keep if sources were available. EN Wiki has an article on a language with only one speaker, incidentally! Whitstable 19:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Yegoyan (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Delete Oysterguitarist 04:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Lindström

Charlotte Lindström (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Notability and not encyclopaedic. Is a friend of a well known musician, and implicated in a crime but is she otherwise worthy of an article? This article concentrates purely on the alleged crime, after which it seems she would fall into obscurity--Bärl iner 15:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I dont think this page should be deleted since their is enough both proving her notability and further interest. Their has also been pages made on this girl on other wikipedias. And she has a notable modelling career, and a certain amount of Google search matches(read over 30.000 pages).--Sinbad (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Dutch wikipedia is only her name and birthdate. Swedish wikipedia has deleted the page. I do not know who created the English poages, but the creator asked me to post it there on his behalf--Bärl iner 16:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i may also add that this case has reached international attention outside australia, both sweden,france,netherlands, UK, USA etc. I am personaly also againsttheese sort of deletion nomination on the basis that all criminal cases are unencyclopaedic as long as they not concerning an american.--Sinbad (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether read as encyclopaedic or unencyclopaedic this seems to be an attack on all editors, claiming they vote on national bias. A remark I do not think worthy of editor Sinbad--Bärl iner 15:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only one attacking someone here is you barliner, not a very nice comment from you.--Sinbad (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about the article not me and not you either--Sinbad (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote keep thats my final word in this discussion.Peace.--Sinbad (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - There is limited notability in Sweden and Australia but none anywhere else. Under 2K google hits on the exact name. Were this article kept, it is in bad need of fact checking and updating. Most of the article lists alleged crimes until the final sentences where it finally gets to the part where she confessed (ie. is guilty, not alleged anymore) and awaiting sentencing. -- Creol(talk) 21:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have fixed that.want to point out that if this article gets deleted we should have to delete many more pages on similar criminal cases with even less notability. if being "only" a model isnt enoug for notability "just" being a killer och murder victim certainly isnt enough.--Sinbad (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The netherland article do point out that she has been involved in criminal activities just as the french article on lindström does.--Sinbad (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Creol. Razor flame 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have just lost one of your editors, i can see my work isnt appreciated. Bye bye and good luck with this wikipedia!--Sinbad (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having had a look at the counterpart pages on other Wikipedias, I think it has the minium notablity to be explained on our wikipedia as well. It is a stub, for sure, and requires better sources, but it is not bad enough to be deleted. - Huji ^reply 10:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google search got 45,600 hits. Razor flame 20:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: No consensus. Oysterguitarist 03:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows_of_Lylat

Shadows_of_Lylat (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Unnotable fan mod of a video game. 76.100.238.251 (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's already deleted. нмŵוτн τ 00:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]