Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 22 December 24 >

Purge server cache

December 23[edit]

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 A1 Short article with little or no context about non-notable band. Capitalistroadster 00:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Life[edit]

non notable band, the article is barely a stub Melaen 00:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was delete - as non-notable and spam :) Croat Canuck 04:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Kelly[edit]

model "noted for her braces and youthful appearance" otherwise quite non notable IMO Melaen 00:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete She's cute, but not notable. --StoatBringer 00:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. «LordViD» 00:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 01:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SorryGuy 03:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. xaosflux Talk/CVU 07:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomTheRingess 07:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wikipedia has lots of webpages for porn actors and actresses. How do we decide which ones are notable and which are not? Note that I am not objecting to delete in this case - only wondering which criteria for notability are being used for porn stars. --Pierremenard
    • WP doesn't have any specific guidelines on porn people. Based on observation of previous AfDs, porn persons who appear in the IMDB and have credited apparances on videos/DVDs tend to be kept, while those whose pornography is mostly internet based do not. In my opinion this probably isn't quite strict enough, as it has led to quite a few articles with virtually no encyclopedic information, which are really mostly just a place to put a pornographic picture or two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, but also as spam (which I think is the most relevant reason to delete most other three-line porn articles, too). JDoorjam 17:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam, NOT due to POV notability standard (see WP:NPOV for good reasons to ignore notability standards) Cynical 19:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly spam. Search4Lancer 23:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 02:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toni-ann byfield[edit]

crime victim,unon notable(aso miscapitalization and bad spelling)( Melaen 00:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- As sad as this is, she is a non-notable person who has had a notable event happen to her. That's all. Reyk 00:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep this was major news in the UK. Bloody badly written article though... Jcuk 00:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Jcuk. Was headline news. Dlyons493 Talk 02:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please cite the headline news reports in the article to demonstrate this. Uncle G 02:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Murders are often headline news. Nothing sells more than death, especially of children. Delete for still being not notable. --Apostrophe 07:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Cleanup if need be. -- JJay 02:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Scotsman case coverage round-up available here [1], also see Guardian [2]. -- JJay 04:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please add the citations to the article, as above. Uncle G 05:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, have no time. Maybe later. But please go ahead. Thanks. -- JJay 13:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - life is filled with misfortune, not all of it notable. Endomion 05:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major cleanup needed.--MONGO 05:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This was an important event in the UK and was a major catalyst for a campaign against gun crime as well as reform of the British Social Services. I've rewritten the article to include a reference and some more information, as well as tidying it up. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Individual articles of murdered family members (including this one, a 7-year-old girl) are a bit much... and the the parents' names are in red here. If the drug-related mass killing triggers a notable reform of the Birmingham Social Services, it might be best to move relevant information to that article and Redirect to Joel Smith (UK murderer), the person who started the sequence of events, once he has been convicted of the crimes. In addition, the information about the DNA test is irrelevant to the subject's notability (which hinges on her murder, not who is her biological father) and should be removed from the article. B.Wind 18:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I modified the proposed target of the redirect as Joel Smith is a noted footballer with an existing Wikipedia article. Regardless, the focus should be on Toni-Ann's family instead of just herself. B.Wind 18:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mary Jane Kelly was an unnotable down and out who just happened to have a notable murder inflicted on her. Should we treat this individual any different? Jcuk 23:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to Jamyskis's rewrite; however it'd be nice if more pages linked to the article. Right now it's pretty much an orphan. Flyboy Will 09:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Angr (t·c) 12:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten, per Whisper. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have added one or two citations to the article as per UncleG!! Jcuk 17:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per B.Wind Cynical 19:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the new rewrite. Not 100% sure it qualifies as notable but I'll assume keep in default. Stifle 12:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pepsidrinka 23:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to correct name. --Alf melmac 08:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Underground Empire Wrestling[edit]

advertising Melaen 00:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unish[edit]

neologism Melaen 00:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep get a life melaen instead of going around complaining about pages all day long. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mahalia56 (talk • contribs) .
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Cynical 20:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do see our actual policies of What Wikipedia is Not. This is a matter of principle. -- Natalinasmpf 02:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable neologism AND "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." DavidH 01:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn neologism and hardly encyclopedic--MONGO 05:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism, dicdef. --Angr (t·c) 12:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I ceated this article when I'd just started editing. I've learned a bit since then, and I now realise that the content of this article is not within the scope of wikipedia. - Timsheridan 17:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Cynical 20:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Jim62sch 22:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete author request and no other edits beyond tagging importance and afd. Stifle 12:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw 3[edit]

Saw III was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-05. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saw III.

Film does not exist yet, crystal ball article StoatBringer 00:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It has a release date and an imdb article -- Astrokey44|talk 00:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It does exist, it just hasn't been released yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.178.205 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-23 00:54:50 UTC
  • Keep. Just wait for the release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.214.85 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-23 01:01:57 UTC
  • Delete per Stoatbringer. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Up coming film with a IMDB article. Upcoming films are often discussed here.--Bkwillwm 04:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per IMDB: "this project is categorized as being in production", it is not a completed film. xaosflux Talk/CVU 07:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we're going to have Snakes on a Plane, we're going to have Saw III. --King of All the Franks 07:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a big difference. Snakes on a Plane has finished shooting principal photography and is now in post-production. Saw 3 or -III doesn't even have a director yet. As for other posters' assertion that it has an IMDB article and is thus verifiable, let me quote from the article itself: "a recently debunked rumor (started from IMDb) was made that Eli Roth (director of Hostel) would be directing Saw III." Is any better illustration needed of why we don't start these articles on films until they are much further on their way to release? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition: there's an "official site" for Saw 3 which only states "This site is under construction" and leads to the website of Lions Gate Films. Yet if you check the HTML source of the "official site" and compare it to that of the Lions Gate Films site (which does not list Saw 3 at all) there's no similarity in the style. I'm not saying that this is a hoax -- but what I'm saying is that if I was a hoaxer trying to make people believe in a not-even-planned movie, I think I could produce all the 'evidence' that people are pointing to as proof that it exists and is verifiable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if no director has been attached, the release date isn't verifiable or certain even to the studio. Most of the info included is about who isn't in it and what it isn't named (that's not information). And only Tobin Bell is confirmed according to IMDB. If there's anything Harry Potter films have thought me is that unless there's an official studio press release, you can take cast rumors about anyone else without evidence with three spoonfuls of salt. - Mgm|(talk) 10:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per precedent. Star Wars Episode 3 among others were up on here well before the film even went into production. The film has an IMDB entry which is verifible. More information will doubtless be available in due course which can be added to the article as time goes by. The article (as I see it) sticks to known facts about the planning of the film and tries to avoid crystal ball references. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 10:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mind you, SW Ep3 was almost a given once Ep1 went into production, and the concept had been bandied about the fan community since it was revealed that A New Hope was Episode 4. On the matter of this, I will concede that there appear to be more 'definite yes' entries than the previous round, which was (from my viewpoint) one of the main reasons for deletion, although I will say here that I have made absolutely no effort in researching the truth or fiction of these facts. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 10:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jamyskis - plenty of potential here. Essexmutant 12:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Jamyskis. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Film is in preproduction and is not a notable exception like Star Wars movies or the second Narnia would be. Endomion 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Much as I hate the Saw movies, they are big (and popular), and it seems kind of unreasonable to kill the article on Saw 3 (which is in production). --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Astrokey44 Cynical 20:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Endomion Search4Lancer 23:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G4 repost. Stifle 12:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not subject to the exception for massively notable films like Star Wars, not enough actual encyclopedic content. ++Lar 15:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The film has an IMDB article. Nuff said. The Filmaker 23:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why should we delete something that we will eventually have to do anyway ? The movie is going to be released. Might aswell get an early start I say. - User:Micheal L.
    • Because it's not true that "we will eventually have to do [it] anyway"; Hollywood announces plenty of films ahead of time that either never come out or come out in wildly different form from what was announced. We don't know that it's "going to be released", just because that's the current plan. What's the good of having an article on Saw III if we don't have reliable information on Saw III? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Zactarn Prime[edit]

Google reveals that this is merely someone's nation at NationStates. That makes it non-notable. Reyk 00:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'The Grid'[edit]

I cannot verify this. --Scunthorpe man 00:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems like a hoax. «LordViD» 00:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete googling Grid+"Stretford Meadows"= no hits, as our north Lincolnshire friend attests. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 00:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found nothing on Google. Even trying "national trust"+"Stretford Meadows" turned up 0 results.--Bkwillwm 04:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletepatent nonsense--MONGO 05:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable --Enfiladissa 08:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • UK Wikipedians noticeboard didn't turn anything up, so delete, but undelete if anyone comes up with appropriate evidence (not that I expect them to). Shimgray | talk | 12:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Pierremenard
  • Delete One could assign mystical importance to any random park lawn. Endomion 14:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-verifiable material. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I smell [snip]. well anyone who has watched Chewin' the Fat can finish that sentence Cynical 20:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - probably a hoax/local vanity, containing elements of truth to make it more plausible. Stretford Meadows exist, but I doubt that there is anything notable or verifiable there. -- Solipsist 20:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Jim62sch 22:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Couldn't find anything on it myself Search4Lancer 23:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable nonsense. Stifle 12:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 16:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jada Deville[edit]

Delete. Non-notable stripper who has won seemingly-minor awards. Little information to be found on Google, only a few non-commercial mentions. Unlikely this could be turned into more than a stub. Flata 00:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand if possible...minor notability--MONGO 05:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to expand but there's no real information I can find to expaand it with. Even if I go through and mine out her proportions, all the awards she's won, and the porn flicks she's been in, there's not enough out there, today, to make more than a stub -- I tried, though maybe my methods were flawed. That said, there isn't even enough information on the awards she's done to have so much as a stub page for them, so they'd stay red links for a fair time. Look at the original revision of the article and the similar fanboyish pages thrown up by the original author. Non-wikified, which I can forgive, but not exactly content-rich or encyclopedic. --Flata 10:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can get a friend to give me some titles ending in "Universe", if you like, doesn't mean it merits anything. I can't find much about the Miss Nude Universe pageant. It's run by someone called "Rio Rivers", the one that our Jada Deville won was in a strip club in St. Robert, Missouri. It depends how you define notable. Is the stripping circuit itself notable? This is an award made up of people on the stripping circuit, that is, people who tour as strippers. Most of them also do porn and might be notable for that, but I'd never even heard of this stripping circuit stuff, which surprises me a fair bit. There are 133 Google results for "Miss Nude Universe" "Rio Rivers", what with trying to find out information about the specifics and the organizers and so much. There's no information to be had, but the same news bites and people mentioning it casually. I'm interested in consensus as to whether the stripping circuit is per se notable. It does not seem to foster enough reading material to throw together articles on Miss Nude Universe, which as you point out, sure sounds like a non-minor title. --Flata 10:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
/me gives Flata the Galactic Award for Deletion Voting Rob 14:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Set Guideline. There are (guess) 300 pages on big-bust stars (all with their own money making web page). But they are in movies. This person is not. This will lead to perhaps 900 stripper pages (surprisingly all with their own money making sites). I'm sure they all win such awards. I judge this a mistake. 900 barely notable high schools is perhaps silly but no big deal. 900 barely notable strippers = 900 barely notable small business with free advertising. (No pun intended but hee hee). Miss Nude Galaxy or not, these people are akin to local nightclub singers doing New York, New York for a sales convention.Obina 11:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Arbitrary notability standards are POV and not valid criteria for deletion IMHO. Please see WP:NPOV Cynical 20:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Obina. Search4Lancer 23:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Obina. Well put. --Thunk 02:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Obina, although no guideline should be set, I prefer to ignore all rules. Stifle 12:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best merge with a Miss Nude Universe article if one were to be created. (what, the Galactic Award for Deletion Voting was awarded already? I missed getting a ballot!) ++Lar
  • Delete --Alf melmac 08:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Showering French Yak[edit]

Doesn't meet criteria of WP:MUSIC Geni 00:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Agreed, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. I had flagged it for cleanup hoping for more info from the contributors but haven't seen any. Samw 01:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 01:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC--MONGO 05:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MONGO - FrancisTyers 16:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:MUSIC is 'not policy' (direct quote from the page), and is little more than a POV notability standard. I stand by WP:NPOV Cynical 20:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So why do you think this article should be kept?Geni 20:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cynical, just because people state that a subject fails to meet WP:NMG it does not necessarily mean they think it's policy. I think many, including myself, refer to it as a valid "measuring stick" and a sensible set of guidelines. PJM 22:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet criteria of WP:MUSIC, but come on. Should something be deleted because it is less than well-known? The advantage that Wikipedia has over other informational sources is the fact that it can be made to include more or less anything that exists. I think that the entire policy of WP:MUSIC concerning how well-known artists are is nit-picking pettiness. The quality of this article is higher than a lot I can think of, and the information presented is genuine. Therefore, I argue it is worth keeping. arevolvingonob 13:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added a photo and considerably more information than was previously present. arevolvingonob 13:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Notabiity aside, can this info be verified? Are there published, primary sources for this information or is it merely first hand reporting? Samw 22:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that it's first-hand reporting. If you would like me to publish a book on the subject, you are more than welcome to use me as a source on a page you make. arevolvingonob 18:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirming that. Wikipedia policy unfortunately excludes first-hand reporting: Wikipedia:No original research and instead asks for verifiable sources. Independent of whether the subject meets WP:MUSIC criteria, facts asserted in the article that are not independently verifiable may be deleted. Samw 02:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Touché. When you've deleted the 56,879 other first-hand Wikipedia reports, tell me and I'll take the SFY one down. Merry Christmas. arevolvingonob 00:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not independently verified at this time, and not meeting WP:NMG anyway. Stifle 12:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and if you have a list of the other 56,879 primary research articles, bring it on, they can be discussed here too... I suspect there aren't QUITE that many). ++Lar 15:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Here is what I'll say as my final defense: Wikipedia is a site that supposedly prides itself as a source for information and as a truly democratic medium of sharing information. What is presented on the SFY page is wholly true, wholly unbiased, and presented in an intelligent (if I do say so myself) manner, which is more than can be said for plenty of other sites. If you people are going to spend your entire lives searching for pages on this site to delete and edit, why not delete or edit the poorly-written and misleading pages that exist in abundance here. As some people on this site are fond of saying, "Wiki is not paper." There is no size limit to this site, nor should there be. Anything true (as the page in question is) should be welcome here. Happy Kwanzaa. arevolvingonob 16:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While notabilty is debatable, verifiability is not; see: Wikipedia:Verifiability. True facts, unless verifiable, cannot be added to Wikipedia. Samw 04:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My arguments have been satisfactorily (I don't think that's a word) refuted. The page doesn't meet verifiability standards. Happy Hanukkah. arevolvingonob 16:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is a word. [3]. Kudos. ;) PJM 22:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you need to do, I don't believe it's hurting anything by remaining on the site. I say keep it, but maybe I'm biased, I made the page. I'll save the content and see if I can resubmit it so that it undeniably meets Wikipedia standards, to be truthful I haven't yet had the time. Sorry if I hurt someone's feelings. Mankind716

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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grafstein-telecom[edit]

advertising Melaen 01:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Thesquire 01:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing in the aticle suggests notability of this company. Pavel Vozenilek 02:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article fails to establish notablity of subject--MONGO 06:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy - qualifies under CSD#1 Patent nonsense (no meaningful content) Cynical 20:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Patent nonsense is gobbledegook (random characters) or sentences so incoherent that they just don't make sense. This article does make sense, so it's not speediable under CSD G1. However, it does seem to be uncompleted (the last line just ends in the middle of the sentence) and I don't see how this passes WP:CORP. howcheng {chat} 22:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Not patent nonsense but it could be called complete bollocks. Stifle 12:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Hedley 01:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rimini Street[edit]

Advertising for a software support company so new it hasnt even moved into its offices yet MNewnham 01:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I previously nominated it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rimini Street, Inc., then withdrew my nomination; it is a tolerable article, and I have copyedited both the biography and the corporate article somewhat. It does present its notability (but I'm not sure whether its verified). I vote weak weak weak keep (very close to delete, actually). Natalinasmpf 22:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment An article in a Durham newspaper notes that the 'global support center' will employ 12-15 people, thereby confirming (to me) its non-notability MNewnham 01:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 02:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.28.78.108 (talk • contribs)
  • Very low Google and News. Delete as not encyclopedic, alhtough I'd like to see a link to that article, MNewnham. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, sorry, numb of me to not include the [link] MNewnham 14:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam advertising...call back when you've arrived.--MONGO 06:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and someone should look at the article for the founder too, especially if his claim to notability is in founding Rimini Street. Endomion 06:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely no notability is even claimed in my opinion. Calling a part of your company "global" isn't the same as having a global company. Flyboy Will
  • "global support" with only 15 people -- h*ll of a truss there, guys!! -- I decline to globally or otherwsie support this: Delete --SockpuppetSamuelson 15:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The company clearly exists. Kurt Weber 17:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs improving, not deletion Cynical 20:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. howcheng {chat} 22:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Existence ≠ notability. Denni ☯ 02:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 12:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Wald[edit]

vanity page Asw32 01:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete this international playboy who travels to Yugoslavia MNewnham 01:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appeared on Pop Idol with news coverage. -- JJay 02:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per JJay Thesquire 05:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wannabe nobody...WP:VAIN--MONGO 06:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pop Idol which contains all the encyclopedic info we have on him. The fact he didn't make it into the show (as far as I can tell) and decided not to pursue his music career, shows me he doesn't deserve his own article, but a redirect is useful for people who want to look the guy up. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it says he was famous across england after singing eye of the tiger. One-hit wonders are notable enough to have bios here. -- Astrokey44|talk 11:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are "rumours in the tabloids" about his person who appeared on Pop Idol with news coverage. Kappa 18:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we are going to keep articles based on "rumors in the tabloids", then Wikipedia is definitely going down the tubes.
      • Yeah I can see it would too bad if wikipedia catered to the inferior tastes of the lower classes. Kappa 23:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mgm Cynical 20:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mgm Denni ☯ 02:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mgm. Stifle 12:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Singing on a show does not equal a one hit wonder. At best maybe a sentence or two in the Pop Idol article but not all this content. ++Lar 15:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Astrokey44. Pepsidrinka 00:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As requested by the subject of the article. It has become a magnet for vandalism and is non-notable in the context of encyclopediac knowledge. 81.64.37.91 15:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Forgive my newbiness, but what's the next step in all this? How does it get delete/kept? Have tried looking up Wikipedia "how to..." articles but can't find anything Asw32 01:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page has been blanked on request. For archive, please see the article history.

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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MegaMassMedia[edit]

forum vanity Melaen 01:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. DavidH 01:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a major cleanup is made, this is all vanity. xaosflux Talk/CVU 07:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising - WP:NOT Cynical 20:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity page. Stifle 13:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- JJay 20:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 04:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promises of troop withdraw by American presidents throughout history[edit]

  • also there are now two of them (both of which will be covered by this AfD): Promises.... and Campaign...., both seperate articles with cloned content--Petral 02:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additonal point, since the origional author decided to clone his article, keep voters should probably specify which of the two clones they want to keep, as obviously one of the duplicates would be removed either way--Petral 03:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Delete voters should probably know that page now called Promises of troop withdrawal by American presidents. Nominator seems to have set up wikipedia account just prior to making AfD nomination [4]. Page protection (following edit war between nom and page creator) would seem to prevent any improvement to article during AfD process. -- JJay 12:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatant POV fork. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft of bits of information taken out of context, /very/ prone to edit wars and POV. Pavel Vozenilek 02:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't need to be a weatherman to see where the wind is blowing. I will delete the article myself. Travb 02:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment something isn't adding up here, at some point you moved the article somewhere else and cloned it's content, back into the origional article space, now I can't find where you moved the origional to--Petral 02:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • you are accusing me of something I am not doing--you make a lot of accusations, and add nothing to this article Petral. After You said yourself that "user is showing some restraint and is now cooperating with the AfD process". I added a link originally to the new name. I just created this article.Travb 02:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Petral, you cannot put an article on Afd then decide to skip the process and delete it yourself. In fact, unless you are a sockpuppet, you cannot delete it at all. Wait for the Afd process to complete. This is contentious behaviour on your part. Why not go have a nice cup of tea and allow the Afd to complete normally? KillerChihuahua?!? 03:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
um, what? mistaken identity?--Petral 03:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to read too many posts too close together, my apologies. I saw the "I will delete the article myself." by Travb, above, followed by your comment. For some reason I registered you (Petral) as the one who said that. Let me try this again:
Travb, You cannot create an article which is placed on Afd then decide to skip the process and delete it yourself. In fact, unless you are a sockpuppet, you cannot delete it at all. Wait for the Afd process to complete. This is contentious behaviour on your part. Why not go have a nice cup of tea and allow the Afd to complete normally?
Again, apologies for the mistaken identity. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Adding note: As Travb did create the article, there is a speedy cat for that if that is what Travb desires. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever been involved in something that you really enjoy, a book, a movie, a warm bath. etc. And some rude idiot comes along and ruins it. I was smack dab in the middle of creating this article, minding my own business when Petral came along and ruined my "warm bath". I was going along, enjoying myself in a certain train of thought, and then all the sudden I get interupted, I get pulled out of the bath, thrown outside, and beat by some stranger. That may be historonics, but that is how I feel. I got to the point, I just wanted to throw up my hands and delete the damn article. I started a new article, and Petral and Petral's friends (maybe sockpuppers of Petral) all put that article up for deletion too.Travb 04:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not your warm bath and you will be thanked to Wikipedia:assume good faith and not throw groundless accusations of sockpuppetry. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not so sure it's groundless. Travb is hardly the first, or second, or third person to note the possibility. Jim62sch 22:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"The possibility can be imagined" is not the same thing as "there are grounds for a public accusation." Would you like to specify exactly which of the many people agreeing with Petral, some of whom have more years on Wikipedia than he has days, are purported to be his sockpuppets? When actual evidence surfaces that any particular user is a sockpuppet, present that evidence. Presenting the suspicion as you are now, with no evidence beyond "I can't comprehend why people think my article should be deleted", is only evidence that you are violating WP:AGF. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- POV fork. Reyk 02:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like the topic is worthy of inclusion. -- JJay 03:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Considering that the nom joined wikipedia today [5], I would be interested to know how he/she found this article and mastered the AfD process? -- JJay 03:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: S-P?
  • Delete --HappyCamper 03:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is not POV, and listing promises of troop withdrawl is factual. The article is worthy of inclusion.--Bkwillwm 05:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge contents with Election_promise Endomion 05:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete strong POV potential, hard to properly cite with accuracy, inherently a trouble page.--MONGO 06:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as you're here, could you impose a short ban on travb, just from editing these AfDs, he seems intent on disrupting these votes--Petral 06:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete inherently POV. --King of All the Franks 06:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic delete - articles are POV by "cherry picking" on the examples and the facts. Secondly, titles were misspelled. Page has been the subject of an edit war in which both parties violated 3RR. B.Wind 06:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. What's next, World Leaders Who Were Morons Just Like Dubya? Flyboy Will 09:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Im sure there have been promises by American presidents of troop withdrawals which have been upheld. This article deliberately sets out to only present the incidents where they havent and so is POV by only telling one side of the story. And with only two examples, it can hardly be said to have happened "throughout history". -- Astrokey44|talk 11:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Material on this page ought to appear on the pages of the presidents who made these promises --Pierremenard
  • Delete POV fork. Durova 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic topic. Wonder if it the article will be unprotected first or deleted first? --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 16:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't think of any circumstances in which this list would become a useful resource, and at the very least it is representative of an anti-institutional POV. ALC Washington 17:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lists are inherently useless as they are never going to get ALL such promises EVER made by American Presidents listed on the article, and therefore the article will ALWAYS be inaccurate Cynical 20:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 20:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV fork. Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 02:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pov and unencyclopedic Paul 18:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete troopwithdrawalcruft.  Grue  21:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete POV fork. Stifle 13:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 04:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pcorps[edit]

non notable chat (Our numbers are now up to a maximum of 12 in channel..) Melaen 01:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Thesquire 05:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just a conversation really--MONGO 06:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just a small personal IRC channel without any global or national impact. - Mgm|(talk) 10:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete thats great that theyre having fun with this irc channel, but this is a blog entry not an encyclopedia article. -- Astrokey44|talk 12:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity article Cynical 20:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete random vanity. Stifle 13:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- JJay 20:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete NSLE (T+C+CVU) 04:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mactard[edit]

More suited to Wiktionary, I created said entry SailorfromNH 01:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If already Transwikid no reason to not delete. SorryGuy 04:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BabuBhatt 04:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete made up word, not even suited for Wiktionary--MONGO 06:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already transwikied (ESkog)(Talk) 07:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, let Wiktionary deal with this. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete per above. Stifle 13:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- JJay 20:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pintado[edit]

I suspect it is nonsense Melaen 01:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can find no meaning in it.
  • Delete patent nonsense.--MONGO 06:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup. I think the nonsense is confused with the truth here. It is a real fish - Pseudoplathystoma corruscans [6] and there is also the USS Pintado -- Astrokey44|talk 12:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • make a disambiguation page --Melaen 19:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the confused mess that's there, but leave room for it to be replaced with a proper article on the fish. Stifle 13:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Zhu[edit]

134 Google hits, her only claim to notability is being the wife of a German musician, being involved in some personal and legal spat and making some unsubstantiated allegations. Oh, and she's used Usenet. Wow, I've used Usenet. That mean I get an article too? Unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 01:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Interestingly, my name gets 1,140 Google hits. So if we keep this lady, can I start an article on myself? FCYTravis 01:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sure! It's surprising there are so many USENET bio articles to begin with. karmafist 02:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn--MONGO 06:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep notable figure, married to Blixa Bargeld and central to the WebEx/Min Zhu controversy. Nomination appears motivated out of spite. FeloniousMonk 06:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The "WebEx/Min Zhu" controversy is a non-notable tempest in a teapot. FCYTravis 08:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The CEO of a publically-traded company being accused of child molestation by his own daughter is a matter public concern that extends far beyond that of the narrow concerns of the company's shareholders and potential investors. Considering that Min Zhu is a Chinese national who has now fled back to China and that WebEx has a large Department of Defense contract to carry classified data accross its network which has servers in China, and it's hardly a tempest in a teapot. You need to read up on this, clearly. FeloniousMonk 08:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clearly this is a major story worldwide, given that there are no news stories or Google hits for this outside User:Larvatus' LiveJournal. You appear to be using Wikipedia as a soapbox, something it is not. FCYTravis 08:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Careful with your allegations. WP:AGF Everything I stated is easily verified with Google, which seems to be the extent to which you're willing to confirm facts. FeloniousMonk 08:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • One person's LiveJournal and some Usenet posts =! verifiable sources. FCYTravis 08:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • And the sworn testimony found in the court transcripts you can't be bothered with: [7]. FeloniousMonk 09:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sworn testimony in a civil case =! criminal allegation. FCYTravis 09:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The distinction is irrelevant. The fact that it is sworn testimony made in a court is sufficient to establish that the allegation was made by Erin, which is the only issue here. The article doesn't claim the allegation is true, only that it is made. The fact that it is made and is verifiable is sufficient grounds for reporting it in Wikipedia, as it is notable and highly relevant to the subject. FeloniousMonk 09:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Felonious, I tried to verify those reports. I couldn't. The cited court reports all refer to a commercial dispute between the author, Zelney, and Webex. Where is there a neutral source for allegations of abuse made in open court? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WebEx. That article already contains all encyclopedia-worthy information on this person. Flyboy Will 09:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to WebEx per above. --Pierremenard
  • Delete without redirect: Erin Zhu's connection with WebEx is unencyclopedic. - squibix 15:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per squibix. rodii 20:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. not notable. Agnte 20:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 20:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gamaliel 02:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Get rid of this cruft. karmafist 02:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV article on non-notable (i.e. unverifiable from neutral secondary sources) relative of barely-known corporate executive, apparently created to further a vendetta by User:Larvatus Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable person, and probably an example of WP:POINT. Stifle 13:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep Renata3 05:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestraw[edit]

If I could tell what it was about, I could explain why it should be deleted MNewnham 01:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - Clean Up, and remove the word "We". EY 12:38, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - Looks like advertisement. James084 01:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert. PJM 01:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete patent nonsense.--MONGO 06:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and severely cleanup. Its all over google [8] and it is one of Time magazines "best inventions of 2005" [9]. -- Astrokey44|talk 12:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Astrokey44 motivations--Melaen 15:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Astrokey44 - FrancisTyers 16:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've heard of this thing, it is verifiable, also what Astrokey44 said. Crypticfirefly 16:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the first version is copyvio of [10] Kappa 18:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Current version is not copyvio. Denni ☯ 02:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite, it is definitely verifiable. Stifle 13:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for cleanup. This article has the potential to not suck. ++Lar 15:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the other comments. Anthopos
  • Keep --Alf melmac 08:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - should probably have a 'future product' tag at this point. Rapscallion 19:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antti Peltoniemi[edit]

"This probably should have been speedied as empty, but it was created back in August. Article is a stub with no references, 1 sentence which primarily says see this other link. Delete and if someone wants to recreate with more material, let them.TheRingess 01:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing googles...possibly misspelling of equally nn person "Antti Peltonen".--MONGO 06:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - squibix 20:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleteable under several criteria. Denni ☯ 02:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A1 and A7. Stifle 13:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE and REDIRECT. Harro5 22:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Mega Churches[edit]

Some of you familiar with me may think you're catching me in a contradiction here, since I've stated many times that "Criticism of X" articles are not necessarily POV forks. Well, no contradiction at all; such articles, I still say, are not necessarily POV forks. However, this one is one paragraph of text, three quotes, and twenty-three external links, and none of it actually originated in Megachurch, so it doesn't represent any sort of consensus process. (Late note: The creator of the page has just put a note on the talk page explaining that the material was moved out of Willow Creek Community Church. It still seems to me that it should be treated as a POV fork: the useful parts of it, but only the useful parts, should be merged to the main article.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge very selectively and redirect per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Megachurch and redirect; agree that it also requires heavy editing. Also strongly consider merging and redirecting the article McChurch, which covers similar ground, and does so somewhat better than this'n. Smerdis of Tlön 05:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second Merge with McChurch (the McChurch article has been suggested to merge with Megachurch as well, but merging them would make a more worthy article. --TexasDex 18:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we have other channels for dealing with pages needing merges. That said, I would merge per nom. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Unfortunately, all those other channels seem to assume that the most they will have to deal with is the merging of an accidentally created duplicate article, created in good faith and about as NPOV as any other newly-created article. The kinds of people who deliberately create content forks regard this and exploit this as a loophole: Faced with the knowledge that the editors watching Foobar won't accept the partisan arguments they want the article to contain, they create an article with a title like Unanswered questions about Foobar or What critics say about Foobar or the like. They figure they can't lose: if it slips under everybody's radar, that's a great outcome for them (and bad for Wikipedia); if someone spots it and tags it for merging, they put a big smile on their face and say "Merge? Sure, I can do that!" and they edit their POV fork material directly into the main article. If anyone protests that none of that material was accepted by consensus, they go on the attack. "How can you defy the will of the community? The will of the community was clearly 'Merge' and I merged it! You're acting in bad faith, by resisting that!" What we really need is a definitive policy statement that when an article is determined to be a POV fork, the burden of proof must be to prove that any of the material actually deserves to be merged. Until then, there's endless incentive for POV-pushers to create as many POV forks as they can. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, that makes sense to me. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move offsite: Perhaps we might like to host this list of links offsite and provide a link to it in the Megachurch article. I'll put it in a blog somewhere if people would like me to, though I don't promise to maintain it particularly well. BreathingMeat 08:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge very selectively and redirect I agree, I created the article, however, none of the content is mine. I didnt know what to do with the content (sorry, I am new to this), since it was messy and mostly just links and quotes, but i knew that is was not NPOV and that it shouldnt be on the Willow Creek Community Church page. I did take the relevent links and put them on the Willow Creek Community Church page and so there is no need to merge anymore with the Willow Creek Community Church page, however, it might do some good to selectively merge this with McChurch and Megachurch. thanks, --Mshuflin 15:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • read the talk pages if you read the talk pages Talk:Willow Creek Community Church and Talk:Criticisms of Mega Churches you will see that this was created as a solution to some informal mediation and the user Fides Viva is the person who created the content and wanted the content there. I tried deleting it but I didnt want to get into an edit war so this was our solution. I created the page not to make a POV fork or be a "POV-pusher," but rather to make a legitimate place for the criticisms. That is why it should probably be merged into McChurch and Megachurch. --Mshuflin 17:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Clean up grammar the and pare down some of the links. --Claygate 23:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything worthwhile here back into Megachurch, and then leave as a redirect. If that article gets too big, we can consider splitting it back out. Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 02:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Mshuflin. I don't like POV forks either. Stifle 13:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Megachurch and redirect as discussed above. Criticism could fit in with Megachurch article. Sure, it needs cleanup some, but it's a valid sociological discussion occuring in the US that could stand to be captured. Taniwha 20:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney animated features' titles in various languages[edit]

I somehow doubt this is what Wikipedia tries to be. The list is harmless, looks valid (the Czech names have just one small typo) but it belongs to a fan site, not here. Pavel Vozenilek 02:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Very serious effort and could be useful for people who need this info such as our foreign editors and readers. -- JJay 02:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is serious effort but do not feel Wikipedia will serve well as translation service. Pavel Vozenilek 02:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At least these are serious enough topics. WP is not garbage bin for everything. Pavel Vozenilek 04:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not disrespect Disney. It is a very serious subject and not garbage in any way. Disney is much older than the EU, and is possibly more important for many people, particularly our very young readers. -- JJay 04:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete those as well. JoaoRicardotalk 18:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not, let's delete everything and start over. -- JJay 19:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You may like to read this: Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot JoaoRicardotalk 03:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would, but I'm late for the Mickey Mouse Club (non notable group of people with rodent fetishes)- cheers. -- JJay 04:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I'm going to use the word listcruft in its least pejorative sense because this is a serious effort, but it's just not the sort of thing that belongs here. Reyk 02:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I doubt a fansite would be able to keep as complete a list as the one seen here. It seems like the sort of thing that a encyclopedia should contain. It is useful to some and should therefore stay. SorryGuy 04:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Try WP:NOT :-) It is not task of Wikipedia to deal with inability of fans to set up and maintain their own pages. Pavel Vozenilek 04:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Lists should serve as aids in navigation or development, not as providers of stand-alone information. JoaoRicardotalk 04:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcruft. --Apostrophe 07:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I fail to see how this is of any worth to anybody, especially as every single title I checked in there was a literal word-for-word translation, not to mention tht titles like Alladin, Mulan, Peter Pan and Robin Hood. Flyboy Will 09:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, my eyes! To me, that's a great example of a list for the sake of a list, where a ton of people contribute for the sake of contributing: "look ma, i done wrote lots of stuff on this here wi-ki-pedia!" The only entires that are encyclopedia-worthy there are, yes, the ones where country names are different in different languages - which is worthy of more than a list entry. Flyboy Will 03:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Isn't this what interwiki links are for? I remember voting on a list of translations related to Harry Potter a while back. That would probably make good precedent for this. - Mgm|(talk) 09:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If we're going to have other stupid lists, why not keep a list that has good effort put into it. BlueGoose 10:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I wonder if some of the criticism here has to do with an Ameriocentric worldview. To delete this article is just plain bigoted. BlueGoose 10:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about deleting all the stupid lists? And if by "Ameriocentric" you mean "USA-centric", I must inform you that I was not born in the USA and have never lived there. JoaoRicardotalk 18:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Danny 12:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 6000 world languages x at least 100 disney films means this list could be 600,000 lines long. The information should be in the individual film articles maybe, or just use the interwiki links. If anyone really wants to keep the info, move each individual list organised by title to the relevant movie article. If not, still delete -- Astrokey44|talk 13:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This vote is completely misguided, and shouldn't be counted. Disney only makes a select amount of dubs for each film, what's already represented here. Not all movie are translated into all languages, even, as represented by The Three Caballeros This list only includes the titles of those official dubs. -- user:zanimum
    • The vast majority of these 6000 languages have too few speakers for Disney to bother releasing a dubbed or subtitled version. JoaoRicardotalk 18:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, but I'd personally like to see the second half merged in with their appropriate articles, so they can be of more instant use. -- user:zanimum
  • strong keep if we have other articles of this nature, this one seems just as valid to me... Jcuk 18:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Come on, we have interwiki links for this sort of stuff, people. howcheng {chat} 22:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Listcruft. And poorly formatted listcruft at that. If someone wants to know what a Dinsey movie's title is in another language, make an article for that Disney movie in an alternate-language Wikipedia and interwiki them. This is just a hot mess. --FuriousFreddy 01:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Also, the articles on individual Disney movies should contain the foreign language titles in the intros, as is common practice with other articles (assuming they already don't), and the individual titles should redirect to the movie articles. Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 02:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reluctantly. It is certainly listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of inforation, not is it a free web host. Stifle 13:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at best userify. I don't see how this could possibly be kept up to date without a lot of effort and lists of things are not in and of themselves encyclopedic. Arguing that there are other bad lists is not a reason to keep one more. ++Lar 15:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Knox (animator) Renata3 05:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klay World: Off The Table[edit]

Article abandoned by author - information already covered in Knox (animator) MNewnham 02:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as copyvio from commercial book. Since there's no way this can be exonorated of being a copyvio or being turned into a valid article, I'll just delete it. - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Science vs religion[edit]

Original research. If it a lengthy citation it should go to Wikisource. Also not sure about the copyright status. Delete abakharev 02:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete under WP:CRAP. --Cyde Weys votetalk 02:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the text of a speech given by a fictional character in a book (Angels and Demons). Wikisource will not take copyright violations. Copyvio. Uncle G 02:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio speedy--MONGO 06:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copyvio of a commercial source. Alternatively, someone has tagged this for our other copyvio process. Either will accomplish the desired result. (ESkog)(Talk) 08:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 04:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secret plan[edit]

Oh this is just too much, a POV fork, of a POV fork--Petral 02:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this one has a better chance of winning against deletion. It is a historical fact that their was a "secret plan" of Nixon, there is also no mention of the other two wars. Thanks you, made this article better, and less prone to other misguided POV warriors attacks in the future. Travb 02:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You expect an article titled 'secret plan' to be considered NPOV?--Petral 02:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is the name that Nixon used in 1968. I am trying to detail this by referencing books and historical journals. Travb 02:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Travb's attitude, and Travb's policies of revisionist history (see this AfD's page history). --Cyde Weys votetalk 02:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On 00:39, 23 December 2005 I started a new article: Promises of troop withdraw by American presidents I was hoping to draw parallels between the Iraq, Philippine, and Vietnam wars. In all three wars Americans have been promised by their political leaders before an election of troop reductions. On 01:07, 23 December 2005,[11] while I was still beginning to flesh out the article, Petral added on a {{POV}} tag.[12] The POV tag explains this:
{{POV}}

Since there was no "discussion on the talk page." I messaged Petral on his talk page[13][14], asking him "for maybe a better name, any suggestions" and asking him to discuss why he had put the {{POV}} tag. On 01:34, 23 December 2005 Petral responded by adding my article for deletion.[15]

I then began to edit the page again, adding content, and trying to ignore Petral's heavy handed tactics against my brand new article, I then changed the name of the article to Campaign promises of troop withdraw by American presidents, and I added a link at the top of the deletion page, stating that I changed the name, with a link, which Petral deleted, and then reported me to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/RU Moderate. Petral then retracted his statement, stating: "nevermind, user is showing some restraint and is now cooperating with the AfD process."[16] He then began to revert the redirect to Campaign promises of troop withdraw by American presidents back to the original article, 4 times, and I reported him for 3RR. He then stated on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/RU Moderate "continuously moving an article nominated for deletion, without redirecting the AfD link" Please, someone tell me how to redirect an Afd link! I don't know how, as I said on the Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/RU Moderate page. Petral will not move it. I asked him how. Can someone please redirect the page?

People should determine if this is a good article based on its content, not on the other article. Thus far no one has talked about the content of this very scaled down article. What is POV in this article? What is not factual? No one has commented one bit about this.Travb 03:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as blatant attempt to circumvent AfD. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I find it odd that the person who has deleted 90% of the content of the article is against deleting the remaining 10%. Reyk 03:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to delete the entire Promises of troop withdraw by American presidents throughout history because there was already several votes for deletion, and I figured there was no use fighting it. Instead I wanted to rewrite the article from scratch, and Petral stalked me to here. People should determine if this is a good article based on its content, not on the other article. Thus far no one has talked about the content of this very scaled down article. What is POV in this article? What is not factual? No one has commented one bit about this.Travb 03:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • you're the only one who has made any changes to this page in at least 10 edits, stop accusing me of changing your words, when you're the only one editing this page--Petral 04:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
changing your words>>>I never said this. This is another fabrication. Here is my argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Travb#Dispute_with_Petral Travb 04:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[17] you are literally flame/trolling yourself, you reverted your own change, and called me a pest--Petral 04:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My aplogies, I was wrong.Travb 05:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This minor fact is already covered in Richard Nixon. Presidential candidates lie all the time about lots of topics. It's not a big deal. JoaoRicardotalk 04:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge as per Endomion below. And Travb, please stop enclosing your comments in horizontal lines. It disrupts the page and makes it harder to read. JoaoRicardotalk 08:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion--I will do it now, but I will not change the article, otherwise Petral will accuse me falsely of hiding information AGAIN. Travb 05:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already exists elsewhere...--MONGO 06:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bad title, info already covered elsewhere, and this scuffle is becoming seriously WP:LAME. (ESkog)(Talk) 08:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as part of some weird user war. Create content, go through RfCs, AfDs, etc. Don't create a million articles trying to prove a point. Flyboy Will 09:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Nixon's secret plan, many results on google [18] -- Astrokey44|talk 13:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subrah Iyar[edit]

Page created by User:Larvatus (aka Michael Zeleny) to further an unencyclopedic personal vendetta against Min Zhu. "Michael Zeleny has alleged that Subrah Iyar has authorized and participated in the corporate coverup of Min Zhu's rape of his daughter" - which is a potentially libelous allegation not supported by any court of law. This person is otherwise unencyclopedic beyond this un-alleged allegation. See also Erin Zhu, Scott Sandell and WebEx. FCYTravis 02:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of companies out there, with lots of executive officers. Not everyone has a page. Someone accusing such a person of something illegal at a trial does not make them notable --Pierremenard

  • Delete per nom, and thanks to FCYTravis for keeping an eye on things. rodii 20:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I guess, although it could be argued that if we could keep Zelney off it the guy has some merit for inclusion - WebEx is biggish, after all. But overall this is a stub, and the encyclopaedic content could safely be merged, so I go with the deletes. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per excellent work by nom. Agnte 23:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 13:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smogon Pokemon database[edit]

Advertising. See also: Smogon and Smogon internet database - FrancisTyers 02:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom (i know I don't have to but it makes me feel so good!) - FrancisTyers 02:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even though the banner image is quite amusing. Hedley 02:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yet another website... --dcabrilo 02:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nowhere near notable enough to warrant an article. Wikipedia is not a web directory, nor is it advertising space. - Mark 02:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though I like the banner image. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not because of an arbitrary, POV 'notability' standard (I fully support WP:NPOV), but because this article is an advert not an encylopedia entry WP:NOT Cynical 14:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Smogon is great and all, but it has something like 100 (or less) users. That said, this has been deleted on AFD at least once and possibly more times than that, making it a WP:CSD for recreation candidate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't appear that it has been deleted already according to its history. Stifle 13:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been deleted under other names, not this one, and the site in question hasn't changed significantly since then. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WhatEgo[edit]

Small "social networking" website. Being pushed hard by a new user trying to promote himself more than the website he claims to have established. Harro5 03:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "small" social networking site is less than 3 months old and has over 32,000 users. MySpace didn't have even 10,000 users in 6 months. By the way I am the creator. Run my name through google... it'll show up. :) Staff Position: Owner - www.whatego.com/scot — Preceding unsigned comment added by XScotX (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Only 200 Google hits, too few for a website. When this becomes as big as Orkut or Friendster, we'll have an article for it. Not now. JoaoRicardotalk 04:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: self-promotion. Hu 07:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Jporcaro 20:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 13:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (3 del, 4 keep) Renata3 05:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slice of SciFi[edit]

nn podcast (though that's usually redundant), 133 unique Google hits, alexa rank of 610,695. Plus its rank has dropped 81,820 points in three months. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I don't think web statistics accurately represent audio podcasts, especially because most of the traffic is strictly client-server (i.e. downloading the episodes). As podcasts go this one is fairly notable and as sf podcasts go this is extremely notable. Podcasts are an emerging field and your comment of "nn podcast (though that's usually redundant)" strikes me as indicating you are a deletionist with an anti-podcast bent. --Cyde Weys votetalk 03:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. When all fails, attack the nominator instead of addressing the subject. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, what I meant to say was podcasts tend to work outside of the world wide web where they can't be tracked so easily. Here's a hypothetical: someone finds Slice of SciFi through iTunes. They subscribe. They like it. They continue listening to it over the course of many weeks. None of this has any effect whatsoever on the podcast's Google or Alexa ranking. In fact, I am subscribed to about two dozen podcasts that I listen to regularly and I have never visited the websites of the majority of them; I just find them through iTunes. There are probably hundreds of thousands of podcast listeners just like me who aren't going to get picked up on a Google or Alexa ranking, hence why I don't think those are applicable metrics for measuring podcasts. Better? --Cyde Weys votetalk 12:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forget about that last line and read the rest of Cyde's message. To me that seems to adequately address the issue instead of the nominator. Personally, I don't see why podcasts should be any less notable than notable websites. - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no reason to delete. Article is well written and NPOV. This podcasting seems notable enough to me. JoaoRicardotalk 04:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JoaoRicardo. Essexmutant 11:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all podcasts until time has sorted out which are notable and which are not. The phenomenon is still far too new for a generic "keep". Denni ☯ 03:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a rather unreasonable attitude, just delete everything until we can sort it out? In the mean time work which has been done on pages like this one will be lost. I don't understand why your default stance is "delete until we're absolutely sure". And just exactly how long do you propose it will take to "figure out" podcasts? Another year? Should Wikipedia really have a blanket policy of deleting all podcasts for many months? Come now, that's unreasonable. --Cyde Weys votetalk 04:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have a rule of thumb: if it won't be important in ten years, it's not important now. Right now, as I see it, there are no podcasts of sufficient notability that they can be considered encyclopedic. No reason someone can't write about them in their blog, or that a magazine can't do an article on podcasts, but this topic is clearly not encyclopedic when it comes to individual 'casts. I think, by the way, there is a major difference between "delet(ing) podcasts" and "dele(ing) everything". I also find it interesting that you pose a series of questions, seem to answer them yourself, and then call the responses unreasonable. Do you often have this conflict with yourself? Denni ☯ 19:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can't even think of a single podcast that you consider notable? You're way out of the mainstream on this one, both in terms of mainstream Wikipedia thought and knowledge of mainstream culture. Podcasts are an emerging phenomenon and there are many that are eminently notable. And I wasn't posing questions myself, I was posing your thoughts as questions and responding to them. --Cyde Weys votetalk 20:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete podcruft. Stifle 13:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Care to further elaborate on your statement? You should at least try to cite guidelines or standards ... "podcruft" isn't one of either. --Cyde Weys votetalk 15:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It would seem to me that Wikipedia (the cutting edge standard) should be on the cutting edge of defining new technologies such as podcasting, and though it may be new, it will not be going away anytime soon. It, along with videopods are the emerging online technologies that will lead the way for all future audio and video downloading. In the forefront of this technology are such podcasting innovators as Evo Terra, Michael Mennenga, Tee Morris and Mur Lafferty. I believe it would be remiss on the part of Wikipedia to ignore this and simply try to catch-up once its tailights are off in the distance. Slice of SciFi, for those who have kept abreast of this emerging technology, is one of the most recognized innovating podcast programs on the Web, so much so that XM-Satellite (another new and ever-growing technology) has picked up the program to be part of its satellite channel lineup. I guess it confuses me why someone wouldn't want Wikipedia to chronicle this, in the unbiased way that it currently has, in its databse. I would still be saying all of this even if I wasn't so closely connected to the project. -- SK Sloan 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to BodyBuilding.com. For all those who voted to delete after the content was moved BodyBuilding.com note that in order to maintain author attribution as required by the GFDL, merge/delete is not a valid course of action. howcheng {chat} 17:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BodyBuilding.com Forums[edit]

This is an advertisement/spam article based on a message board; page history suggests it was created by a select few that often add nonsense, etc. Jay (Reply) 03:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • This entry is pretty much pointless and should be deleted. Why should a forum have an entry in an encyclopedia? Oh yeah PIITB
  • The site itself appears to have a high Alexa rating, but I agree that this article in its current form cannot be kept. (vote below) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • i started the article, and would like it to be kept up. i will be adding more information. there are some stupid people on the boards. is there anyway that only I can edit the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedirtbody (talk • contribs)
  • With a little bit of change I see no reason why it should be deleted, as it appears to be one of the largest sites devoted to the subject of bodybuilding NorseOdin 03:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awful article, I find it pointless and uninteresting. It needs to be destroyed quickly. {{smonkey}}
    • Totally agree {{smonkey}}
    • "Awful article": Removing my talking points from this page constitutes vandalism, you hypocrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.166.251 (talk • contribs)
    • I am reporting your IP. --Mantis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.166.251 (talk • contribs)
      • Ohhh give it a rest. You're going to "report his IP" because he insulted an article? Who did you "report" it to? Anyway, delete per nom. --Cyde Weys votetalk 17:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is one of the biggest forums on the internet, and a bona fide cultural phenomenon in itself. What sort of prejudice causes you to list it for deletion, "Master" Jay? If Wikipedia's supremacy over stuff like Britannica is its coverage of more current and popular topics (as well as the more obscure) then why SHOULDN'T descriptions of major internet communities be included? And why do inane blog sites like FARK (which don't even surround a discipline, like Bodybuilding) remain on Wikipedia, undeleted? . If anything the article needs to be cleaned up, but deletion? Stop being a damned Wiki snob, snobs like you are going to kill Wikipedia. -Mantis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.166.251 (talk • contribs)
  • Also, deletion motion is a complete fallacy. There is no advertisement for products, and no spamming included, or intended for the future. Page may be rapidly edited due to the actions of a few people who do not understand wikipedia protocol, but this is not the fault of the site itself, nor the owners of the site, and the case for a permanent page is as strong as the case for any other internet site. I make a countermotion that the ridiculous deletion tag be REMOVED. FWIW vandals have been warned to respect Wikipedia protocol. If they can't oblige, then ban them, but don't take it out on this page. -Mantis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.166.251 (talk • contribs)
  • i totally agree with mantis above. this is the point of wikipedia. its to have a free encyclopedia full of info that you cant find anywhere else. i will continue to work on the article and make it 100x better — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedirtbody (talk • contribs)
  • Keep but cleanup - Get rid of the unencyclopedic stuff but the forum is clearly popular enough to merit an encyclopedic article. FCYTravis 04:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup, per FCYTravis. Alexa rating suggests that this website/forum is notable enough for inclusion, but the article needs serious work. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You are aware that the alexa ranking is for the entire site, not just the forums, right? As their front page says, they have "Over 17,000 pages of bodybuilding and fitness information with content updated every single day", so much of that traffic is going elsewhere on the site. They also have an extensive store. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but serious cleanup - let's give the article a chance to grow; we can always delete it later if it is absolutely necessary. In the meantime, please make an effort to clean up the article. --HappyCamper 04:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The site should have an article, not its forum. JoaoRicardotalk 04:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JoaoRicardo. Pavel Vozenilek 04:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If someone wants to write a better article, they can always recreate it.
  • Delete per JoaoRicardo. Flyboy Will 09:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to BodyBuilding.com and expand to an article about the whole site. Alexa rating of 1728 [19] -- Astrokey44|talk 14:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete alexa ranking is for the website not the forums. plus organized campaigns to "save" articles by its vested interest members is automatically reason to delete. Zzzzz 15:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is that exactly, if the site is notable, why should we be persuaded by the immaturity of its members? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • its not the site thats up for deletion, its the forum, which is nothing more than the sum of its members, & their behaviour confirms this as a vanity article. vested-interest vfk's are inherently suspect. Zzzzz 16:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. Fails to verify claim of notability: a popular website does not automatically translate into a notable forum. Durova 16:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a large forum is not in itself notable. McPhail 16:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As McPhail just mentioned, being a large forum with a high Alexa ranking is worthless if you don't have notability. - CorbinSimpson 18:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. The Alexa rank for the entire bodybuilding.com domain is 1,728. [20] The forum itself has 130,000 members. The inclusion guidelines at WP:WEB state, and I quote:
    A website's impact can be demonstrated by meeting one or more of the following criteria:
    1. Having been the subject of national or international media attention;
    2. A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community; or
    3. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better.
    Read it and then read it again. —RaD Man (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(1) no nat/internat attention, (2) no impact beyond its own user community, (3) this article is about the *forum* not the *website*. why are you quoting the "entire bodybuilding.com domain" figures? Zzzzz 19:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, redirect this to BodyBuilding.com if you feel that way; redirects are cheap. —RaD Man (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
to rename this article "bodybuilding.com" would be a misrepresentation as the article is not *about* bodybuilding.com, its about the forums. so deletion is the only way. if somebody wants to create "bodybuilding.com" and write about the website and why its notable, thats an entirely other issue. Zzzzz 19:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not the only way, and I'm not sure why you think that. You seem to have a gigantic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. —RaD Man (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no impact beyond its own community. Stifle 13:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete merge the fact that forums exist with Bodybuilding.com and leave as redirect. If there is enough content to later warrant a split that will happen naturally. Right now I don't see content worth keeping at all. In sayings should be documented on the site rather than the article, (no one other than readers benefits from the information so why document it here?) unless they have wide currency, and lists of celebrities mentioned are not encyclopedic. ++Lar 15:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whatever little/basic information was here has already been put into the BodyBuilding.com article. I don't believe anyone would look for this article seperately. No reason to Keep now. - Liontamer 21:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator responses to the above comments[edit]

Hold on a second please - having the article listed here does not mean that it will necessarily be deleted. As it currently stands, there is no consensus to delete, and by default, the article will remain on Wikipedia. For the duration of this deletion debate, please focus on improving the article so that it meets basic encyclopedic standards. The article will be deleted or kept based on its merits, so it is advisable to improve on article content first - the article content should speak for itself, and the closing administrator will take this into account. You do not need to worry about this article being deleted if it contains content that is of quality and substantiated. --HappyCamper 04:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedied because it was a hoax. FCYTravis 10:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One Of Us or One Of Them[edit]

Originally tagged as speedyable: "Very nn; only 1507 results on Google, most of which are irrelevant to this topic." Doesn't qualify as speedyable, so I've moved it here. CLW 09:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn album of nn band Jamie (talk/contribs) 12:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Fang Aili 19:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --MNewnham 20:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 7th Album? seems notable to me Jcuk 21:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- King of Hearts 23:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I didn't vote originally, I just moved this from speedy to AfD. Since then, a lot of work has been done on this article, which brings it to a much higher standard and this now looks to me to be just as valid as any other album-related article. CLW 23:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-It might be their 7th album, but "One Of Us or One Of Them" and "Dante Evil" together yielded zero Google hits. "Dante Evil" itself yields only 1,180 hits, most of them refering to the writer of old. --Fang Aili 00:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • the whole band is hoax at least according to Google. I tried "Markus Grennich" and "Roman DiMarius" -> 0 google. Then I tried Repentance + "Dante evil" -> 3 completely unrelated googles (and it supposed to be US Mainstream Rock - #9; US Modern Rock - #8; US Metal - #1, etc.) Then I try "Witnesses to Apocalypse: Live in NYC", their live album recorded at CBGB -> 0 google. Then I try "dante evil" + band -> 38 unrelated googles. In short, what ever I put in google - no result or no relevant results. Also notice that most albums/songs use pretty common words and are hard to google. Articles provide no external links (link to official site does not work). I suggest liquidating all the pages related to the band unless someone can find something to prove that the band exist. Renata3 01:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. --Fang Aili 02:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change vote to Delete further to Renata3's research. CLW 07:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to below for AfD for the whole band! Renata3 03:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above research (ESkog)(Talk) 08:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as a hoax. FCYTravis 10:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Evil and its sub-pages[edit]

I found this at discussing deletion of One Of Us or One Of Them (refer above for original discussion). The band claims to have released several albums that top different charts in UK and US, that it recorded an live performance at CBGB, that it has reviews on popular magazines, etc etc. However, I could find absolutely no relevant google hits. Articles provide no external links (link to official site does not work). I suggest liquidating all the pages related to the band unless someone can find something to prove that the band exist.

The sub-pages are: One Of Us or One Of Them, Red Plague, Omega (album), Repentance (Dante Evil Song), Pentagram (album), Misled World, Crowley’s Song, The Unraveling Of A Man, Subtle Clues, One Of Us or One Of Them, Witnesses to Apocalypse: Live in NYC. All created by User:VinTheMetalhed.

  • An elaborate hoax. Renata3 03:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably a hoax. No entry in AMG. JoaoRicardotalk 04:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas per Renata3 CLW 07:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per research above. Vin has deleted the afd notice from Dante Evil. (ESkog)(Talk) 08:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Well done, Renata. FCYTravis 10:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forumer Modifications Center[edit]

Looks like an advertisement for this website with nothing really notable. James084 03:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - doesn't assert anything more than "this is a place for forum modifications." FCYTravis 08:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Obina 11:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FCYTravis. Stifle 13:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Darwin Central"[edit]

Article on a joke about darwinism that came up in a webforum. JoaoRicardotalk 03:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there's somehing worth, merge it into Free Republic then. Pavel Vozenilek 01:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ut supra Sceptre (Talk) 12:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm a pretty regular crawler of websites related to the debate (pharyngula, pandasthumb et al) and I've not seen it mentioned. Seems to be an in-joke that has not escaped to the outside world MNewnham 14:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author's reply: MNewnham seems to be correct. I've been informed over the past few years of some mentions other than on FreeRepublic, but I can't seem to locate any. So your judgment will have to be based on the visibility of the FreeRepublic site, and the culture war significance (and other virtues) of the article itself. PatrickHenry-FR 17:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then flamegrill and feed to hungry badgers. Utter garbage. Cynical 14:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into cabal --SockpuppetSamuelson 15:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable spoof unless good, verifiable references to mainstream sources are provided showing widespread recognition of the importance of this spoof. I note that (at least) the first hundred Google hits on Darwin Central are all references to a hotel in Darwin, Australia. Although the first paragraph of the article does identify it as a spoof, the unreasonable length and detail suggest that the purpose of the article is to publish and promote the spoof , not to document and explain its alleged significance in the culture wars. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, just about nobody would ever look it up. Merge a few lines into Free Republic if you really like it. Stifle 13:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Defense (posted after just the first three comments):[edit]

Gentlemen, it's my article, I'm newly registered, and you are correct in noting that "Darwin Central" is most definitely a spoof.

However, for the past four years Darwin Central has played a definite role in the creationism-evolution arena of the culture wars on Free Republic, which is a very high-visibility website. Thousands of posters and "lurkers" are exposed to Darwin Central's "existence" and views each day in threads where evolution is debated. So it's not just a joke that came up one day. Darwin Central has become a fictional, but functional label for the numerous defenders of science literacy (evolution specifically) in a key sector of conservative internet chat. It's become a feature of the culture war.

Also, Darwin Central isn't just one person's plaything (although I am the Grand Master's spokesman). Dozens of science-literate posters on Free Republic all participate in maintaining its existence, and it's been occasionally mentioned on other websites where the evolution-creationism issue gets discussed. As spoofs go, this one is "real."

It's true that Darwin Central hasn't achieved the notariety of other spoofs, such as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism," which certainly deserves its place in Wikipedia. So you could delete "Darwin Central" because it's not a major phenomenon. Or you can let Darwin Central remain, because it does play an important and visible role in a serious issue of our times.

It's a judgment call. I understand that you don't want too much of this kind of thing in Wikipedia. On the other hand, you already have some, so where do you draw the line? I'm hoping you'll let "Darwin Central" in before you shut the door. It's well done (he modestly said), it's been around since 2002, and it really has enjoyed high visibility.

If you leave the article on Wikipedia, I strongly suggest that you invoke the protection feature to lock the article, because experience shows that it will probably attract some vandalism, and you folks have enough work to do.

PatrickHenry-FR 13:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not the nature of the article. We can have articles on parodies, spoofs, conspiration theories, hoaxes etc, as long as they are notable. We have no evidence that this thing has gone beyond one single webforum. I am not saying that Free Republic is not an important forum. What I am saying is that this does not constitute notability. It could be mentioned in the Free Republic article, if it is an important aspect of that forum. JoaoRicardotalk 18:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Free Republic and delete. I've never heard of this in my years on Usenet and dozens of various boards. If it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia, it should probably be merged. - CorbinSimpson 18:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Edit: The two pages aren't even linked! The author should pay more attention to his contributions.[reply]
  • Author's reply to CorbinSimpson: I've changed my external links to the FreeRepublic website into internal links to the Wikipedia article on that site. Very good suggestion. I don't think I should edit the FreeRepublic article to mention "Darwin Central" until the status of "Darwin Central" as a stand-alone item is resolved. PatrickHenry-FR 19:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author's thoughts on merging: I've looked at the Free Republic article. The "Darwin Central" material would almost surely overwhelm it. You know what's appropriate far better than I do, but from what I've read here about merging articles, it's mostly done to transfer a short article into a longer one. A link from the Free Republic article is certainly called for; but I respectfully suggest that merger is an unreasonable solution in this case, where my article (a spoof that arose on Free Republic), would become the largest portion of the Free Republic article. PatrickHenry-FR 21:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note- I'd just like to point out for our newer member here that we all understand your intent with this "Author's Note" section, but being the author does not give you any special privliages in regard to this article. You released your work under the GFDL, which means any of us can change, move, use or anything else to the text. You are now the sole contributor, but that can change, and it gives you no added voice to the AfD. -AKMask 21:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author's reply to AKMask: Understood. Upon posting, the work is no longer mine. I see that the article has recently been edited so that only the first paragraph remains, and the editor also changed even that a bit. There's really not much left of the original submission for me to talk about. This has been a very educational experience. PatrickHenry-FR 01:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • PatrickHenry, I hope you stay here even if this article gets deleted. You are a good writer and a polite person. JoaoRicardotalk 04:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author's reply to JoaoRicardo: Thanks. Your comments have been most helpful. I've had several things professionally published, both fiction and non-fiction, so I'm quite familiar with the editorial process, and also (alas) with rejection. I don't take this stuff personally; and I always play by the rules. From the viewpoint of a writer, however, the Wiki-world is different. Very different. PatrickHenry-FR 12:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Author's acquiescence[edit]

There is an apparent consensus to delete the item. It's been edited down to virtually nothing, and there's really not much left to merge. If I were to add something about this topic to the article on Free Republic it would be entirely different. There seems to be no reason to continue debating. I agree that the article should be deleted; and I appreciate everyone's input. PatrickHenry-FR 15:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. Harro5 22:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art Vandelay[edit]

Not notable enough for an article on the subject. Information already exists in George Costanza. ERcheck 03:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. An entire section on Art Vandelay already in the article George Costanza (it contains more comprehensive information). There has been a bit of an edit war already on this with previous redirections (x2) to George Constanza deleted and the article recreated. ERcheck 03:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An article on a joke that one TV series character used on a single episode is the perfect example of fancruftiness. JoaoRicardotalk 03:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm newish here, but I wonder what the harm is if the name does redirect to George. Also I think the name was used more than once in the series. BabuBhatt 04:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can verify the additional usage of the name "Art Vandelay", you can edit the George Costanza article's "Pseudonyms" section to include the appropriate information. ERcheck 04:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to George Costanza. This was a somewhat popular running gag throughout the series, as I recall, but there's really no need for a seperate article on it. A redirect is useful though. --W.marsh 04:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to George Costanza. Nothing to merge here. (ESkog)(Talk) 08:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep. says here it was used in 9 episodes [21]. The term has become quite widespread outside of the show too with various companies, sites etc using the name - google results-- Astrokey44|talk 14:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - it IS worth an article, but there is nothing in it at the moment which is even stub-worthy, so until such time as there is enough information for a stub it should be kept on the page already mentioned by other people Cynical 14:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge until the section in George Costanza expands. Nothing wrong with creating a stub when there's no good place to put the information in another article, but that's not the case here. BTW, if you call my cell phone and I don't pick it up, the voice mail intro begins "You have reached Vandelay Industries..." Kurt Weber 17:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important gag for most of the series. -- JJay 19:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to George Costanza. If and only if the section gets too big in that article then it's worth forking off. howcheng {chat} 22:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to George Constanze. Stifle 13:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge Art Vandelay info from George Costanza into it, removing duplicated information. Sunnan 15:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Pepsidrinka 00:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of music genres that are not subject to high danceability standards[edit]

"High danceability standards" - say what? Listcruft beyond belief. FCYTravis 04:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ew. I was tempted to vote delete from the title alone, but I was a good little editor and went to look at the article, and now I've changed my vote to extreme delete. Complete, utter POV and OR. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zoe, and the fact that this list imparts no benefit to the encyclopedia. The Literate Engineer 04:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What a waste of electrons. --Walter Görlitz 04:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for such drivel. Pavel Vozenilek 04:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Complete, Utter and Total Bollocks Jamie (talk/contribs) 05:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vaporize instantly as nonsense. B.Wind 06:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thanks, though. I really needed a good laugh. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if the author can't dance to Heavy metal, I'm actually a better dancer than I thought. - Mgm|(talk) 10:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hit with a bat and bury in the desert Rob 14:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy - patent nonsense (speedy deletion criterion #1) Cynical 14:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • can someone please translate the phrase High Dancability Standards before they Delete Jcuk 19:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Weak sarcasm != encyclopedic. rodii 20:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. --Apostrophe 23:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a waste of time. Punkmorten 00:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete this shullbit. R&B is not dancable music? Funny, that's all many people think it's good for (well, that and sex). --FuriousFreddy 01:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most certainly DELETE - the list of genres that are "danceable" is definitely just a matter of opinion, and is not encyclopaedic. Andrew 16:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and throw snowballs at article author. Haikupoet 06:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN, nothing more to say. Stifle 13:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Harro5 22:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Harro5 22:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ruin Mist characters[edit]

This article was created on December 16. Since that time, not a single entry has been added to this empty list. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of adding to this article when this was posted. User:Henrydms 04:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If significant information is added about more than one character (currently links to page with one line summeries of several), then Merge and Redirect' to Characters in Ruin Mist (so we don't have a whole ton of stub articles, like the one this page currently links to. Otherwise, Delete as (attempted) fancruft. Concur with MGM, merge character articles into this one and keep, but ONLY if something significant can be added (and if there is more than one to add). Otherwise, Delete. --InShaneee 04:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not place to put in fan material. Try geocities or set up your own website. Pavel Vozenilek 04:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all character articles into the list and keep. The main article is too large to merge characters into. Still, if it's a list of characters, that's what is should be called. Please don't rename. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Important in the context of Ruin Mist. -- JJay 19:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 00:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack D. Lee III[edit]

Vanity. Gamaliel 04:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see how this article is on the deletion list. This is about a true person who actually made a difference in the lives of college students. I assume because he is young and not a child start that one must think that he serves no purpose on this website, but I disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.252.110.175 (talk • contribs)
  • I'm confused on how this article is considered vanity. Simply becuase this is not a "nationally" known person does not place it in a category of vanity. 06:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubba415 (talk • contribs)
On AfD, "vanity" has a specific meaning and is used to refer to articles, usually overly detailed, which appear to be written by the subject of the article or someone personally known to the subject. Gamaliel 06:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From the article, Lee appears to be a student, not a professor. Gamaliel 07:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Drini as copyvio

Doosan[edit]

Not encyclopedic, not notable. brenneman(t)(c) 04:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I vote for speedy deletion, as this is a clear rip from [22] -Tux256ac 04:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspected as much, but am unable to access that site and the parts of the I googled all came back as paraphrased just enough. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as {{db-repost}}. This was already delete as copyvio on Sept 9... Wanna bet it's the same copyvio? Jamie (talk/contribs) 05:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets in Taylor, Michigan[edit]

  • Not notable, not encyclopedic, a really bad idea? Rmhermen 04:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a good idea for Wikipedia, I'd say. Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 04:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. And it's full of redlinks, so someone can fill them out and make a whole bunch of nn streetcruft to be AfD's later... Jamie (talk/contribs) 05:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I thought for sure this was going to be a WP:POINT page from the similar listnetwork about Paris, but this appears to be unrelated. (ESkog)(Talk) 08:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, that's what road maps are for. - Mgm|(talk) 10:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Astrokey44|talk 15:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no city in the world for which Wikipedia needs to include a complete list of streets. --Metropolitan90 15:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jamie. ALC Washington 17:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep until Streets of Paris debate is over, then bring back here to discuss in light of. Jcuk 19:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 19:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so that there are merge targets when someone writes an article about the individual roads. And unlink some of the redlinks. JYolkowski // talk 03:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Major roads (and major roads only) can be covered in the town article if necessary. Haikupoet 06:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of (irrelevant) information. Stifle 13:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Renata3 05:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of some phones, PDAs, computers, and game systems[edit]

"List of everything" kind of article, covering "some" unrelated technologies. Poor quality, prone to spam, no informational value - just list of products. Pavel Vozenilek 04:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom.TheRingess 04:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, already contains graffitti and sneaky vandalism, but basically it's an indiscriminate collection of information, which Wikipedia is NOT. - Mgm|(talk) 10:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT Cynical 14:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides the key-stuck mess everywhere, I'm sure all the information is already covered in the relevant areas in places like Category:Computing timelines etc -- Astrokey44|talk 15:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find Out What Author Is Smoking And Give Me Some - "Unnecessary repetition of letters signifies it is a clone(e.g Dendyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy). At the end it will say what it is a clone of." Morwen - Talk 16:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Stifle 13:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Cappuccino. howcheng {chat} 17:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iced cappuccino[edit]

Could possibly be an article, or recipe, but not in it's current form.--MONGO 04:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonsense. (We're reading a comparison of "gourmet" coffees from Horny Tim's vs other doughnut stores?!?) Jamie (talk/contribs) 05:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This is nonsense. If someone wants to make a content filled article on the subject they can recreate it. xaosflux Talk/CVU 07:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - "content-filled" sounds like a new flavour of dougnut from the establishment mentioned in the article. I wonder if it's regular priced or premium.  :) Jamie (talk/contribs) 08:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV review and advert. Not encyclopedic at the moment. - Mgm|(talk) 10:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I tried cleaning it up a little, though I ran out of things to say -- Astrokey44|talk 15:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Cappuccino article to discourage recreation. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cappuccino-- EXCEPT for the Karla Homolka bit, which can be merged to her article. Really, Canada-- my God... ALC Washington 17:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Valid drink. -- JJay 19:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tending toward Keep...on the other hand "Iced Tea" redirects to "Tea" (which fails to make any mention of Iced Tea whatsoever....) Jcuk 19:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then we obviously need an article on iced tea pronto. -- JJay 19:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per CSCWEM. Stifle 13:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 'Speedied by User:Deltabeignet as nonsense.

Jibbiff[edit]

Appears to be made up with no google results. Also even if real should be transwikid to wikidictionary, does not belong here. SorryGuy 04:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hanashi[edit]

This article seems to be a hoax. Searching for it on Google with the words 'hanashi' and 'vitamins' only brings up the Wikipedia entry. I don't believe it is possible to write 'hanashi' in Korean, though I know it is a Japanese word, meaning 'talk' or 'stories'. As it is unverified as a factual article as it stands, I believe it should be deleted. Maaya 04:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Being 2,130 years old would make it just plain Korean, not "South Korean" if it were true. Not to mention it contraverts a number of facts about the digestive tract (and which organs are and are not capable of absorbing which nutrients) and makes patently absurd claims (the body stores nutrients in feces, for instance). May in fact be a speedy deletition candidate as patent nonsense, although it's possibly just a borderline case for that. The Literate Engineer 04:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Patent nonsense is very restrictive, but this is still nonsensical enough to be deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 10:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment True, it is restrictive, and does explicitly say it doesn't include hoaxes... but if you stretch "no meaningful content"... The Literate Engineer 16:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable -- Astrokey44|talk 15:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am a native Korean and never heard this thing before. --BorgQueen 16:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But yes, it is possible to write 'hanashi' in Korean. Not that it matters though :-) --BorgQueen 16:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? I guess you learn something new everyday. I knew it was possible in Japanese, but I know zero Korean, so that didn't really help. -Maaya 00:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. Stifle 13:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keith bowden electrical[edit]

Advertising. Delete. bainer (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone feels it's notable and rewrites it. Vanity/advert. --Interiot 04:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this is what it takes to get people who might have something notable to write about to do it, then it's what we do. Daniel Case 05:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 13:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate pudding[edit]

I realize that chocolate pudding is notable enough to warrant mention on Wikipedia, but this article is so brief as to be almost empty. Plus the author makes a claim and provides no reference for the claim. The statement "Currently, the top-selling brand of chocolate pudding is manufactured under the Jell-O® brand by the Kraft Foods Corporation." the author needs to date that statement, and provide a reference. So I suggest Delete and any relevant information can be combined into an article about puddings.TheRingess 04:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but slap it into a stub, and removed the biased stuff. -- 9cds(talk) 05:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand User:mizmuzik 3:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you remove the unsourced statements, you're left with nothing apart from the statement about it's dark color (which is false if you talk about white chocolate pudding). There's really not much to keep. - Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewrite. Good job. - Mgm|(talk) 12:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with pudding, which could use some cleaning up, BTW. --Angr (t·c) 12:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Changing vote to Keep the expanded version. --Angr (t·c) 09:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. There is a lot to be said about chocolate pudding rather than pudding in general. As for the claim that Jell-O brand is the top selling pudding, I don't know, but according to Kraft's website Jello-O brand gelatin is the "world's most popular prepared dessert." Kraft says that the pudding "has been an American family favorite for 63 years" and that 64% of mothers they surveyed said that the pudding is their child's favorite snack. Based on that, I wouldn't be surprised if it is the top selling pudding. Crypticfirefly 16:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that instead of marking this article for deletion, it should have been marked for cleanup, as a stub, and as needing verification. Therefore, I have rewritten the article to accomplish at least some of those things to a certain degree. Crypticfirefly 19:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks where recipes etc. belong. Durova 16:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Great article on important food. -- JJay 19:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and CLEAN UP america isnt the only country to eat chocolate pudding!? Jcuk 19:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where else is it popular? Is it also called "pudding" there? Please add the info if you have it. Crypticfirefly 21:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand --NaconKantari 19:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks like it's been much improved since the VfD. GeeJo (t) (c) 00:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in present form. Legitimate topic, food that is of cultural significance in the U.S. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would say "merge with pudding", but the other puddings have articles too. --FuriousFreddy 01:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. It now looks like a solid stub. Jamie (talk/contribs) 02:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. howcheng {chat} 17:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Barber[edit]

Professor of questionable notabilty. Google pulls 151 unique results, about half that when coupled with his area of expertise, Modern Arnis, a type of martial art. Notabilty claimed as the only accredited teacher of said martial art in North America, which he has been for 18 years. Being the only accredited teacher of a subject for 18 years makes the regional significance questionable, and the position equally so. Delete as is. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the long, reasoned description. Nevertheless, as the developer and prof of the only college level program in this sport, and as a Martial Arts Hall of Famer, I have to vote Keep here. -- JJay 02:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm open to adjusting this vote if new info comes to light regarding Barber's notability. It's difficult for me to judge as I am not an Arnis practitioner. -- JJay 10:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Question for nom. It looks like this has been speedied 3 or 4 times, is there any explanation for that? -- JJay 05:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I had speedied the article as A7, NN Bio. After locking the page, the author, Renegade68, asked me to reconsider, and wrote a version that stressed notability. Page recreated, and AfD'd. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. It's good to know that for the discussion at hand. I'm glad we are encouraging new users in their efforts by teaching them about csd and vfd. -- JJay 10:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto. I dont know if google hits should be a standard of importance here, but thats a decision beyond my control. The fact that Professor Presas started his art by having it taught in the Filipino School system made Dr. Barbers college program of special importance to him. I have head rumor that he used to mention that his art was taught at an American college with pride. That and the fact that he is well known amongst all the major players and set up and ran the Symposium (which was big news in the MA circles even with the controversy) earns him a place IMO. KEEP -- Renegade68 21:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC) This is the article's author.[reply]
  • Other instructors in the same art were influenced or aided by Dr. Barber over the years (for example, Dr Barber coordinated, ran, and acquired funding for camps with Professor Remy Presas in the 1980's and 1990's which were attended by currently in vogue instructors such as Tim Hartman). Professor Remy Presas (inventor of the art in question) considered him a notable if not exceptional student before his death. In terms of the history of Modern Arnis in the United States over the past 20 years he has been a significant instructor of the art and the entry should remain as is.TriVR 04:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC) User's only contribution[reply]
  • Dr. Barber's "for credit" Modern Arnis program is the only one of it's kind in the USA and was approved in writing by the late Grandmaster Remy Presas (founder of the system). I have personally witnessed the approval documents to this effect. In addition Dr. Barber was inducted into the World Martial Arts Hall Of Fame in the second year of it's existence, becoming one of the first six Modern Arnis practitioners to receive such an honor! He is also held in high regard by other members of the Modern Arnis/Martial Arts community being a techincal advisor for the International Modern Arnis Federation of the Philippines (USA) and the World Martial Arts Society (a testament to his notability). I vote to keep this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omastad (talk • contribs) 06:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC) User's only contribution[reply]
  • Modern Arnis is a small fish in the larger martialarts pool. It doesn't have the name recognitiojn of karate, kung fu or ninjutsu, so it doesn't surprise me that Dr. Barbers program is the only one in the US. I'm unaware of any martial arts programs taught for credit in US collages, so having an accredited program does strike me as notable. Modern Arnis is taught in the Phillipines schools though, and at least 1 other practitioner, Lisa McManas (with IMAF under Jeff Delany) also teaches a program in a collage, though I am not certain of the specifics there. Keep --Bob Hubbard 15:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC) User has been registered less than one week; seventh distinct edit[reply]
  • Dr. B's program brings Modern Arnis to people that might otherwise not step into a martial arts school because of cost, self esteem, or other issues. As a college course and a self defense club that is accessible to non students through the adult education program, Jerome has made Modern Arnis available to those that really need it instead of just those that can afford it. Since enrollment is generally between 12-25 students per semester. Factor the number of semesters that the program has been running (at two campuses for a number of those years) not to mention the number of Modern Arnis Seminars as well as for other arts he has hosted over the years, Dr. B has been very influencial IMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.28.179 (talk • contribs) User's only contribution

Good Christ, this was a mess. First we get rampant sock-puppeteering, then the explosion of some acedemic and personal debate between Barber and someone named Jeff (JJL, not me). I have moved this to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Jerome_Barber. I am also pre-emptively relisting the nomination to gather legit debate on the article's veracity. To the closing admin (I can't close this myself because I nominated it) still take into account the previous votes, but keep in mind the meat- and sock-puppetry. To new Wikipedians, please keep in mind that AfD guidlines state that "Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made." Discussions of the article's content should be made on the article's talk page and longer discussions of the article's veracity on the AfDs subpage. Personal issues between editors don't belong anywhere on the Project, so drop it. Let's try this again. RELISTING. VOTE BELOW. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable.Obina 11:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable. -- Astrokey44|talk 22:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Verifiability is just one of the requirements for a Wikipedia article. WP:BIO sets down the standards which biographical articles are required to attain. Stifle 13:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable.Doxn4cer User's third contribution -- JJay 13:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Verifiable but not notable, failing WP:BIO by a short margin. Stifle 13:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There isn't any other person who has my credential in terms of approval in writin from the later founder and system GM Remy A. Presas, for a college credit course in Modern Arnis within the USA. His approval was given in 1989 and the program has been running continuously from 1987 through the Fall Semerster at Erie Community College in Orchard Park, NY. I have noticed that the most recent votes for deletion have been given sans any supporting reasons. Admitting that I am somewhat biased on the matter, I none the less have put my martial resume up for review and camparision to anyone who is willing to do the same. My position in terms of creating and teaching a college based, credit bearing courses in Modern Arnis, is singularly unique in the art, within the USA. My tie-in to the IMAFP as an Advisor is indicative of my continued interest in positively promoting the art.

Jerome Barber

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 00:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sandell[edit]

Another page for a non-notable person created by User:Larvatus as part of what appears to be a POV-pushing campaign. See Talk:Scott Sandell for this quote by Larvatus: "Sandell's backing of paedophile Min Zhu." FCYTravis 04:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculate Machine[edit]

Non notable band from Victoria, no edits since October, no references, one link to bands page.DeleteTheRingess 05:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: An international tour means they meet WP:MUSIC guidlines, does it not? I'll clean up the article a bit. - squibix 20:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom. Jporcaro 21:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep several albums and many google results -- Astrokey44|talk 22:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per squibix. --Ngb ?!? 12:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've heard of this band. Andrew Levine 18:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, they have gone on tour in the US and Canada, that meets WP:MUSIC. Stifle 13:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They've also performed in London, which I think is more to the point; a band from, say, Buffalo, New York touring in the US and Canada might not necessarily be noteworthy. While the London shows establish notability, though, I didn't think they themselves were worthy of inclusion in the article. - squibix 15:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George e. woodberry[edit]

Doesn not provide claims of notability, nn-bio tag was removed, bringing to AfD. brenneman(t)(c) 05:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete , but not speedy. (We need to give the author a chance to finish it first, since it's bollocks-in-progress.  ;) ) Jamie (talk/contribs) 06:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- it looks like a newbie's first attempt at a user page that somehow escapted into the namespace for articles. Endomion 06:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all users contributions elsewhere have been vandalism... I think that means we can write this off as a nn-bio and speedy it.  ALKIVAR™ 07:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, per reasoning provided by nominator and Alkivar, this should qualify I think. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom. Jporcaro 21:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and put a cleanup tag on it. Many google results [23] he wrote the books Nathaniel Hawthorne (which is at project gutenberg [24]), The Life of Edgar Allan Poe and Criticisms and Interpretations, and he's quoted at several sites for famous people quotations.[25] -- Astrokey44|talk 23:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts redirect to George Edward Woodberry -- Astrokey44|talk 23:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 13:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pacea lui Cristos[edit]

Not only is it not in English (creator's summary says it's Romanian,) but it looks like it might be copyvio. Probably doesn't belong here. If there's a Romanian wikipedia, should it be transwikied there? Vary 05:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:PNT The normal procedure for these is to list them on Pages Needing Translation for two weeks. There, someone who knows the language will either find the copyvio, or translate it. If neither happens, it will come back here at the end of the two weeks. Jamie (talk/contribs) 06:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep - I'm retracting the nomination to allow the article to be listed on WP:PNT-- Vary 06:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article has bee identified as non-salvagable on WP:PNT (see below). -- Vary | Talk 06:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't speak Romanian, but from the cognate words it looks like this is a sermon or possibly essay based on passages from the Gospel of John chapter 20. I would be surprised if this turns out to be an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 07:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PNT the creators summary says "This is an article about "the peace of Christ" in the Romanian language" -- Astrokey44|talk 23:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have copyvio concerns. It says "By Romeo J. Fulga". But beyond that, it does read like a sermon rather than an encyclopedia article: "Care este această pace pe care o oferă Isus? Meditând la aceste scurte cuvinte, trebuie să accentuăm mai mult acest pronume “Mea.”" ==> "What is this peace that Jesus offers? Meditating on these short words, one needs to accentuate more that pronoun 'My'." It's pretty much all like that, only some of it is more florid. I don't think there is anything here worth keeping, and I think we should delete it. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I've read it, it's not nonsensical, but one's Christmas sermon for his church doesn't belong on Wikipedia.Dunemaire 08:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion copied from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English[edit]

Romanian? Found this on WP:AFD. Hopefully the nomintator will retract the nomination so we can have our two weeks. Unless, of course, this is a copyvio or something... Jamie (talk/contribs) 06:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like the nominator retracted the nomination. The title looks like "The Passion of Christ", and I think a biblical reference, not a reference to the film. (There are bits in the article that look like chpater:verse citations.) I can't find any obvious copyvio on Google, nor can I find this in the Romanian wikipedia. Hopefully someone who can actually read the article (unlike me) will chime in.  :) Jamie (talk/contribs) 06:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The orginial editor of the article had "This is an article about "the peace of Christ" in the Romanian language." in the edit summary. — TheKMantalk 07:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have copyvio concerns. It says "By Romeo J. Fulga". But beyond that, it does read like a sermon rather than an encyclopedia article: "Care este această pace pe care o oferă Isus? Meditând la aceste scurte cuvinte, trebuie să accentuăm mai mult acest pronume “Mea.”" ==> "What is this peace that Jesus offers? Meditating on these short words, one needs to accentuate more that pronoun 'My'." It's pretty much all like that, only some of it is more florid. I don't think there is anything here worth keeping, and I think we should delete it. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • About the copyvio concerns, it the author was User:Fulga777, which could be "Romeo J. Fulga". So that might be OK. Still if you can read it, and it's Original Research or just plain garbage then why bother with it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Segv11 (talk • contribs) 24 Dec 2005
            • You are probably right about non-copyvio. Yes, I can read it (except for a few words; as I say, it is rather florid). I don't know if I'd say "garbage", but it is non-encyclopedic. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've read it. No salvageable material, can be deleted without remorse.Dunemaire 08:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[end copied text]

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 both. - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Capricorns, List of Sagittarii[edit]

do we need these? anyone who wants to know can simply look at the articles on particular days. are we going to have everyone famous (how many?) in 12 list farms? BL kiss the lizard 05:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - list would potentially include 1/12 of the Earth's total population. Same would go for a List of People Born On Tuesday (I don't even want to know if there is one). Endomion 05:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nominator and Endomion. jareha 06:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List spam. Obina 11:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, can be listed in main article if subject has an interest in astrology. Essexmutant 11:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Endomion Cynical 14:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If anyone cares, they should use categories for this. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless cruft. Pavel Vozenilek 01:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is worse listcruft than the "List of Streets in X" articles that we keep getting. Use categories. Jamie (talk/contribs) 02:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand why this article threatens to include 1/12 of Earth' population. According to this, we should have EVERY Christian in the List of Christians and EVERY historical person in List of Pagans. Yet those articles never intended to include half of the population, nor they have. Pictureuploader 09:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • perhaps because List of Christians is for practicing Christians who are known for being Christian and List of pagans is for practicing Pagans who are known for being Pagan. There is no such thing as a "practicing Sagittarian", so it would become a list of people known for being Sagittarian - i.e., everyone famous who has a birthday known to be between late December and mid January. That list could blow out very, very quickly. Delete Grutness...wha? 01:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quickly, useless listcruft that will never be completed. Stifle 13:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Zavala[edit]

Delete Boot Camp Info wrong. Claims fraternization with an officer which is actually a crime and names someone. Other 85% of article is about cancer treatment. She is not "famous", cannot be found on the internet and should not be here. For here to get a page then every person in Iraq and every person to get cancer would also rate one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Looper5920 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. Other than Wikipedia mirrors, I can only find one source to back this up online: [26]. As unfortunate as this story is, it does not seem to be encyclopedia material. --Metropolitan90 07:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable nn bio, borderline attack regarding fraternization. Durova 16:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like original research, there are no citations given to back it up. It's not even good fiction. Endomion 16:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not famous, not verifiable, possible attack page and leaving WP open to libel threats. Stifle 13:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics and Anthropology[edit]

Appears to be a copyvio, like similar page created by this user, Urban life in Jericho -- Vary 06:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was 'Speedied by User:Deltabeignet Jamie (talk/contribs) 06:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael E. Ruhl[edit]

vanity, unverifiable Tedernst | talk 06:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was userfy and delete. Harro5 06:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Williams (network security)[edit]

Two reasons for deletion - Firstly because I am requesting deletion as the original author, and secondly because I have made a social faux pas (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AUTO). Kw 06:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy and give KW a biscuit for realising the error of his ways. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decision Technologies International[edit]

Not notable, low google, very little in the news. brenneman(t)(c) 06:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG KEEP - no valid reason given for deletion by nominator. Judging pages by arbitrary 'notability standards' or numbers of google hits breaks WP:NPOV. No valid reason = no delete Cynical 15:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete copyvio from [27] --Melaen 15:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reads like an advertisement with no suggestion of notability. - squibix 20:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ad with a call to action. Wikipedia articles are never written in second person. Single article link to it might not survive a potential AfD should it be reported here (and the second half of that article appears to be an add-on in an attempt to establish notability of the CEO of the subject of this article). B.Wind 21:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 13:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Deltabeignet Jamie (talk/contribs) 06:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Sorrows[edit]

I just looked into this band, and there is only one refrence to them, and that was their own website. Magmafox 06:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete NN --Darrylv 15:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sanford[edit]

Searches for "Peter Sanford" yield no results pertinent to this article. Based on age and statement that Sanford is an "aspiring British Politician" this looks to be a vanity article. Additionally, the only contributions from creator's IP address (86.131.41.201) are for this article. jareha 06:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable. No Guru 06:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps if there was an article about a "Neo-Socialist movement" which he is said to have founded, it would be different. Endomion 07:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possibly speedy. Jamie (talk/contribs) 02:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - vanity or hoax, take your pick. B.Wind 21:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 13:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- JJay 20:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was closed, given that all had votes on their own. Admins closing these votes should consider this at their discretion as well. - Mailer Diablo 00:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidated punk voting[edit]

Since so many -punk articles have come up for AfD all at once, this is your one-stop-shop to vote for those you think should be kept and those you think should go.

  • I think most of these articles are valid descriptions of genres, but they're titled under recently made up neologisms. I suggest that they be merged into some sort of a central article that discusses variations on -punk genres. As it is there's just too much punkcruft. --Cyde Weys votetalk 17:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alas, most of these are *cruft, but some aren't, so I think it has to go case by case. rodii 20:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all I'm also adding my votes to the individual AfDs. Jamie (talk/contribs) 03:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, I didn't list them all together because a couple had actual content (dubious or not) while others didn't. Perhaps I should have listed all the 100% obvious ones together and separately listed only the ones I considered worth more debate? —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, please consider this attached to the below AFDs. Stifle 13:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dieselpunk[edit]

Neologism invented for a RPG (Children of the Sun). Seems to have had no real use outside that, despite this voluminous article, which is as far as I can tell wholly original research. Delete —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a tough one. This doesn't really fit in to either steampunk or cyberpunk. --King of All the Franks 07:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't have articles on genres that should exist. Create the movement first, make the Wikipedia entry only then. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, where should we put the material in the article? --King of All the Franks 07:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The material that isn't original research is a single paragraph. Place information either in Children of the Sun or Steampunk, which is where all this started. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've taken another look and it appears you're right. There seems to be no professional evidence for this, so I guess I'll go with you on this one. --King of All the Franks 07:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nominator, Google only returns hits about this RPG, this is a whole genre created ex nihilo possibly to promote sales. Endomion 07:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --King of All the Franks 07:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this with the others punk pages. Flyboy Will 09:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with other punk pages Sceptre (Talk) 12:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as being a literary genre is concerned, there are no citeable sources and the content is not verifiable. Some of this information could be placed in the Children of the Sun article, but it does not warrant an article on its own. Avogadro94 14:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The non-original work here and with the other literary punk genres up for deletion might have a place in a section of Cyberpunk. --Ccranium 15:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable, non-notable science fiction genre that doesn't seem to exist outside of a role-playing game. Its application to literature, film, and other media is a clear case of original research. - EurekaLott 15:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with all points made. --Daveadams 15:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed -- the portion of this article that is not original research belongs under Children of the Sun. redfox 15:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google search seems to show it gaining currency, and it's a valid descriptor.Bjones 15:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a joke that has gone very wrong. --J13 18:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But the list of movies needs to be removed completely - "punk" is not a synonym for "era." A lot of those movies, maybe even the majority, have little or no "punk" theme whatsoever - the original author claimed that Night Of The Living Dead was dieselpunk, for crying out loud. - Anonymous 12:14, 23 December 2005
  • Neutral on this one. rodii 20:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being the author of this article I wish it to be deleted. Piecraft 21:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all this punkcruft. We should have listed all of these into a consolidated AfD. Jamie (talk/contribs) 02:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or at least merge with cyberpunk or Children of the Sun. The concept has merit beyond the RPG that introduced it. Google reflects its growing use. ScottHardie 02:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Just becasue some punkcraft articles are nonsense doesn't mean there are only two genres Johhny-turbo 20:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dieselpunk[edit]

From speedy. "Reposted content". I can't find the original. r3m0t talk 21:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I do not see why this article should be deleted under the particular circumstances given by r3m0t - as far as I can say the article is relevant in considering the term which is perhaps new but as can be seen on the net is a popular term. E.Deranged 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Children of the Sun (game). Unverifiable & non-notable per previous deletion debate. NicM 22:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This version is close to a word-for-word copy of the deleted article and is the sole contribution of User:E.Deranged. - EurekaLott 23:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge per NicM. --Terence Ong 10:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, though some information can be moved to Children of the Sun (game)- See previous deletion debate. Avogadro 14:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - I have added the relevant sources and information and merged into the Children of the Sun (game) article as per Avogadro's suggestion. 87.80.126.226 00:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, consider a redirect. Radiant_>|< 20:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stonepunk[edit]

Another alleged x-punk "genre". Only problem is, nobody is actually using it. Delete. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, can't find anything solid (as in established) going for this one. --King of All the Franks 07:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite the fact that, very possibly, the Flintstones could be described as such. Nifboy 07:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no citeable sources and the content is not verifiable. The mention of the Flintstones would not make it stonepunk, but would make it an influence on the non-existent stonepunk genre. Avogadro94 14:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with the others. --Ccranium 15:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. NN, OR, UV. - EurekaLott 15:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed. redfox 15:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only are these being invented out of nowhere, the author doesn't even seem to understand what "punk" implies. UltimateXiphias 18:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. rodii 20:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being the author of this article I wish it to be deleted. Piecraft 21:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all this punkcruft. We should have listed all of these into a consolidated AfD. Jamie (talk/contribs) 03:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. Ashibaka tock 04:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bronzepunk[edit]

Yet another alleged x-punk "genre". Like the others, doesn't actually appear to have any works written within the genre. Delete. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are no citeable sources and the content is not verifiable. The article contains a list of influencers without any influenced works that have been orginally created. Avogadro94 14:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with the others. --Ccranium 15:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. NN, OR, UV. - EurekaLott 15:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed -- not verifiable. redfox 15:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed. UltimateXiphias 23:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. rodii 20:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being the author of this article I wish it to be deleted. Piecraft 21:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all this punkcruft. We should have listed all of these into a consolidated AfD. Jamie (talk/contribs) 03:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per originator. Endomion 17:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ironpunk[edit]

More alleged x-punk "genres". Like the others, doesn't actually appear to have any works written within the genre. Delete. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are no citeable sources and the content is not verifiable. There are also no apparent works in the genre, be they literary, RPG, or otherwise. Avogadro94 14:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with the others. --Ccranium 15:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. NN, UV. - EurekaLott 15:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed. redfox 15:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed, same as the other entries. UltimateXiphias 23:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. rodii 20:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all this punkcruft. We should have listed all of these into a consolidated AfD. Jamie (talk/contribs) 03:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandalpunk[edit]

Another -punk supposed genre. Like the others, no evidence that this is in actual use or that anyone is consciously considering their works part of this genre. Delete. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Middlepunk[edit]

More -punk "genres". No evidence that this term is other than a neologism not in real use. Delete. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 07:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no citeable sources and the content is not verifiable. This, like many of the other articles, appears to exist to fill in a perceived gap in an x-punk literary genre timeline without having any works that can be attributed to it. Avogadro94 14:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with the others. --Ccranium 15:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. NN, UV. - EurekaLott 15:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This entry has the same problems as the other specious "-punk" entries. redfox 15:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed, same as the other entries. UltimateXiphias 23:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Interesting crowd here. rodii 20:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being the author of this article I wish it to be deleted. Piecraft 21:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all this punkcruft. We should have listed all of these into a consolidated AfD. Jamie (talk/contribs) 03:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transistorpunk[edit]

Neologism for a genre nobody seems to actually be using. Delete. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

if it existed then the page should not be deleted

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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spacepunk[edit]

Unused neologism. The article content appears to be unsourced original research; no proof that anyone considers this a real genre. Delete. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As with the others. --Ccranium 15:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. NN, OR, UV. - EurekaLott 15:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. rodii 21:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ComputerJoe 21:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being the author of this article I wish it to be deleted. Piecraft 21:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all this punkcruft. We should have listed all of these into a consolidated AfD. Jamie (talk/contribs) 03:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Johhny-turbo 20:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think the two "keep" votes for this should be counted because no reason was given. This is quite clearly a nonexistent term. Ashibaka tock 02:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete . - Mailer Diablo 00:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelipunk[edit]

Like the others, this appears to be a neologism that nobody really uses. Delete. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As with the others. --Ccranium 15:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. NN, UV. - EurekaLott 15:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Piecruft. rodii 21:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow you're so smart you came up with piecruft, wow that must have taken a long time to come up with, you must have asked your mom - it took so many years of inbreeding for a genius like rodii to come up with such a dumb insult. Funnily enough rodii if you check the history you'll notice I didn't author this article you pathetic tool! Piecraft 02:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Cyberpunk and Steampunk are one thing, but you can't have a whole category of new literary "genres" by appending the suffix "-punk" to whatever strikes your fancy. Endomion 02:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all this punkcruft. We should have listed all of these into a consolidated AfD. Jamie (talk/contribs) 03:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete . - Mailer Diablo 00:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nanopunk[edit]

Seems to be made up along with some of the other -punk genres up for deletion. Contains no verifiable sources. Cyde Weys votetalk 16:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed, same as the other entries. UltimateXiphias 23:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. rodii 21:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - EurekaLott 23:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all this punkcruft. We should have listed all of these into a consolidated AfD. Jamie (talk/contribs) 03:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete . - Mailer Diablo 00:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nazipunk[edit]

Only verifiable source seems to be a reference in a song lyric, punkcruft. Cyde Weys votetalk 17:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was move to Mannerpunk. I know you meant well, Cyde, but next time please don't remove the AfD notice until the discussion is closed. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mannerpunk[edit]

No sources so let's delete! Piecraft 16:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination was orphaned, listing now. --Cyde Weys votetalk 17:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed, same as the other entries. UltimateXiphias 23:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest a move to fantasy of manners, which appears to be the more standard term, with "mannerpunk" treated as a (perhaps tongue-in-cheek?) variant. A source for the original coinage would also be a good addition. --redfox 20:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Rename per my dear friend redfox. Hey kiddo. This is clearly a bad-faith revenge AfD by the author of all the other x-punk articles. rodii 20:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NO NO NO, please as I echo my fellow editors, don't take this as a personal attack! I am merely pointing out the flaw in this article. Piecraft 21:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per the above, although coming up with outside lists of what is and isn't part of the genre (as in Redfox's link) wouldn't be amiss. Snarkout 00:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. 82.155.22.2 02:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as this is bullshit to list these alongsite the punkcruft. Deleting it would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.... Jamie (talk/contribs) 03:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to what? rodii 03:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and huh?. I started this; it appeared on a list of requested articles. It cites the source of the original name mannerpunk in-text; is that no longer good enough? Smerdis of Tlön 05:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per the above. Avogadro94 06:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename as per above. This one seems legit, but "Fantasy of Manners" appears to be a slightly more general term than "Mannerpunk". (feel free to disagree and give your reasoning, naturally!) Listing was clearly retaliation for my listing of all the unused neologism -punk genres. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The page has been moved to Fantasy of manners, but it still needs some cleaning up (i.e. it still refers to "Mannerpunk" in some places). --Cyde Weys votetalk 22:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hosteau[edit]

Unverifiable. Either a hoax or non-notable. No Google hits for '"Hosteau"+"howard stern"' and none for '"Lauren Albert" and "Christopher Riley"'. Angela. 07:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of their web presence, Hosteau is a band that plays shows in Philly. I have been to see them. Their myspace page is at www.myspace.com/hosteau.

  • delete The myspace link appears to be the only reference on the web to this band - worthy of speedy MNewnham 18:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nn-band. It's very clear that a band is non-notable if it has a myspace page. Stifle 13:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Many notable bands have myspace pages. I'm friends with CocoRosie on myspace. Are any of you familiar with Philadelphia? 140.180.133.216 06:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero proof[edit]

The proof mentioned in this article is flawed. As is mentioned on the bottom of the article, since it involves dividing by 0, so it doesn't seem like a valid article since it is not a valid proof. Akamad Merry Christmas to all! 07:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as fallacious proof. Jamie (talk/contribs) 07:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with invalid proof, maybe? --King of All the Franks 08:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed on the invalid proof article, there is a proof to show that 2=1, which is almost exactly the same as the one shown on Zero proof. - Akamad Merry Christmas to all! 11:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to invalid proof. Kappa 18:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to invalid proof --Quarl 09:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per JimR and Wahltpohl below. --Quarl 22:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The idea is covered by invalid proof, and a Google search suggests that "zero proof" has a quite different common meaning relating to non-alcoholic beverages. -- JimR 06:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Kappa. Stifle 13:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero proof is not a standard term for this particular form of invalid proof, so I see no reason for the redirect. -- Walt Pohl 17:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely agree with Walt Pohl. --Meni Rosenfeld 17:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article consists of only misleading comments and an invalid proof. The only worthwhile content (example of invalid proof) is already in invalid proof. Also, the example given has no standard name of "zero proof" as suggested, so there is no use for a redirect. --C S (Talk) 12:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per others. I don't particularly mind near-useless redirects, but I do think a redirect should bear some rational relationship to the article it points to. --Trovatore 17:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 'Speedy deleted' article has no content/empty - and is disruptive to boot. Wrong namespace - OR - inherently POV - self-referential - take your pick. OK this is perhaps IAR - but the continued existence of this article is not in the interests of building an encyclopedia Doc ask? 14:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in the Wikipedia community[edit]

JUST READ THE TITLE King of All the Franks 07:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fuzheado | Talk 07:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-refernce. DES (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This sounds more like an IRC chat topic or a Talk page discussion than an article title. It doesn't belong in this namespace of Wikipedia. - CorbinSimpson 07:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what is it doing in mainspace anyways? We don't need this kind of garbage, but if we have it shouldn't it be in the Wikipedia talk: namespace? Jamie (talk/contribs) 07:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Essexmutant 08:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Agnte 08:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete due to wrong namespace. Wikipedia is not self-referential. Take this kind of nonsense to arbitration if you really must, but this kind of improper airing of grievances needs to be stepped on immediately. Hu 08:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OK, maybe if it were in Wikipedia space and spoke generally of systemic bias, but instead it looks like it has real potential to become the place where specific, personal attacks are launched and innocent mistakes are used to make specific people look bad. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oooh honestly what the shit, Delete. Flyboy Will 09:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- whinge whinge whinge. Reyk 09:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dispute resolution, yes. Article, no. - Mgm|(talk) 10:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but is it because i is black? Sceptre (Talk) 12:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it's in the wrong namespace and also perhaps because it's vacuous: it's a non-article hoping to become an article (and thus no worse than many stubs). And not because (as claimed above) it's "nonsense": unfortunately it's all too true, at least if "the Wikipedia community" is taken to include the crackers whose "contributions" are on display here and elsewhere. -- Hoary 14:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless author proves he is white Rob 14:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Attack page. Calsicol 14:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

spuddledumps[edit]

This is a dictionary article submitted to the wrong project for a word that does not exist. Uncle G 07:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Lucky 6.9 as copyvio from www.beagle.com.au/aboutus.html


Beagle Internet[edit]

Delete this advertisement in disguise. - CorbinSimpson 07:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discovering the Language of Jesus: Hebrew or Aramaic[edit]

Listed for speedy delete, with a reason of "Vanity review of book, it's more an essay than an encyclopedia article. Plus it seems to be written by the author of the book." This is not IMO a reason for a speedy under WP:CSD, but it is a very good readon for an AFD. Delete or else cite for notability and clean up and NPOV. DES (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm the one who nominated it for speedy. The article is written by the author of the book. It is a biased review of his own book, so probably counts as Original Research.TheRingess 08:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - actually it reads like a copyvio. I can find a few paragraphs of it in "reviews" on amazon, but I can't find the rest. Jamie (talk/contribs) 08:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak delete - it's a vanity review, but that isn't a reason to delete, but to clean up and de-POV. We could simply make this into a valid stub. Amazon verifies that the book exists, so, in the end, this is a question of whether this book is notable enough to justify an article. An Amazon rating of 600,000 isn't good - but isn't pathetic either for a technical book (my own is at 2.7 million). What pushes it towards delete for me is that google gives it nothing beyond Amazon - which means university libraries aren't listing it (my book scores several dozen on this front). However, this book was only published in August 2005 - so perhaps there is time yet. We really could do with working out a WP:BOOKS policy. --Doc ask? 14:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep its on Amazon and it exists...but I'm a Christian and can see potential NPOV problems....DePOV it, then Keep Jcuk 20:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's also Language of jesus from the same user with basically the same content. Now, Language of jesus can actually be salvageable, but the article in question definitely should go. It's an article on a book, not the theory - and this book is in no way notable enough to warrant its own entry. Flyboy Will 23:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur, though something on the question from NPOV would be valuable. JGF Wilks 14:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like it's unsalvageably POV, and possible copyvio. Stifle 13:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psychosocraticneurolation[edit]

In google there are only to references to this word - both references to the wikipedia-article, and the phenomena hasn't made it into the diagnostic manuals or anything like that (the kind of books I work with as a psychologist). It is questionable, if you would put the mentioned symptoms in a new category, because they are fitting into some other well documented (so called) disorders. But as we psychiatrists and psychologists love to give new names to old things, this is no real argument against the existence of this thing. The word as such sounds strage to me, but we also like strange words, therefore ...

Anyway, I am not (N O T) objecting to include articles on "disorders" that affect only a small group of people (who knows, it might become a fashionable diagnosis next year allready), but I thing, we need a source, like some psychiatric journal ... as long, as there is no source, I think, this article is violating wikipedias verification-policy Enfiladissa 08:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete...neologism. Doesn't seem to be a real word. «LordViD» 08:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment also no google hits for the location "Rockin, California" where it was first diagnosed. Jamie (talk/contribs) 08:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Word does not appear in pubmed, which should have just about any professionally published medical report. Hansnesse 08:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No presence on the net, and I'm very suspicious of the description as given. Denni ☯ 03:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified. Stifle 13:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chevaliers[edit]

An Oxford secret society, or so the article claims. I find no mention of this in the ODNB biography of Shelley, nor any relevant hits from a full-text search of the entire ODNB. Searching for "Chevaliers" is obviously difficult, as it gives too many hits, but a Google search for Chevaliers oxford shelley[28] seems to find nothing relevant. I believe this is a hoax, but am willing to retract the nomination if it can be verified. u p p l a n d 08:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nomination, unless verified. Tom Harrison (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only one possible needle found in the Google haystack. Information about secret societies is by definition original research unless the author is an insider, in which case it becomes vanity. Endomion 14:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It's not quite accurate that articles about secret societies are by definition either original research or vanity. Hypothetically it would be possible to write a wiki article about a secret society based on someone else's published original research. One can quite easily write about Freemasonry, the Rosicrucians, the Illuminati or even the Skull and Bones society at Yale. Of course, YMMV regarding what constitutes a secret society. Crypticfirefly 16:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but one search engine hit (and even then the mention is only in passing) in this case indicates no one else researched this secret society. Endomion 07:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shelley attended Oxford for only 11 months before getting expelled for publishing a paper about atheism. The claim about him belonging to a secret society as a student is pretty farfetched. The article is completely unsourced anyway. Durova 16:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, secret society being exposed on Wikipedia for the first time? Pavel Vozenilek 01:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a webhost, among other things. Stifle 13:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus and tagged as {{unreferenced}}. howcheng {chat} 17:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martinsons[edit]

If we forget for a moment this is mistitled, I can see multiple claims of notability in the article including several publications and claims of being a leader in their field. Was tagged as a speedy, but I don't think it is one. Abstain. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. NN academic (probably looking for employment).Obina 11:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I actually find quite a few works citing this author when searching Ebrary or Google Books (look for "Martinsons, M" or "Martinsons, MG"). And for whoever added the nn-bio tag: this is emphatically not a speedy delete, a real professorship and publications are assertions of notability. u p p l a n d 15:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uppland, and because his "research and insights have been published in many leading English-language journals and translated into languages such as Chinese, French, Japanese, Latvian, and Russian". Kappa 18:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per above Jcuk 20:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite Needs re-writing to be less of a ad ComputerJoe 21:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, probable autobiography, the vague claims of notability ("a leading authority on strategic management and organizational change") are unverifiable unless sources are provided and none are. Self-claimed notability is not a good claim of notability. We need to be serious about verifiability. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable and as it stands does not meet WP:BIO. Stifle 13:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Thomas and Friends - Season 1. howcheng {chat} 17:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble in the Shed[edit]

Are individual Thomas the Tank Engine stories really that notable? It is doubtful this will ever be more than a stub. You can call me Al 17:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've merged all of the Series 1 episodes into Thomas and Friends - Season 1, and put redirects on all pages except this one, since Wikipedia:Guide to deletion advises against putting a redirect o this page untilt he AFD is over. So there you go. Would the last one to leave please slap a redirect up, assuming that is the verdict. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)

Good work. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 09:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect per Tagi. Nice work.Obina 11:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grumble about relisting when there is no prospect of deletion. Merge decisions do not require AFD. Kappa 18:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge/redirect. looks like it would be a great name for a band. BL kiss the lizard 00:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and move to House of Fools (band). howcheng {chat} 18:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House of Fools[edit]

Vanity, besides the Russian film is much more well known. Maybe the band info could be moved to House of Fools (band) or a disambig page could be made? - FrancisTyers 17:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 18:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goods and services[edit]

This page can't ever have any content that wouldn't end up in either good (economics) or service. Recommend changing it to a redirect and replacing links to goods and services with goods and services Scott Ritchie 17:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 09:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dictef stubstub Jamie (talk/contribs) 10:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom --Darrylv 15:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, we need something here. Redirecting to good (economics) is inappropriate because that article is about "goods" vs "bad"s. Kappa 17:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ComputerJoe 21:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a commonly used economic term. 30 million google hits for "goods and services" [29] -- Astrokey44|talk 00:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I agree this term isn't likely to evolve beyond a dictionary stub and would support a transwiki to Wikitionary, the sad reality is that Wikitionary doesn't have much traffic. Can we leave a redirect in Wikipedia to Wikitionary?
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samw (talk • contribs)
    • We don't do redirects, but there is a {{wi}} tag. Wiktionary would reject the stuff about GNP, tax etc as "encylopedic" so most of the information would be lost. Kappa 08:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and use the {{wi}} tag. Stifle 13:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. -- JJay 20:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 14:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bellendross[edit]

unverifiable neologism. I see only 1 use of this word [30] outside of Wikipedia mirrors, and in that case it's someone's login for a game site. Thus, cannot be verified as far as I can tell. --W.marsh 18:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. howcheng {chat} 18:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Ellquist[edit]

Article on a very obscure, non-notable person. The google test fails miserably (250 hits) and the article is probably vanity --Mecanismo 22:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough as Arizona activist and political figure who has run for office. -- JJay 01:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Deyyaz 16:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 09:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNon notable. Running for local office in itself is not notable.Obina 11:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted twice -- no consensus to delete -- Speedy-keep --SockpuppetSamuelson 15:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, excessive relisting. Kappa 17:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per no consensus to delete Jcuk 20:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no concensus to delete. - squibix 20:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What's with all the bureaucracy all of the sudden? Judge the article on its own merits, not the quality or the history of nomination. Flyboy Will 23:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree it is borderline, but she represents a fairly significant body and is therefore notable. --Davril2020 08:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 13:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International Masters Publishers[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. howcheng {chat} 18:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social clubs[edit]

Problem: Article discussed at length here, I would suggest a deletion or merge. ....εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC) delete or merge no new points here -Drdisque 19:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added most of this information to the club article, though I believe it really deserves its own space. Please let me know what you think.

  • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 09:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , seems worth distinguishing from other types of club. Needs cleanup though. Jamie (talk/contribs) 10:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have to concur with Jamie here. -- JJay 13:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, topic worthy of an encyclopedia article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief delete unreferenced vauge impressionistic original research and generally unencyclopedic. It assumes the existence of general (worldwide?) social phenomena - some of this may be true in the US but what about other cultures (these do exist you know). A proper article on social clubs would need to be a lot less anecdotal and far less sociologically naive - it is this type of stuff that gives wp a bad name!. The only way to save this would be to move it into a specific culural context--Doc ask? 16:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for once I dont see a particular US bias (am I missing something?) I must admit the phrase "There are even Activities clubs for gays and lesbians." nearly made me kack myself with laughter!! Jcuk 20:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pretend you are rural Chineese for a moment - and ask yourself if this might describe social clubs in your culture. The bias is that it assumes a Western (probably North American) experience is universal. --Doc ask? 20:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the Doc. I'm sure there is published sociological research that could be used to write an article on social clubs, but this is not worth saving. u p p l a n d 20:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. ComputerJoe 21:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although it seems silly to me, we do have articles on gym] and Yacht club and so on. However, the article really must be rewritten, and probably have a list of notable social clubs a-la Yacht club. Flyboy Will 23:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs cleanup, not deletion. -- Astrokey44|talk 00:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE should have been speedied in the first place. -Doc ask? 13:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prank ideas[edit]

Problem: Vulgar, non encyclopedic dribble. Perhaps a BJAODN would be in order.....εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - wikipedia is not a howto guide. --אריאל יהודה
  • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 09:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete utterly unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 10:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki to bollocks.wikibooks.org Jamie (talk/contribs) 10:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete.Not funny enough to transW.Obina 11:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely speediable in some form? Delete otherwise. Soo 12:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete has absolutely no place on an enyclopedia and purely childish.
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 ask? 13:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Internation Mexico Day[edit]

Non-notable. --Quasipalm 19:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems to be a group of four people dressing up and getting drunk. •DanMS 04:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 09:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as bollocks Jamie (talk/contribs) 10:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said. Delete. Soo 12:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emosnap[edit]

NN neologism. Durova 19:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Harro5 22:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bozaloshtsh[edit]

del Nonverifable. The anon is creating Wiendish mythology here, totally unreferenced, taking an advantage this being an unknown area. mikka (t) 16:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete original research per referrer. If this is taken from neopaganist manuals, please clearly say so in the text. --Ghirlandajo 13:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mikkalai. Several homepages refer to the Bozaloshtsh. What is your problem? Dr. Anthony E. Smith is behind this interpreation of the Bozaloshtsh. Remember it is Wendish - not Russian mythology in this case. See: http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/bozaloshtsh.html

But on the other hand. I may have been fooled by this Wicca, I'm must admit. see: http://www.heathenfolk.net/forums/view_topic.php?id=599&forum_id=&jump_to=2750 "Now this guy, Dr. Anthony E. Smith, is a prime example of parroting Wiccan doctrine."

LK

Bozaloshtsh's also got an article at http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bozaloshtsh (where it should be less of an 'unknown area'). 24.17.48.241 09:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Please check out: Bonnerjea, B. A Dictionary of Superstitions and Mythology. London 1927

user:konzack 20:23 December 13 2005

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep has credible sources. Kappa 01:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 09:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This whole area seems full of circular references. I can't find a copy of Bonnerjea for example. Has anyone independent seen/read any of these works? There may be a story here, but I sense it is not balanced.Obina 12:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this article has been on AfD for 13 days now, which seems to be stretching the process beyond what it's meant to be. Clearly there is no consensus to delete, so the article (as ridiculous as it may be) should be unburdened of the AfD notice. The 'not verified' notice should be enough to warm people that this is a potentially questionable article. - squibix 20:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic Delete. There's no consensus to delete because it's such an incredibly obscure topic. As one of the few people who actually know anything of pre-Christian Slavic mythology, I have to say this is complete bollocks. The people had no writing. We're not even sure of the functions and relationships between their chief deities. I have never heard of Biren Bonnerjea or his 1921 book before, but in the past few decades made up Slavic mythology has been used to support a huge number of hoaxes in wiccan literature. I'd need to see more modern sources, with detailed explanation on where they found this deity, to change my mind. A single obscure 1921 book isn't nearly good enough. Flyboy Will 23:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the unverified tag -- Astrokey44|talk 01:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the worst possible solution. This entire encyclopedia will go down the drain. Any insane tidbit of idiocy can be kept here, as long as a couple of geocities pages copy it off of each other. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a secondary repositary of information, which means reputable sources must exists before an article is created. Flyboy Will 02:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to me like complete bollocks. Stifle 13:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Flyboy Will unless proof of given reference text, or other independent source provided. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 14:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Evil Hour[edit]

"There is a book called this, in spanish it is called this." is not an article. StealthFox 19:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SLAGIATT[edit]

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Unlikely to be expandable beyond its current form. You can call me Al 19:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Original research. SLAGIATT returns 464 hits on Google, but I was unable to find a widespread use of this term in the internet context asserted by this article. Endomion 13:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 14:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RPGnato[edit]

"Brasilian gaming group formed by students - irrelevant for an encyclopedia"

  • Delete Non notable, a school gaming club is not really notable enough to be in wikipedia on it's own, without something more than a list of gamemasters and campaigns to assert notability. --Wingsandsword 21:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 09:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. FCYTravis 10:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Jamie (talk/contribs) 10:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.NN.Obina 12:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE (could have been speedied as well). -Doc ask? 14:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ramendra Singh Bhadauria(Lal-Kitab-Astrology), Ramendra Singh Bhadauria,Astrologer[edit]

Vanity Page Varco 20:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added the second page to this, since it has pretty much the same content. Both were created by the same person, User:Astrobhadauria. And Delete both, no encyclopedic content and nothing useful shows up on google. - Bobet 21:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 09:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio Jamie (talk/contribs) 10:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Gabriel García Márquez. howcheng {chat} 18:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes of a Blue Dog[edit]

sub-stub on a short story, belongs in the author's article Dalbury(Talk) 20:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xylos[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria; no AllMusic entry, no releases for sale, relevant Google hits appear to be limited to band site and Wikipedia. Jasmol 20:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE (I don't see how 4 deletes and 0 keeps is insufficient . -Doc ask? 14:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bondfire[edit]

nn website. No alexa data, no "site:" results in Google. No media coverage. No incoming wikilinks. No significance asserted. Fails WP:WEB.  Perfecto 20:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Perfecto 20:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination, non-notable website. --Wingsandsword 21:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case you cant read, its a N-E-W site, meaning things like search indexing are to come. Media coverage? Since when do media and facts have anything to do with eachother. Notability is subjective; Isn't this an encyclopedia?
  • If it's a new site then it's not notable. Delete. Soo 11:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 09:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleteNN.Obina 12:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Horiuchi[edit]

This looks like a vanity page to me. The text was cut and pasted from his website. I found one other biographical entry on the web, but it was also pasted from his website. There are no articles about him in the archives of ClayTimes, one of the two major pottery magazines. The page was also listed as an orphan. Paul Stokstad 20:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, vanity and possibly NN. - Rudykog 20:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 09:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Sometimes things get awkward - his great-uncle clearly is an important artist [[31]] and deserves a wikipedia page, but doesn't have one. His brother is a competent but NN commercial photographer [[32]] and he is a competent but NN ceramicist. MNewnham 15:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The great uncle deserves a page. Durova 16:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all of the above Paul 18:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete both (11d/2k). Mindmatrix 22:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Life and Times of M.C. Beer Bong, M.C. Beer Bong[edit]

256 Google hits This article has been on Wikipedia for over a year so many of the results are Wikimirrors. Someone's personal project. delete Lotsofissues 23:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EVERYTHING is listed under IMDB -- no matter how minor. Lotsofissues 05:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 09:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need to cover every film in IMDB, really. Soo 11:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Unusual feature on Asian rapper. International film festivals and IMDB. -- JJay 13:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, it's on IMDB, but it only has seven votes there, and the budget is listed as $1000. Come on. People will want articles on their vacation slides next. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not, but only if the slides are shown at major film festivals, get press coverage and released on DVD, like Beer Bong. -- JJay 14:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JJay Jcuk 20:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seriously, an IMDB page and a showing at a festival makes something encyclopedic? Its frigging IMDB doesn't have a single newsgroup review, not to mention an external review. Flyboy Will 00:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. IMDB is not a reliable source, because its submission standards are almost as low as Wikipedia's. I could tape something in my basement today and have it on IMDB by next week. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both are unverifiable; IMDb not reliable in this case. Xoloz 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, off you go. Stifle 13:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both.--nixie 12:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 06:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. utcursch | talk 08:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to CKY Crew. howcheng {chat} 18:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art Webb 1986[edit]

Only claim to fame seems to be that he is related to a regular on an MTV show. Delete unless someone can tell me something about Viva La Bam that I don't know. JHMM13 (T | C) 23:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Actually, he's listed 2 claims to fame. Being Rake Yohn's brother AND being seen on the CKY (videos). And he managed those 2 claims to fame in just 1 line. Looking him up on Google [33] that particular claim to fame warrants 4,590 hits by itself. Yet for some bizarre reason, not all reviews of CKY have Art Webb mentioned - and IMDB doesn't list him in the credits [34] or at least not under the name "Art Webb". What his real name is I don't know. But apparently he is called "Art Webb 1986" regularly. [35]. There's enough there to suggest he's notable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, what's going on, Zordrac? I'm not sure I agree with the criteria you have laid out for Art Webb 1986. If he isn't listed on IMDB for the bit he's supposed to play, he's a very background character. Also, being someone's sibling is not grounds for notability, so we should really only be looking at the CKY thing. JHMM13 (T | C) 00:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. Well I am swinging on this one. All of the forums say that he *WAS* a notable character. I think that we just need to find out what his other name was. I am sure that he *WAS* listed on IMDB, just using another name. Art Webb is obviously a pseudonym. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Righto, hopefully some other people can weigh in. See you around! JHMM13 (T | C) 05:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 09:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 4500 hits on google minus the wikipedia ones. Even if its a pseudonym, its a notable one -- Astrokey44|talk 03:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Art Webb 1986[edit]

Delete AW1986 is a very minor cast member in the CKY / VLB dynasty - in fact, to call him a cast member is itself laughable. I seriously doubt that he deserves a separate entry, all that needs to be known about him (which is that he's Rake's brother) is on the CKY (videos) page. No diss at all to Art, I've seen - and love - everything these guys have put out, and edit the CKY video page. I can just confirm that whatever forums and google say, he is only very vaguely important to CKY and seriously not worth an entry. If all of Bam's friends who make occasional 2 second appearances in the CKY films and spin-offs were given pages there would be a hell of a lot of them. The whole of West Chester for a start... Other minor cast / crew members who have managed to get entries should also be looked at.

Also, as far as I know it isn't a psudonym, his surname is certainly Webb - "Rake Yohn", as his brother is known, is a psudonym, real name Ted Webb.

Deiz 16:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Deiz 16:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Combined Page[edit]

I have created a combined page for minor CKY Cast members. I intend to redirect this and other similar pages to there. Any objections?

Deiz 23:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 14:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph & Brigitte Sykes[edit]

According to the article, their claim to fame: Appearance in one episode of a soap opera as babies. Does not pass the actor criteria. delete

Lotsofissues 23:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Note that there are two other AfD's going on for twins that acted in soaps as babies. One of them lists 3 sets of twins, the other lists 20. Jamie (talk/contribs) 10:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Role in soap with IMDB entry. -- JJay 13:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep Renata3 05:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Professional employer organization[edit]

It's basically an ad for this lot - http://www.napeo.org - I've removed the spam links, and it's a bit of a nothing article, and a spam magnet. Jgritz 23:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 09:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, my brain switched off after the first sentence. Delete this pile of marketing mumbojumbo. Soo 11:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'DeletePer nom.Obina 12:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and cleanup. Google shows 150,000 hits, good definition here at government site [36]. -- JJay 13:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real type of organizatin. Some version are less mumbo-jumbo, like [37] Kappa 16:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep strong cleanup! Jcuk 20:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. Flyboy Will 00:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WCReplays.com[edit]

Website with no external significance, Alexa ranking lower than 75,000. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Agentsoo (talk • contribs)

This site is the main site for the community of warcraft 3.

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. Harro5 22:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seibertron[edit]

Google tells me that in Japan it's the "homeworld of the Transformers". Article consists only of an info box with a commercial link - is it spam? RobertG ♬ talk 10:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You found this article only minutes after it was created. Perhaps the author is going to add more. That said, it looks like it is describing an NN corp which bills itself as a "the ultimate transformers resource". Jamie (talk/contribs) 10:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNon Notable.Obina 12:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being knowledgeable about this kind of thing, I suggest that we redirect to Cybertron. Seibertron is the actual Japanese name for Cybertron. The website isn't notable, though. --Apostrophe 01:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Seibertron.com website is actually one of the most well known in internet Transformers fandom for various reasons (some of them quite controversial), and virtually anyone active in that fandom will know (and if they're not a member of said site thoroughly dislike) Seibertron.com.--Gunbuster 08:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right, I've expanded on it quite a bit EnerJolt 11:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now it looks like vanity and fancruft. Trolls are a dime a dozen, and shouldn't even be noted; ignoring the obvious NPOV violations. There's more NPOV problems in other sections, as well. --Apostrophe 01:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apostrophe, I've expanded further to include other features of the site, to make it seem less like fancruft. I've read the NPOV page, and I don't see what the problem is (if you could elaborate on the problem, instead of simply telling me there is a problem, it would be greatly appreciated). Moreover, the section on the trollers is a part of seibertron.com's coloured history, and as Gunbuster has pointed out, seibertron.com is well-noted in the Transformers internet fanbase, for better or worse. There are many other fansites concerning celebrated television shows i.e. alt.tv.simpsons and newgrounds, so I really don't see what the problem is, unless you have no great affection for Optimus and Megatron
  • I would like to note that I am the creator of the article, and a member of Seibertron.com, and it is true that Seibertron is among the best known Transformer sites on the net, and in the way of the VSD, not so much unlike Wikipedia itself. If you look at our page, it's grown since I first started it, and with time it will grow more. We only wish to bring our collective knowledge forth so those interested Transformers will be able to learn about it's past. Please give the page a second thought.
    • The article lacks even basic information on the majority of things that make it noteworthy. Heavy Metal War deserves it's inclusion, but where is the site's history? Seibertron.com has become (in?)famous throughout the fandom for the controversy it's either courted or created, not because of it's forum set-up, moderators or trolls.--Gunbuster 12:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep, needs cleanup to eliminate forumcruft. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. -Sean Curtin 22:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng {chat} 18:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SHINE - Spreading the Light through Human Values[edit]

Hmmm. No CSD that I can see, but it's WP:OR and can not be expanded into an encyclopedic entry. Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 10:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1st Street (Taylor, MI)[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of streets in Taylor, Michigan. Article doesn't tell anything about the road which cannot be gleaned from reading a map. Wikipedia is not a road map. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 10:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, you were doing so well until the vote! Bugger, eh? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN streetctuft. I said this was going to happen.  :) Jamie (talk/contribs) 10:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hit the road, Jack. (couldn't resist - but certainly should've). PJM 15:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the M25's just a road, but it has an article... Jcuk 21:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment there's a different between an article for a major thourougfare and streetcruft like this. There were a bunch of AfDs a copule of months back about various streets in Toronto. The net result was that only the major arterial roads (and not all of these), as well as "important" shopping and cultural steets were kept. And even after that purge, Toronto seems to have a loweb bar for street notability that most other cities on Wikipedia. According to the article, ths little street runs 4 blocks, and was the article was likely created only because someone found it as a redlink on List of streets in Taylor, Michigan (which is also on AfD). I would suggest that a good guidline for streets might be that if there is nothing more to say about them than can be learned from a map, then they don't deserve an article. But perhaps we should have a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion on notability for steets? Jamie (talk/contribs) 02:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, very nice. Well done. Have a biccie; you've earned it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sense having an article on every bloody paved road in the world. Search4Lancer 23:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Apjake. Not every road in the world is encyclopaedic. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and Apjake. Wikipedia is not a road map in prose. --Metropolitan90 15:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Big thanks to Metropolitan90 and fuddlemark for reminding me to fix my sig line to reflect my new username! Completely forgot. Search4Lancer 16:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 22:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tatzic[edit]

non-notable; article's assertion that there is a "whole conculture" surrounding the made-up language is irrelevant because a conculture is, by definition, also imaginary. [38]. Adunar 10:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn bollocks Jamie (talk/contribs) 11:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the original author is still around, is there any more information that could be posted regarding the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Conlangs/Straw_poll, anything that makes it particularly notable? --Interiot 11:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Pickard[edit]

vanity bio; asserts notability due to winning Oregon high school tennis championship in 1973 and position at an athletic club, but that seems non-notable to me. Adunar 10:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN bio, but not speedyable :( Jamie (talk/contribs) 11:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 CSD. - Mailer Diablo 11:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just crept over the barrier and is not speediable but can certainly be deleted the old-fashioned way. Stifle 13:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- JJay 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 19:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India empire[edit]

Advertisement. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 10:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Disclosure: I speedied the contributor's other creation, which was an exact duplicate of this one under another name, and I pointed user at WP:NOT. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete doesn't the above comment mean this qualifies for CSD G4? Jamie (talk/contribs) 11:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - not strictly CSD G4, since this was not a "recreation of deleted material", because the two were created almost simultaneously; this was created before I deleted the other one. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to British Raj, Indian Empire and Empire of India redirect there already. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 12:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is not about the Indian Empire. It's about a magazine by that name. So redirect doesn't make sense.--Raghu 13:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, if it were merged it wouldn't make sense, but all that's kept when you simply redirect is the title. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 14:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then by the same arguement there should be Germany Empire which redirects to German Empire, which has an article. Like that for all other empires. Very unlikly that somebody would search for "India Empire" rather than "Indian Empire". I would also like to add that the magazine "India Empire" is real and maybe worth having an article if it is cleaned up.--Raghu 15:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, actually, it's quite likely that somebody would search for "India Empire" rather than "Indian Empire." Apparently you underestimate the online public. Search4Lancer 23:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per CanadianCaesar Search4Lancer 23:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep. The original was a copyvio straight from [39]. I tried making it a stub -- Astrokey44|talk 02:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep after Astrokey44's edits. Can be merged into the India Book House article (it's publisher, which is a well-known firm), when it gets created. --Pamri • Talk 04:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep and move This article should be moved India empire (magazine). The title just by itself is confusing. - Ganeshk 22:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 08:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep No problem with having the magazine as an article, but would be nice if it was more than a stub. Stephenb (Talk) 16:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew_Hilger[edit]

This page is laced with spam advertising Matthew Hilger's book on Texas Hold 'em and his for-profit website.

Strong Keep: Matthew Hilger's site is not just for profit. It contains numerous strategy articles and forums for amateur and professional players, equal in value to those at Card Player, The Hendon Mob's site, 2+2, etc. He is also a notable and respected poker player/author in his own right, with tournament results exceeding those listed in the article, and his limit cash game theories are a major component of the way internet play has progressed. If there are issues with him being an author, then this is attributable to David Sklansky, Mason Malmuth and others. There is no spam here, merely a link to his own official website and the ISBN number of his book. Furthermore, many other poker players (Daniel Negreanu, Dave Ulliott, The Hendon Mob etc.) have for-profit websites. I feel the only issue with the page could be the line about when he eliminated Doyle Brunson from the WSOP - if you have an issue with that, then please use the talk page first, rather than putting the page up for deletion. Also, please sign your name when putting articles up for deletion. One more thing, as the user who AFD'd this article did not add this page to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 22 I can only assume that the person may be misinformed about AFD criteria. Essexmutant 22:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Book available through Amazon and Hilger won a NZ poker championship. -- JJay 14:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep -- If his total winnings are only $125,000 it might indicate that his theories aren't great. Needs de-advertising though MNewnham 16:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - in fairness, as stated in the article, the figures are only for live tournaments (as is common with the majority of other articles at Category:Poker players.) Hilger, despite playing several live tournaments plays internet poker most of the time and that is where his strategy book is based. The amount of winnings is also more than some more well-known players, including Mike Caro at just $15,130 ref. Essexmutant 16:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep published book, website, many google results -- Astrokey44|talk 02:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ridiculous nomination. Well known author, successful player. 2005 02:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kitteh[edit]

NN neologism. WP:NOT a dictionary. Delete. Kusma (討論) 11:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Essexmutant 11:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a neologism for a single item in a single shop in a single MMORPG?! That is cruft within cruft within cruft (and you know I don't use that term as loosely as many do). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save the kitties!! (but delete unless this is de-crufted) --SockpuppetSamuelson 15:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons above. PJM 16:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Search4Lancer 23:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It gets alot of google hits but they appear to be mostly personal sites and usernames -- Astrokey44|talk 02:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- JJay 20:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jaber Rouzbahani[edit]

Non-notable failed basketball pro, although no doubt a nice chap. Gotta love that picture caption. Soo 11:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you please send the caption to BJAODN if this is deleted? Punkmorten 00:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable as Iranian basketball player. Just because he failed to get in the NBA does not mean he isnt well known in Iran. It says here he has 'starred for years in his native country' -- Astrokey44|talk 02:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a famous persian basketball star. Who gives us the right to decied that he can't be in wikipedia due to his inability to make it into the NBA. Keep- User:Farzon Lotfi I started this article and I beleive you showed keep it because it is factual and it brings diversity to wikipedia, which shows that we report on more than just american public figures.

    • Okay, I made a mistake here. Nevertheless the current article needs a lot of work. Soo 22:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cherry[edit]

Not expanded despite request and page contains nothing of note. Delete Essexmutant 11:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deletevanity. Paul Cherry the Scottish footballer, the Canadian accountant, the Indiana magistrate and the ricochet robot player all get more hits.Obina 13:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hard to find info on Mr. Cherry. -- JJay 14:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Astrokey44|talk 03:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jerrold Gaylord Turner[edit]

Looks like a hoax, along with the closely related Jeffrold Finklestein Turner. Only one Google hit for "Jerrold Gaylord Turner" -wikipedia, and that one came from here anyway! Delete. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone can make a case for this. -- JJay 14:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote -- but the reference to the "Turtle" ought to make verification easy for a US scholar --SockpuppetSamuelson 15:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried, but could not confirm. -- JJay 15:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if the designer of the "Turtle" had a buddy, that buddy is not notable. Endomion 16:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, dont think its a hoax because it says he is the ancestor of Stansfield Turner but still nn -- Astrokey44|talk 03:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 13:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrold Finklestein Turner[edit]

Seems to be a hoax. Zero Google hits for "Jeffrold Finklestein Turner -wikipedia". Delete. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like a hoax, sounds like a hoax, sits on the page like a hoax .... --SockpuppetSamuelson 15:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete John Jacob Jinglehiemer Schmidt he's not. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. PJM 16:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense, eh? Endomion 16:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. --NeoJustin 20:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinophobia[edit]

It's a dicdef of a neologism, already two reasons to delete. It might also be a hoax, since if rhinophobia meant anything it would mean "fear of noses" (or possibly "fear of rhinoceroses" if formed in the same way as "homophobia"). Angr (t·c) 12:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dicdef, probably of neologism or wrong (there seems to be a medical term, but not very common, only one google-hit ...) --Enfiladissa 12:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Enfiladissa. Stifle 13:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phil stocks[edit]

This guy does seem to be on the far side of notable to me - presenter on a local radio station - but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. Shimgray | talk | 12:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, fairly well known when he was on the air, and fondly remembered by many. Needs to be moved to Phil Stocks though. Essexmutant 12:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Essexmutant. -- JJay 14:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see him passing WP:BIO. [40]. PJM 14:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep regional radio presenter. Kappa 16:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above Jcuk 22:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- seems to be notable local radio personality. Haikupoet 06:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. I see very little purpose in redirecting this since nobody is going to look up a possible name for elemenet number 970. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ennseptnilium[edit]

Crystalballing to the ridiculous. By the time this is discovered/synthesised, we'll probably all be dead Sceptre (Talk) 13:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Merge per below. PJM 14:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • biniloctium (Bno)
  • Merge to Systematic element name#Examples. by the way some hypothetical element articles exist see Unbitrium --Melaen 15:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if we take these things up to 970, we might as well go to infinity. They can be kept if there is something to say about them, eg. Unbitrium features in a fictional context. Kappa 17:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A 970-proton nucleus is a total fantasy. (The island of stability is way back at 126-protons or so. A 970-proton nucleus is going to have an unmeasurably short half-life. Put another way, this element can never be synthesised). Sliggy 19:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Crystal ball stuff. Reyk 22:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Seems worthless to me, looks like someone made it because it was hypothetically mentioned on Systematic element name M@$+@ Ju 23:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey dacker[edit]

Neologism alleged to have appeared on the web in 2001, but which gets only one Google hit. Also a borderline attack page. - squibix 13:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ridiculous, attack Search4Lancer 23:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete attack page. Stifle 13:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- JJay 20:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete both. howcheng {chat} 19:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Health Wikispace, Health wikispace[edit]

Unilateral attempt by a single user to change Wikipedia's policies without discussion or consensus, publicity for an external site, wrong article space. Delete Plus a bonus autobiography page, Health wikispace, nn-bio.

  • Delete. -- The Anome 14:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 16:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nice idea, but Sam needs to start his own HealthWiki if he wants to pursue this. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Surely an "invitation only" wiki is a contradiction of terms. Endomion 16:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Lots of organizations have limited-access wikis that are "invitation-only." rodii
He can do whatever he likes elsewhere -- however, blending it into Wikipedia as a privileged source is definitely not allowed here. See his edits to bipolar disorder, and the intention to protect Wikipedia pages containing his content, is certainly not allowed here. -- The Anome 21:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a response to me? I'm only rebutting the claim that an "'invitation only' wiki is a contradiction [in] terms." I said nothing about what any user did or should do on Wikipedia, and my vote (see below) was to delete. rodii 00:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though. rodii 21:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will explain, but not now. Please make sure you are looking at the most current version of the article. I removed the bio immediately after posting it. I reported the problem to #wikimedia-tech that the article kept reverting itself. My father thinks that some intermediate caching server is at fault. The current Wikipedia article on this topic does not contain the bio. I wholeheartedly agree that a bio of that sort violates Wikipedia's policies.

But unbenowkst to whoever nominated this article for deletion, I invited discussion in my edits to bipolar disorder repeatedly (these invitations and due process provisions were deleted).. and tried to give the community adequate due process (according to my perception of Wikipedia's customs and courtesies (that all changes that may offend someone or aren't self-explanatory (the exception that I thought I was falling into), however when the requests for due process were deleted from the article with nary a notice on my talk page, or on the article's talk page, which is where I first saw Anome, and got to know Anome a little bit, I decided to simply put a link inside the cleanup tag. I created the Health Wikispace because someone complained on the Bipolar disorder talk page that they were reading about bipolar disorder for the first time, or something to that effect.

Modifying the cleanup tag is not vandalism -- it is providing remedial sources in response to feedback left on the talk page; it is merely responding to the needs of a sub-community within Wikipedia (the sub-community the talk page represents), in a way that does no permenant damage to the page. When the cleanup tag is removed, the links to alternative sources will be removed with it, because those links are inside the cleanup tag. This is not vanity or publicity of an external site for the purposes of muckracking. It was responding to the needs of the mentally ill, who may have trouble finding the appropriate resources in crisis. I would prefer that the cleanup tag contain a link to Answers.com, or medicinenet.com -- but the Answers.com link [also inside the cleanup tag] was removed. Wikipedia already has discussed Answers.com before, and decided Answers.com could include Wikipedia on their site, so I think it is an appropriate link to include inside the cleanup tag Wikipedia is not intended to do harm to someone indirectly by way of not giving them the best information first when they are in a really bad state and may be about to do things which for triggering reasons I will not list. I do not want somebody to read about bipolar disorder, and feel that marijuna is the best choice of treatment (illicit drug use will delay treatment),for example. (The TLC reference is still being debated on the talk page). Given the exigent circumstances for someone who is mentally ill, I really feel that at least until the article is cleaned up, we should provide links to more credible sources in the cleanup tag. I will cease modifying the article itself. I look forward to a decision being made, however I would request that we wait until after I have sorted out any caching issues that may be affecting people from accessing the article, and until after Hanukah.



Navigating the Internet

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. LtNOWIS, Stifle, Kappa, JJay, Pboyd04, SockpuppetSamuelson, and any other interested parties are cordially invited to merge this article into an appropriate target at their leisure. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chiss Expeditionary Defense Fleet, Chiss Expeditionary Defense Force[edit]

minor starwars fleet, non notable Melaen 23:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - Geez, how would you even know that this is a Star Wars fleet? It's not referenced in the article. Anyway, this article embodies everything that a crappy encyclopedia article can be. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 00:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this and Chiss Expeditionary Defense Force, (which I think is the same thing) with Chiss.-LtNOWIS 22:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per LtNOWIS. Stifle 23:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- 4micah 08:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceman Spiff[edit]

This and all other comic stubs are much too insignificant to be listed in their own article. There is already a description of Spaceman Spiff in the Calvin and Hobbes article.--FelineFanatic13 14:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 22:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elsewhere Artist Collaborative, Psychological Growth Spurt, Elsewhere Imagination Laboratory, Independent Epistemology and Independent epistemology[edit]

nn art collective, 65 unique Google hits. Author is creating other vanity articles about this collective. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe originally nominated Elsewhere Artist Collaborative and Psychological Growth Spurt - to this, I am adding Elsewhere Imagination Laboratory, Independent Epistemology and Independent epistemology (as in the subject header above) for identical reasons. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 01:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the whole lot, random Elsewherecruft. Stifle 23:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why would one delete what exists? 65 google hits, various references from artists web pages, articles in Scupture Magazine and local newspapers. Suggest for revising

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect subsidiary articles to main article. Endomion 14:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete A7. -Doc ask? 16:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Earthquakes[edit]

one sentence long article, importance not explained since october Melaen 14:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, nn-band, empty, etc. PJM 14:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Incidentally, I find nothing on these chaps via Google [41] and no mention @ allmusic.com. PJM 14:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anomalous girls[edit]

urban legend translated from http://www.trastorno.masalla.net/ seems a fake. the wiki spanish article was written by the same user , no other reference found .
The same user also created Sadorexia also listed for afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadorexia) the term should came from german dünneluder 28suspicious google hits
Consider for deletion also the redirects Dünneluder and Skinnies -Melaen 15:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • deletethe word dünneluder is no existing german word! no google hits beyond the wikipedia stuff. anyway, lack of verification, no sources ... very strange. --Enfiladissa 15:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete --Ecemaml 19:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, for those who may not know: just because something is an "urban legend" or a "hoax" or otherwise untrue doesn't mean that the untruth is automatically unencyclopedic. We have, in fact, a whole category for hoaxes, Category:Hoaxes. This "urban legend" of the "anomalous girls" might be encyclopedic -- but of course, only if it really is an actual belief found "in the wild". I'd actually look very carefully for evidence that this urban legend exists; it sounds bizarre and odd but so do the beliefs of Otherkin. If no evidence turns up, however, delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Could be kept as a hoax if sufficient notability is proven, but it doesn't look like that. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Chrismahanukwanzakah. howcheng {chat} 19:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chrismahanakwanzahah[edit]

  • SAVE It was/is an enlightening item.

Neologism. We already have Christmas, Hanukkah, and Kwanzaa. Aleph4 15:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs in a dictionary of slang terms or something, but not in an encyclopedia. imho. Sholom 15:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a lame neologism from Virgin Mobile's holiday commercials. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 19:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chrismahanukwanzakah[edit]

This page exists to promote an advertising term/neologism used by virgin mobile. See also Chrismahanakwanzahah, which is also nominated. --CastAStone 19:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Is there a policy on wiki concerning commercials? Blatant advertising should always be rubbed out, but this commercial and this article seem to be making a comment about society at large. If TV shows (which contain tons of advertising albeit usually less explicit) can have a page...then? If I was a marketing/advertising student, I might find this page usefel..but more than that, I'd like to know what wiki policy is for this kind of thing.--Hraefen 20:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and bill them for the advertisment. BL kiss the lizard 00:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fictional holidays are a genuine subject matter on Wikipedia. This is a needed article. -- Judson 03:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --NaconKantari 04:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it stems from a ad campaign, it's worth keeping as a starting point for any discussion regarding the winter holidays in a globalized, multicultural world. Also, if you were a marketing/advertising student, it's a great example of how to handle the holidays in a non-offensive way while still making a good point that strengthens the brand
  • Keep' -This term has definitely entered the standard vocabulary, at least here in New York City. User:PZFUN/signature 17:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a satirical cultural meme that was viewed by hundreds of millions of people. If O RLY wasn't deleted, why should this? karmafist 17:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an annoying neologism, much like metrosexual. Definitely some people will hear it and not know where it came from. Dnavarro 17:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Please note that I nominated it, don't count me twice. The article describes a commercial people! --CastAStone 19:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The lyrics to the song were the best laugh I've had while reading all the artlicles about the Christmas Season. I agree with all the other "Keep" comments, plus I think some commercials have the status of cultural icons "Where's the beef!" --pschroeter 24 December 2005
  • Keep. Not promotional in tone. Advertising and marketing are notable business subjects worthy of academic study. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 00:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is prominent enough to belong here. --Lunatio 24 December 2005

KEEP THIS ARTICLE. It is much needed, as the term has entered the popular lexicon.

  • Keep — mæstro t/c, 07:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-How is an an artical about a fictional holiday that is promoted in an ad considered the same as an advertisement in itself?--Akako|☎ 18:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep per User:karmafist --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 23:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It may have started as an advertisment, but by now it's become a separate cultural element (as was said, like "Where's the Beef"). The article isn't a promotion for the Virgin Mobile, it's a description of a satirical holiday used in the ad. Encyclopedic (but barely). --Wingsandsword 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article exists to EXPLAIN a neologism and a clever use of political-correctness and religion in advertisement. Even if the term is probably irrelevant outside of the U.S. it's still interesting. Is Christmas an ad for the Christian religion? Asereje 05:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Altough the content may be somewhat advertising, it is still a word used in today's society. It serves as an alternative to "Happy Holidays!" and stating each holiday's name, as they each fall on almost the same day (Christmas was Dec 25, Hanukkah that same night, and Kwanzaa the following day). Jerr 02:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Makes me weary because of the fact they remove the "t" from the Christmas portion of the holiday name, this is the whole reason retailers replace the word Christmas with "holiday", to remove the term "Christ". If Virgin wants to be inclusive, it should be spelled Christmahanukwanzakah. (Note it includes the letters C-H-R-I-S-M, directly removing only the "t") PatrickA 23:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zakharov Sawyer[edit]

Delete: either vanity or deliberate spoof. --Ghirla | talk 15:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: no hits on google for Gentleman Droid came over for Tea -- Fabhcún 15:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nn-bio. Keep "working" on it.PJM 16:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 13:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 22:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auralization[edit]

personal essay Melaen 15:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete authors term paper MNewnham 17:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The article is not personal, but objective, informative, and contains no inappropriate material.

Mmoglen 04:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC) NOTE: I've just chopped off about three quarters of the article. It could now use some formatting, or input from other users (the objective of Wikipedia) but is now far more encyclopedic. 66.92.14.198 09:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per MNewnham. Stifle 13:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Sorghaghtani Beki. howcheng {chat} 19:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beki[edit]

Beki page appears to be a self-promotion article by someone of that name. --Oscarthecat 13:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep now that it's changed significantly, page is fine. My original vfd now withdrawn. --Oscarthecat 22:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax or per WP:NOR. PJM 16:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as disambig. Not sure which part of Sorghaghtani Beki is the given name. Kappa 16:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sorghaghtani Beki. The horrid faux pas misspelling of Becky isn't worthy of a mention, unless we create a highly POV list with the likes of Ckayleigh, Dackotaygh, Dyillahn, Maeddysohn and so on. Flyboy Will 00:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Flyboy Will. If we allow all the fractured misspellings of children's names pseudocreative parents can dream up, we will soon be overrun. Denni ☯ 03:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Flyboy Will. --Metropolitan90 05:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clockpunk[edit]

Like the other -punk genres I've nominated, this appears to be a neologism invented by GURPS and not in common use. No authors appear to consider their own works "Clockpunk". Delete. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Higher animal[edit]

Pointless, dicdef, really. Informal, not an actual science term. Not universal definition - contentious as well. Delete. Natalinasmpf 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: unless someone wants to write a sourced article about the anthropocentric nature of such a term, it might be interesting. You could have humans and other animals write point and counter-point.--Hraefen 21:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands. PJM 15:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom. Stifle 13:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 19:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Martin Crawford[edit]

Arrggggh!!! first it was executed murderers, then victims, now its murderers who weren't executed. A ruling from above on this subject is due, I think. Incidentally, the author has submitted at least 2 more entries on the same subject in the last 24 hours MNewnham 15:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sutcliffe, Hindley and Brady are especially well known criminals who still (many years after their deads) evoke a strong reaction in the minds of the British public. Can this guy claim any noteability based on amount of newspaper coverage, for example? Sutcliffe, Hindley and Brady have miles of newsprint dedicated to them. JanesDaddy 23:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would really like to see the following approach to all borderline notable subjects like murderers, webcomic characters, races from the extended Star Wars universe, etc. Make the main "List of <whatever>" article; list all subjects with a very brief summary; and redirect all potential candidates to the main article. It's as much as they deserve. Flyboy Will 00:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Crawford is notable because he was a horriffic serial killer who was, at the time, mostly ignored. He's lately become the subject of a book and television documentary on the CBC. Needless to say, Canadian serial killers would get less attention in America, but that doesn't make somebody an unknown ... and you're only going to find killers being executed in the dark ages, in America, and in third world countries, so I can't see how that is the standard for worthiness as an entry. Or would you suggest that somebody like Paul Bernardo should lose his entry too? Doooook 01:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After looking up the info on Google, it seems he is somewhat noteable, ironically for his relative obscurity, given the scale and nature of his crimes. The book Just Another Indian goes into the dichotomy of his fame/obscurity. It does need a lot of tidying though. JanesDaddy 17:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Zanimum. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disney roles[edit]

the article author stated in the talk page he wanted this page deleted Melaen 15:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. PJM 16:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted. You shouldv'e just marked this {{speedy}}. -- user:zanimum
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Abrahamic religion. howcheng {chat} 19:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahamic God[edit]

POV:Fork Jim62sch 15:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. Harro5 22:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poker Bowl[edit]

Looks like spam to me, even if the incredible Lou Diamond Philips is involved. Leithp (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shows with the incredible Lou Diamond Philips are presumably notable, keep or possibly merge. Kappa 16:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Pokerzone. Celebrity poker show in UK-- JJay 16:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Pokerzone as per JJay. Essexmutant 17:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Tahan Mountain Trekking Team. howcheng {chat} 19:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tahanners[edit]

This is a very short definition of an affectionate name given to a training team. It's not suitable for expansion, and in any case the information should be already at the main article. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis L Swinford[edit]

He released a recording of 100 copies. Woo-hoo! -- user:Zanimum

  • Delete. Non-notable. --Quarl 09:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - vanity article about nn musician. B.Wind 21:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 13:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked as nn-band. --Quarl 04:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Zanimum. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Sue Vardeman[edit]

Vanity Page Lbbzman 17:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Captain's Bar[edit]

This article was created almost a year ago, has only one sentence about a bar, and doesn't appear that this bar is remarkable for anything. Seems more spam or yellow page entry -- Jbamb 17:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - Its listed in wiktionary for deletion as well MNewnham 18:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 13:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Ulayiti (CSD A7). howcheng {chat} 07:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Glen Taylor[edit]

Delete, nn. -- user:zanimum

  • I have placed a speedy tag on this MNewnham 18:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. Harro5 22:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Efax[edit]

non-notable company; advertising (ESkog)(Talk) 17:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Errr...they were one of the first companies, if not the first, to offer faxing via email. They're notable for that if nothing else. Keep and expand. You can call me Al 18:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with You can call me Al -- j2 Global holds a registered trademark to this term, and so this is nothing but proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haynesj (talk • contribs)
  • Withdrawing nomination - verifiable claim to NOTABILITY found at EFax, and I have redirected this one there. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This article (written by me) was once about a computer program called "efax" (all lowercase), but User:207.213.246.3 replaced it with spam content about "eFax" (uppercase F), which already has its own article at EFax. (Before I wrote the article about "efax", the article now at EFax was at Efax, so I moved it.) 207.213.246.3 is an IP address which belongs to j2 Global Communications, the company behind eFax. I have reverted it to the last edit by me. — A.M. 01:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have restored the AfD notice on the page. Given the current content, I would change my vote to Delete and redirect to EFax. You can call me Al 14:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep - this is a notable program. It's been around since 1995, is included in major Linux distributions (Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva, etc.), and appears to still be maintained upstream (there is a pre-release version available from as recent as August 2004). — A.M. 11:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually I was wrong about this; it's the latest version from the original author is only from 2000. However, there is a fork of efax with a GUI added, called efax-gtk, which is under active development. — A.M. 20:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC) A.M. 07:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that j2 Global and Ed Casas should discuss this issue and agree to work together to craft a meaningful entry for this term. --71.105.109.113 04:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But you created that article and made the efax unix program first. j2's first trademark to eFax goes back to 1989 and it is very well known. Why shouldn't the description of j2's eFax go first? If not that, then the parties should draft something together that they can both live with. I believe j2 would work with you A.M. to do this.--207.213.246.3 17:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you mean "first"? The link to the eFax article is above the main text of the efax article. — A.M. 18:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I mean is that j2 has a trademark to efax, whether with a capital F or not. When someone types "efax" or "EFAX" in wikipedia it goes to this efax site, which I thought you first created. In any event, efax has a proud history, both with respect to the unix software and the eFax.com and eFax service of j2 Global today. I would hope we could agree to work together to develop an article helpful to the public in understanding this entire story.--207.213.246.3 23:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be possible to move the article to something like efax (software) and put a disambiguation page at efax which links to both eFax and efax (software). Would that be acceptable? However, the page shouldn't be moved until this AfD concludes. — A.M. 20:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This idea makes a lot of sense. I think we'll be able to work this out. I don't know how the AfD process works, but I would imagine if we are the only two interested parties that our agreement would prevail. For now I suggest we include both of our respective entries in this location, and then j2's professional writers will come up with a draft for your review. How does that sound? --207.213.246.3 00:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This AfD listing will probably conclude in a few days, although it might be relisted because there haven't been many votes yet. If the article is kept, I will move it to efax (software) and put a disambiguation page (similar to this one) at efax. — A.M. 07:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by JYolkowski (CSD A3). howcheng {chat} 07:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958[edit]

This is simply the act that establishes NASA... perhaps relevant to that page but not on its own. (As of this AfD there's no content on the page anyway, except an external link. JDoorjam 17:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bellman's English: 9th Edition[edit]

I think this is a joke or something... I have had the request for verification tag up for a month and nothing has been forthcoming. I can't verify that this textbook exists [42], other attempts to figure out what it's talking about also aren't very helpful [43]. Doesn't seem to be verifiable at all. W.marsh 18:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nomination. Tom Harrison (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable, and frankly most of the facts just don't ring true. After further research, I suspect this may be an attack (though admittedly somewhat cleverly disguised) on Bill Plaschke, as the same user also inserted a lot of criticism into Plaschke's article, which has since been removed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination. Jim62sch 22:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and Starblind. --Metropolitan90 05:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Slavery. howcheng {chat} 07:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slave market[edit]

Considdering the poor quality, the missing verification, the lets-call-it-strange content and the lack of any reaction to the calls for verification, clean-up, importance or accuracy I started an AfD procedure. --Enfiladissa 15:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to List of Star Wars races#Quarren. howcheng {chat} 19:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tessek[edit]

Non-notable fancruft -Dr Haggis - Talk 18:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Open Game FAQs[edit]

Not notable. Also, while 1600+ articles might seem impressive, in my random sample fewer than 10% actually have any content. This article can never be more than a stub until they become the be-all of video gaming resources. Wikipedia is not a web directory. You can call me Al 18:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was RESULT : Speedy delete JoJan 19:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orik (Inheritance)[edit]


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. howcheng {chat} 07:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spoonerisms[edit]

Delete as unencyclopedic, collective original research. Rather than being a list based on verifiable occurrences, it's just a list of neologisms coined by any editor with the inclination to think them up. I don't dispute that some of them are quite funny, but this is a creative exercise rather than documenting fact. See specifically WP:NOR#What is excluded?: "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is ... * it defines new terms". Picky weedier? Cyst of lunar prisms? Tearlach 18:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possible transwiki to wikisource?Youngamerican 19:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT. And btw, Ring Kichard must turn around in his grave for being omitted :-) Pavel Vozenilek 01:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We get the point after the first 50 or so. "List of mangled words". As well have a list of wrong math test answers. Endomion 02:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 06:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete? Just revert to the original list. Mattroy773 15:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of whether the content right now might be original research, the article, by its title, isn't inherently relegated to that. For instance, the article could list notable/verifiable spoonerisms, like quotes from movies and famous speeches. I imagine some of the spoonerisms already listed are such, and just need to be cited. --Vastango 01:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the article could list notable/verifiable spoonerisms, like quotes from movies and famous speeches
Spoonerism already does that. Tearlach 01:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Spoonerism lists examples (specifically, those spoonerisms in 'modern entertainment'). If anything, they should be moved to List of Spoonerisms. Undoubtedly, there are a lot more notable/verifiable spoonerisms than the 10 that are listed on Spoonerism. The list isn't going to grow any more while it's a part of the Spoonerism article, due to the convention that an embedded list, if used at all, should be short. Even if we were to just blank List of Spoonerisms and then move over the 10 examples currently on Spoonerism, the verifiability objections of the AFD would be met and we'd have an encyclopedic and verifiable (albeit incomplete) list. --Vastango 03:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by JoJan. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zeldazeldaandmorezelda[edit]

advertising - Gimboid13 19:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of country names in Chinese[edit]

This aborted project has been sitting here since August. Was marked for Speedy, but doesn't really qualify under CSD. Delete Owen× ☎ 19:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as aborted project. Inactive for exactly four months. Consider this vote irrelevant if life suddenly springs back into the project. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 20:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are interwiki links. Pavel Vozenilek 01:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-I can continue it if there is interest in doing so. I mean I don't know how to type in the Chinese, but I can do the pinyin. If it's not seen as necessary at all then never mind. I'm just saying if the issue is inactivity it doesn't have to be inactive.--T. Anthony 06:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point for being inactive is that someone went and said "Hey, a country list in chinese would be a cool addition to Wikipedia," then after completing the first letter turned around and said "On second thoughts, I don't think Wikipedia desperateny needs this. I'll stop." If you want to take up the cause, I'm not going to stop you, but ask yourself: does the English Wikipedia really need this? - Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 21:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Essentially I was asking if the issue was just inactivity. As it's not about that I don't care either way now.--T. Anthony 06:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete aborted project. Random listcruft. Stifle 13:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft --rogerd 06:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 07:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forward-looking statement[edit]

This article tries to turn a narrow concept from modern United States financial law into a linguistics term and apply it to history research. If cleaned up it would be deletable as a dictdef. Google results for "forward-looking statement" plus "linguistics" are incidental references to modern finance and computing. [44] Google hits for "forward-looking statement" and "gerund" are virtually nonexistent. [45] User:Dzonatas has been trying to apply the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 as a style manual for copyediting Joan of Arc. This is WP:Complete Bollocks. Delete. Durova 19:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep, clean-up and expand. The article represents a valid approach to forward looking statement, a business term that gets almost 1 million google hits. We clearly need an article on the concept, which is comparable to numerous other articles here on financial and legal terms. I see no reference here to Joan of Arc or Medieval history or anyone named Joan. As the nominator seems to be involved in a dispute with the submitting editor over an unrelated article, I question whether this is not a bad faith nomination. -- JJay 19:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment yes, I am also an editor on the Joan of Arc page. User:JJay advised me to nominate it here: "If you are that opposed to this article, for whatever reason, please follow procedure and take it to AfD. Thanks. -- JJay 19:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)" User talk:Durova Now he accuses me of bad faith for following his advice. The nomination is substantive: this article makes claims for the term that extend far beyond any accepted use. Please follow my Google links for verification. Durova 19:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I advised you to follow procedure after you tagged this article with a nonsense speedy. We have many templates that can be used if you disagree with the content in an article. Again, your reference above to Joan of Arc is irrelevant and I seriously question the need for this nom. -- JJay 19:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Then I ask you to strike your accusation of bad faith. I tagged it as nonsense because it conflates a narrow piece of financial terminology with general statements about grammar, linguistics, and historiography. The phrase has no application to those fields. Style manuals don't teach students to end creative essays with "forward-looking statements." This is pure fantasy on the part of the article creator with jargon added to impress the unaware. If it gave the actual dictdef I would have tried to transwiki. Durova 21:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: If it was only dictdef, it would be limited to forward-looking and not the more historic forward-looking statement reference. Please note that User:Durova has bias about deletion beyond this article's content. As noted on User_talk:Switisweti, "...Dzonatas...created a fictitious article Forward-looking statement which I've nominated for deletion. Happy holidays... (snicker)... Durova 19:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)" On my talk page: "Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.<!-- Test2 (second level warning) --> Durova 19:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)" — Dzonatas 23:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's a good example of quoting out of context. Durova 01:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have cut this right down to only the U.S. financial topic. If restricted to this context, keep, and expand. Otherwise, delete.-- The Anome 21:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Expand: It is not fantasy, and it is not just a financial term. Here is a reference to a site that teaches to use a forward-looking statement in an essay: http://teacher.scholastic.com/writeit/essay/draft/essay.htm. It is obviously based on (or simply opposite of) historical facts rather then points of financial performace as Durova tried to assert. — Dzonatas 21:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sooner rather than later, to use a forward-looking statement. All statements which are not about assigning blame are forward-looking statements. Endomion 01:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. A notable and important expression; even if only its legal part. mikka (t) 02:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is more notable by its legal usage; however, the reader should know the basis for which such statements entail. Hence, one doesn't finally learn about such statements after one is employed by a business. The roots of it are in linguistics and social sciences. I want to address how businesses also organize their plans with a forward-looking statement on efficency at the start of the year and with a backward-looking statement that reflects how much they acheived at the end of the year. This would help expand the article a bit more when I find a good source. If there is anything close to original research, it would be how forward-looking statements affect the accreditation of an entity by its subject material, but the abundance of search-hits on disclaimer related context makes it harder to avoid the "shorter" temptation of an exploitation by common sense. With wikipedia's implementation of "approved" and "developmental" versions of articles, I 'm sure, scientifically, any forward-looking statement is a considerable qualifier or at least a questionable one, like how it works in law. Societies settled on "open source" as not jargon, and, in a similar way, we have the common expression for a forward-looking statement. — Dzonatas 10:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 13:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm surprised you stated "per nom." If you review Durova's nom related argument about Joan of Arc, you'll notice the page is protected. As of Dec 16th, Durova and possibly another editor has tried to revert any further change. A review of the talk section reveals where Durova states the notes being WP:Complete Bollocks because of functionality, yet other editors and I have found the notes to functionally work correctly. I'm sure the nom is part of Durova's continuation to "edit war." The subject of a forwarding-looking statement does not have anything to do with a style guide, but it is about historical fact. Obviously, Durova feared this might be an issue for whatever reason. Consider, Durova put up the AfD tag the same day I created it. Durova and another editor has strived to make Joan of Arc a FA, but in essence has also tried to own the article. Joan of Arc may become a FA one day, but not by ownership, reverts, or in the chase of my activity on the forward-looking statement article to put it a nonsense nom on AfD. Instead of the defensive side which I shouldn't have to do for an AfD, notice the content is still verifiable. Even if it is hard to wade through over a million search-hits. — Dzonatas 15:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: With limited attention to the VfD process for this page, I'm left to make further comment in the hollow. I've noticed the related WP:POINT subjects and concluded the nom was an experiment of Durova's. In contrast, I've also noticed other articles that haven't been so quickly put up on AfD, like Functional shift which has barely any content. It receives only 13k hits on google. While that is easier to wade through and find verifable content, there are many hits that express a different definition than given. There is also the Shatt language that barely has any impression, which google reports only 160k hits just for "shatt." Nevertheless, just "forward-looking" alone comes up with more than 17 million hits. — Dzonatas 06:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Cracker[edit]

Local, self-published author. Does not meet WP:BIO. howcheng {chat} 19:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Ulayiti. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Merediths[edit]

Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC -- band itself is of no significance, and their record label is a two-year old local co-op. VT hawkeyetalk to me 19:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Designbreak[edit]

This new wiki has had only one contribution so far today. File Éireann 19:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Principles of the Ustase Movement[edit]

Text dump. Alr 19:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination; it's apparently a copyvio, too. Flyboy Will 00:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spillover from current edit wars on Ustase and related topics. Unencyclopedic form, validity disputed. Pavel Vozenilek 01:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 13:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 06:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rajender Singh Sangwan[edit]

Seems to be non-notable. Wackymacs 19:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - vanity. B.Wind 22:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • edit - a remarkable man... I saw this man speak at a conference in Hawaii, and he seemed to be quite remarkable. I think that people at the top of their field should be given an article. However, the CV like nature of this post is quite clear, and unless someone cleans this article up i am in favor of deleation. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.232.217.32 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete. nn-bio. --Pamri • Talk 04:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy please, as NN. --Bhadani 11:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ganeshk 22:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN/perhaps vanity --rogerd 06:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 07:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible shoes[edit]

i don't think it's a common expression see google Melaen 19:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I've heared comfortable shoes before..... Jcuk 22:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with lesbian if this is the case. Certainly does not merit its own article. Denni ☯ 03:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak rewrite it is fairly common, not in the sense they mean there, but perhaps it could explain what type of shoes are meant by 'sensible shoes'. otherwise delete. -- Astrokey44|talk 04:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not well-known if the phrase is used that way. I've heard it used to describe (somewhat admiringly) the kind of women who are members of the League of Women Voters. Crypticfirefly 05:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sometimes lesbians are said to be "women who wear sensible shoes" (and even then it's a little snarky, like saying a gay man is "light in the loafers") but "sensible shoes" by itself is not a euphemism for lesbians. Endomion 14:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a term that is also used for straight women who care more about comfort than appearance. --rogerd 06:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tactica Core[edit]

Forum-based RPGs aren't usually notable, are they? --Spring Rubber 19:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 22:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bioelectronics of Vincent[edit]

Quoting from the article:

  • "There are to date no readily available publications in English that explain BEV"
  • "It is nearly impossible to cross-check this information since much of it has not been published in the public domain. What follows is drawn from material that was presented in one of the proprietary training courses offered by the Occidental Institute Research Foundation in the early 1990's."

This is very confusing, frankly, but the above statements make me think that this is original research. If no sources can be cited, we can't really verify the claims of this article. If sources become available, perhaps an encyclopedia article can be written, but WP is not the place to actively write research on a topic. W.marsh 19:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment There's quite a lot of material in French available, so hold off voting on this until I've had a chance to sift through it and report back MNewnham 22:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't searched for the french version of the name... still, that doesn't change the original research problems. There will, as is policy, be 5-7 days to get this article to an acceptable form (well, acceptable to other participants in the discussion, not me). --W.marsh 23:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Interesting stuff this:
    • Vincent was a notable water engineer
    • Its all about the principals of linking water quality to health
    • heres the official website (in French)
    • The principles of this have been around since 1948
    • There are books (in French) available from amazon.fr on the subject, so it is clearly not original research
    • It's true, there really isn't anything available in English about this stuff
    • I vote keep, and bring it to the anglophone masses.

MNewnham 23:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Even though there are books available, this can still be original research. To qualify as non-original research, the material would have to have been peer-reviewed. TheRingess 08:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, don't let these people convince you that only Amerikan sanctioned works are valid, it is published in France and Germany. Shame on you disinformation agents (TheRingess). There is absolutely no doubt that humans function on electrical principals, unfortunately the term 'bio-electronic' does sound silly. I am growing heartily sick of the wikipedia's arrogant tone of writing and subtle censorship. If you didn't rely on donations then I wouldn't care at all how you edited your articles, and I do take it with a grain of salt, God help anyone who thinks wikipedia is authoritative. *update* here seems there is a growing demand for such technology...
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. howcheng {chat} 07:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mootstormfront[edit]

Article was tagged for speedy deletion, but it doesn't qualify. No Vote --Jaranda wat's sup 20:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A request, next time could you please list the given reason for speedying, so us AfD monkeys have something to work from? Reason for speedy deletion was given as "Self-promotional, does not assert notability (CSD-7) and currently non-existent site".

  • The website given is currently offline, and according to the article has been for several months. The site's only claim to fame is trying to act as a counterbalance to Stormfront. Google has 46,200 hits for mootstormfront, of which 113 are unique, most dealing with forum posts and internet link-directory lists (We're the second hit, right after the defunct website itself). I make no claim or disclaimer as for how many of these are pages internal to the website itself. I'm actually going to go weak keep on this one, pending an assertation that this website had a decent-sized impact before it was pulled down. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 20:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems important. -- JJay 22:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a defunct minor website. Their goals are commendable, but unfortunately it does not appear to have had any impact. Flyboy Will 00:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the party responsible for the Speed-delete tag. Like Flyboy above (who is not related to me, really!), I think the site's aims may have been worthwhile, but that in and of itself doesn't qualify for encyclopedic entry. There are many, many, many (active) forums of all sorts on the Internet which have significantly more notability, and very few of which are being promoted through Wikipedia. This particular one has not been referenced by any verifiable source outside of other similar forums. It's defunct, and may never return. Wikipedia is not the place to be providing promotional space for just any organization/group/forum. For specific reference, see: Notability guidelines for Web sites. —LeFlyman 02:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Mootstormfront is well known for being Stormfront's anti-racist counterpart. True, the site is currently down, but according to its members it should be back up. Websites and forums sometimes have technical difficulties, and the site being temporarily down is no reason to get rid of the article. --Gramaic | Talk 03:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that as the original author of the entry, you have an interest in seeing it saved from deletion; please don't take it personally. However, can you legitimately say that it meets any of these guidelines for a Web site entry, as noted above:
      • Having been the subject of national or international media attention;
      • A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community;
      • Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better. (Alexa Traffic Rank for mootstormfront.org: 1,641,169)
—LeFlyman 04:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Websites don't cease to be notable just because they go off line, any more than books cease to be notable when they go out of print. However, if the site does not come back shortly perhaps the material should be merged into Stormfront (online site) and the existing article made into a redirect. It'd be easy to restore it when the time comes. -Willmcw 04:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, however, the article could use cleaning up. - MootStormFront is known amongst anti-racist activists on the web, and is generally considered a failed effort. Synapse 01:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, default to keep.--Sean|Black 08:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Netflix distribution centers[edit]

Advertising/directory, not encyclopedia material. u p p l a n d 20:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC). Making my vote explicit: Delete. u p p l a n d 06:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 21:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. I think this page is useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.168.109 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nomination. Flyboy Will 00:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Highly unencyclopedic. --FuriousFreddy 01:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP is not space for a marketing dept. Pavel Vozenilek 01:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete, This is not marketing but rather is reference information (primarily of interest to Netflix users admittedly), information which is not published by the company on their website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxothuk (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - I do not believe an established company is too stupid to provide enough information for customers to return their DVDs. If the list is deleted Netflix will scrape by somehow. Endomion 04:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This information would be better served on a site for discussion of Netflix rather than here. --Metropolitan90 05:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete, This is useful reference information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.0.75 (talk • contribs)
  • Do not delete -- Netflix does not provide this information and it's needed when a user gets a movie from a distant location. I really believe that Netflix will not publish this information and it has important customer service use (not marketing) - HackingNetflix — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.134.32 (talk • contribs)
  • Do not delete -- This is useful. This is purely reference information on Netflix, much like other articles. For example List of PlayStation 2 network games. That isn't marketing for Sony [or any game companies], but a reference for users. Pcjabber 18:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd find this incredibly useful, but it's a directory, which is very clearly against Wikipedia policy: WP:NOT. — WCityMike (T | C) 19:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Purely informational. --Nat 21:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a great page collecting information not readily available to users of Netflix service. Don't see any advertising here either. --Timecop 00:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This page, while perhaps not the most encyclopedic article on Wikipedia, is an example of the strength of the wiki concept at compiling and providing information. Netflix does not make this information available, so the information must be gleaned from many different users of their service in order to create a complete list. It is not advertising (any more than the Netflix article itself is) - if anything, the article will dissuade people from subscribing if they find out there's not a distribution facility near them. --Dachannien 06:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WCityMike. Stifle 13:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Calvin166. xpanmanx 14:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this list was broken out from the Netflix article to save space. Similar precedent at List of Air America Radio affiliates. --badlydrawnjeff 15:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete -- It's definitely not advertising, and it definitely is useful. It is somewhat limited-interest, but every article is to some extent. My opposition to it is grounded in WP:V/WP:NOR since, as previously stated by people voting to Keep, Netflix doesn't make the information available, and the list grows by various users continually adding to it. The problem with this is, I could add a personal PO Box to the list, and it would likely never get removed, because no one could tell it wasn't valid. Do move the listology.com link to the Netflix article, though. --Vastango 05:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as long as listology.com link is moved to the Netflix article. --RosieCotton 13:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dachannien. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.33.187 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep useful reference AdamJacobMuller 01:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not advertising, useful reference in determining transit time between facility and customer Dekkon 07:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful information Vagabond97 20:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - important information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pg33409 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.95.238 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - very useful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.117.44 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - This is DEFINATELY NOT Advertising — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.120.31 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Information wants to be free — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.254.30 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - i find this information about netflix to be useful--BillSpike 06:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is not marketing information, this is reference information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.108.212.2 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Hey folks- it doesn't matter whether or not it's useful. What matters is whether or not it's encyclopedic. It's a directory, and so is explicitly not. --Staecker 15:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Important, useful information that isn't any less encyclopedic than most of the other lists here on Wikipedia, such as List of ABC television affiliates or List of XM Satellite Radio channels. List can easily be updated and confirmed by Netflix customers, since these addresses show up on their return envelopes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.214.113.22 (talk • contribs)
  • Do Not Delete. The info contained therein is valuable and the article provides the opportunity for consumers to make smart decisions. This is definately not marketing info, as this list is not availiable on Neflix's site. From an academic perspective, this information is useful for business case studies, etc... Finally, as badlydrawnjeff remarked, if this entry is removed, then WP needs to remove lists of radio station affliates and TV affliates.mshanafme 11:35, 1 January 2005 (EST)
  • KEEP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.252.61 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep!!! This page is useful for the consumer but bad for who no one, why would this information be bad enough to consider deletion?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.143.54 (talk • contribs)
  • Do Not Delete. In fact more information on the mechanics of the Netflix operation would be benificial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.95.27 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - Wikipedia isn't an address book, let this info live at a Netflix-centric site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.209.219 (talk • contribs)
  • Keeep KI 02:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Highly unencyclopedic. Cyberevil 02:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unbelievable. Extreme delete!!!. Wikipedia is not the phone book. I can't believe you people. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:NOT a phone book WhiteNight T | @ | C 02:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Useful Reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.203.188 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see anything wrong with Wikipedia listing Netflix distribution centers. Rhobite 07:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

--Sean|Black 08:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Harro5 23:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Farmer[edit]

Looks to be a non-notable musician/personality, per Google. He was apparently 'Music Geek' on a program called 'Beat the Geeks' for a period of time, which may suggest some notability, but it doesn't seemed to have brought him a great deal of attention on the internet. - squibix 20:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Has IMDB listing for his appearances on Beet the Geeks, MNewnham 22:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. IMDB listing does not mean notable. Stifle 13:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle is correct. There is a woman in my church who has an IMDB entry because she had a minor role in a movie that was shot on location nearby, and she doesn't rate a WP article. --rogerd 06:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. TV role and band memberships just barely assert notability. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Ulayiti. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonizzle h II[edit]

Insignificant or fake. WP:MUSIC, "Jonizzle h II" is unknown to Google, as is the claimed chart "Southeast urban hood top 100". Either an insignificant musician, or patent nonsense. Up for speedy. --VT hawkeyetalk to me 20:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 09:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Muir[edit]

The creation edit said he was a notable usenetter, but there are few of those in reality and his actual notability based on what is written is questionable. He does have a list of publications, but its hard to tell if its enough. Delete as is. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- I agree that fido's publications are largely beside the point warranting his inclusion herein. In fact, I would be hard pressed justifying this action on the basis of any single aspect of his Usenet activities. The best I can do is vouchsafe it by my personal assessment of fido's anthropological interest to any present or future Internet historians. As to finding the basis in what is written, the creation edit is meant as a stub. However, I have attempted to furnish links suitable for further elaboration by better men. Larvatus 08:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC) larvatus[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, for god's sake. rodii 22:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- JJay 22:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can you explain why? karmafist 01:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've posted on Usenet since the early '90s too -- where's my article? Every Usenet group has its resident 'personalities,' but they're no more encyclopedic than the characters at your local pub. Perodicticus 11:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a celestial body named after you? ([46]) Larvatus 12:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
      • It costs a few bucks to name a celestial body after someone. Just go to any registry and pay around $50. karmafist 01:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there were a 'local pub characters' category your local's regulars would be appropriately listed there. Irina Feeney, 12:37 GMT, 15 December 2005
      • Well put. I think this is a dispositive consideration. Notability reflects its venue. Larvatus 13:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
  • Keep Notable on Usenet back in the days before the internet ruled all. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep." He's one of the few intelligent Usenet people left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedavid (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Delete Silas Mariner? Never! Francis may be a world-class welsher, but he's an institution, of one kind or another. Besides, he owes me money. J. Del Col— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.30.200.2 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fido has been posting on usenet for eons, or at least 1991 when I started to post. Irina Feeney, 09:35 GMT, 15 December 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.67.71 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep most definitely keep ! Francis Muir is certainly notable contributor to rec.arts.books

--Tristes tigres 22:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC) -[User's sixth contribution][reply]

      • Relisting for more debate, per major meatpuppetry. FCYTravis 20:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delisting. What evidence do you have of meatpuppetry? Looking at your edit history, you have an extensive history of activities taken against User:Larvatus, this article's author; mulitple AFDs, and RFC. This is beginning to look more and more like bullying through abuse of wikipedia process. I'm delisting this until you can show credible evidence why the article should be relisted, not vague allegations of sock or meatpuppetry. FeloniousMonk 03:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--
AfD Relisted on Dec 23
--
  • Delete. Per nom. not notable. Agnte 00:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I spent a great deal of time on Usenet, talking to all sorts of people in various newsgroups, and I've never heard of him. nn. --Jason Gastrich 00:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. Lists of "notable" personalities in IRC chatrooms get deleted too. Endomion 01:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nobody is ever notable just for USENET. karmafist 01:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep, definitely. I don't recognize half the names in the Usenet People category as currently configured (perhaps the problem upthread is indeed localization), but Francis has been a colorful mainstay for well over a decade. --S. Goetz 19:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.122.199.129 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. There's no such thing as an improper relist, and this person doesn't deserve his own article - maybe a couple of sentences in an article on Usenet history, at best. Flyboy Will 03:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsburian[edit]

Lengthy article describing the purported qualities of students at Kingsbury school. (I was dismayed to learn that pupils at Kingsbury are "tired" and "burnt out" by their late teens.) No evidence of any encyclopedic value, not verifiable, point of view. Delete. Sliggy 20:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless some publication can be cited.--Hraefen 20:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(I reverted a blanking of this AfD discussion by User:Reapa (talk · contribs), the article's creator. Sliggy 14:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]


my apologies. im new so i have no idea what i did. and when i realised i forgot what was said.

  • Delete per nom. Stifle 13:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Many users feel that articles about high schools are allowable (although this is controversial), but this article is not really about the school itself, but as the nom said "the purported qualities of students at Kingsbury school" --rogerd 06:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SolidZ[edit]

Another advertisment for a non-notable website/blog. Does not meet WP:WEB. Alexa rank is 557,663 [47], and is linked to by only 7 other websites. No verifiable impact in national news media [48] [49] Deletion precedents indicate: "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable." Agnte 20:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biogas in Misamis Occidental[edit]

Obvious original research, this is an unencyclopedic essay, evidently written by the only editor (User:Karlimanoel). I have requested it be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone, if possible, but that hasn't happened. W.marsh 20:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. OR, nonsense. rodii 21:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Flyboy Will 00:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. Stifle 13:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR spam --rogerd 06:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Idiosyncratic Rabbit[edit]

This band doesn't qualify for an article per WP:MUSIC standards. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 20:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Ajwebb 21:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nn-band. Stifle 13:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity --rogerd 06:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sladinki007[edit]

Non-notable website. Does not meet WP:WEB. Alexa rank is 151,747 [50], and is linked to by only 2 other websites. No verifiable impact in national news media [51] [52] Deletion precedents indicate: "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable." Agnte 20:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete BitTorrent forum equals message board equals not notable. Endomion 03:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Endomion. Stifle 13:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB --rogerd 06:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Century 21 Real Estate[edit]

This does not look anything more than just a small block of text that does not describe the company or its focus clearly. Ajwebb 20:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Major company, just clean it up and expand it. FCYTravis 21:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FCYTravis. -- JJay 22:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expansion would be nice.--Bkwillwm 00:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. A google search prior to nominating an article is usually a good idea - over a million hits for this one means it's pretty notable, even if you may have never heard of it. Flyboy Will 00:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is an extremely notable real estate company. Cleanup and expand if the article as written is bad. Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 02:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable.—Stombs 05:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RateMyProfessors.com[edit]

This is an advert for a site? Matttt 20:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep notable under WP:WEB, if only for the media frenzy when the Irish version of RMT was launched and the teachers unions trying, and failing miserably, to get it closed down. --Kiand 21:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has notability and describes the focus of the website clearly. Ajwebb 21:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above. -- JJay 22:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, well-known on college campuses. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we kept RateMyTeachers, we can and should keep this. Daniel Case 07:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biperiodic sleep[edit]

Confusing article, seems to be about a sleeping strategy (for lack of a better word). per article, it was invented by "a young college student, H. G. Hauksson". As this article's only content editor was User:HGHHafstein I think it's a fair assumption that they are one and the same. Thus, combined with the lack of sources, this is original research. W.marsh 21:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Endomion 03:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What on earth? Stifle 13:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR --rogerd 06:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kawaiipets[edit]

Article is about a website which appears to be not only non-notable, but nonexistant as well. The author has also included the text "Don't edit this page! We are warning you! You will be blocked from editing pages if you edit this page!" - squibix 21:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • A massive 22 google hits on 'kawaiipets' screams delete MNewnham 22:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is more like advertisment then an article. Luka Jačov 23:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even though it's oh so kawaii ^____^. Great disclaimer, too. BJAODAIN or whatever the abbreviation is. Flyboy Will 00:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. --Metropolitan90 02:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete The Kawaillpets website is on a free website hosting service and has no content. Even if it did, there isn't the bandwidth to scale it up to compete with Neopets. Endomion 02:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Promotional at best—and it even states it has a 'goal' of becoming a major site. Till it gets there, it's not notable.—Stombs 05:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Samw 16:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mahgerefteh[edit]

The article contains no useful information about the real but little-known author whose name should be spelled Michal Mahgerefteh.

  • I think Speedy Delete is in order here. -- JJay 22:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—spelling is wrong; and with the proper spelling, has not become notable, sadly.—Stombs 05:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 14:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James S. Putnam[edit]

Tagged as speedy, taken to WP:DRV. Restored out-of-process by Tony Sidaway who then failed to notify User:NSLE and take to AfD per Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Exception. Completing the process for him.
This article cannot be verified: [53]. Always happy to see new information. brenneman(t)(c) 22:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless the claims of notability (or any of it LOL) can be verified. AFD is the place to place for examining such claims, not DRV. Kappa 22:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why at the least Tony should have brought it here. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, until any of this is verified. I'm tired of stuff like this. WP:POINT, and all that. Pilatus 22:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the "chariot racing champion" part is the only bit that's really notable, and after poking around of Google I haven't been able to verify that (or the rest, for that matter). The article almost seems to go out of its way to avoid being able to be checked for accuracy (doesn't mention the year of his chariot race or where it was held, doesn't mention the name of his stable, his pipe-fitting business, etc.) Delete as unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the {{nn-bio}} tag before it was restored and delted. it should not ahve been restored, and if the deleting admin had looked at the history i suspect it would not have been deelted. This did not qualify for A7. Nice catch, Tony. That said, unless sources for the key claims, particuarlly the chariot racing championship, can be provided, this fails WP:V, and so the proepr result is Delete. DES (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverified, ergo hoax. Mr. Sidaway, if unchecked, might have snuck junk into WP again. Sanction restorer for failing to follow due process by listing here, in this case sorely needed, as anyone with common sense can see. Xoloz 00:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, please stop screwing around WP:V. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are many James S. Putnams in Google and this one needs a lot more references to show he's notable.—Stombs 05:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite Tony Sidaway's apparent campaign against verifiability. Friday (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to remind everyone there's a difference between unverifiable and unverified. The second refers to articles which have yet to be verified, the first refers to articles that cannot be verified if tried. Those words do not mean the same thing. - Mgm|(talk) 23:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is unverifiable or not "in general" is irrelevant - it is, today, unverified based on any accessible sources. Should verifiable sources be produced at a later date that support his claim to notability, it is a simple enough thing to undelete or create a new article on this man. We should not be allowing unverified content to be introduced into Wikipedia, whether positive or negative about its subject, so as this article fails to cite its sources, I vote delete. FCYTravis 00:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to this site, Pipefitters Local 205 is in Oklahoma, not Idaho. While this does not necessarily make the entire article false or a hoax, it's certainly food for thought that the one and only checkable fact in the article seems to be incorrect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't list on AfD because it's not an obvious deletion candidate. No vote on this. Give it time for verification. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, verifiability questionable at best and what meagre evidence exists suggests a possible hoax. And it's to avoid possible hoaxes that we have WP:V, after all! Lord Bob 09:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chamas[edit]

Probably a vanity page. CG 22:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unsourced and unverifiable. Looks like a hoax to me. Vast majority of google hits appear to be for "chamas" as in Porugues for "flames". Flyboy Will 00:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant google hits to suggest notability of Rabih Chamas or Samir Chamas. It's possible they just have no exposure in Roman alphabet, but unless sources are provided. it should be deleted. ×Meegs 07:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 14:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete flunks the google test. --rogerd 06:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Platial[edit]

Add for a website with a 1,245,696 Alexa ranking, [54]. Fails WP:WEB Delete. --Jaranda wat's sup 22:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. Agnte 00:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just launched, only 6 unique links to it on google. Flyboy Will 00:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 14:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 06:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Ouyoura[edit]

Probably a non-notable person. CG 22:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - One google hit...this article, amazingly enough. Endomion 03:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 14:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 06:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theo-fascist[edit]

the word is just something made up by the author Thesloth 22:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; per page, "So I coined the term Theo-Fascist..." Points for honesty though. Tom Harrison (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Admitted neologism. Flowerparty■ 07:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn neologism. Stifle 14:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --rogerd 06:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Robert Smith[edit]

The article is about the author of the article (as substantiated by him in the article's discussion page), and he does not appear to by someone of note, worthy of an encyclopedia entry.Fuhghettaboutit 22:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable Tom Harrison (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nuke the page from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Tearlach 04:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - vanity. B.Wind 05:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at first i thought that he's a legitimate associate of Mars exploration advocate Robert Zubrin, but he doesn't pass the Google test easily. It made me curious, and when i finally found some info about him it looked so weird that i decided he has no place in Wikipedia. Tooooo weird.--Amir E. Aharoni 20:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 07:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analog_Pussy[edit]

Vanity page. Behaviour 22:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong keep Buy their album at amazon.com MNewnham
  • Keep Notable, I've heard of them on previous occasions, gets 42k results on Google Search4Lancer 00:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: appears to be many independent pages on the duo, but the article does need a rewrite to be more encyclopædic.—Stombs 05:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Stombs ×Meegs 07:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete? 203.214.112.124 14:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I'm a classical musician and I've heard of them. Somebody got over zealous here Musikfabrik 15:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Because every other band (most which are undeserving) gets a page. besides, analog pussy rocks! --Wallaby 12:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overnightscape, The Overnightscape (duplicates)[edit]

Non-noteable podcast, vanity, non-verifiable, non-encyclopedic. Delete. JanesDaddy 00:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for reasons reasons listed in the talk page of the article. Movementarian 03:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. (Bjorn Tipling 07:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: There is also an identical article at Overnightscape (without the 'The'), which should be deleted if this one is deleted. I tagged them both for merger before nominating for AfD. JanesDaddy 14:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Note that I have tagged the other article and merged the discussion pages. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 22:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Like this:Grye 04:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mahabone[edit]

  • DeleteThis "word" is not a real word, merely the speculation of one author in one book, and is clearly not encyclopedic. There is also no way to make it encyclopedic. MSJapan 23:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I concur with MSJapan, above. Millennium Sentinel 23:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: at best a dicdef? Certainly not encyclopædic.—Stombs 05:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transclude to Wikitionary.--SarekOfVulcan 06:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article is probably a violation of WP:POINT, come to think of it. --SarekOfVulcan 22:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Or not. Maybe.[reply]
  • DeleteThis has no place in the dictionary. It is not a real word.
Comment anonymous vote by User:67.185.0.123 [55], a user with 9 edits.
  • Keep It is not a mere speculation of one Author, since the article includes 4 different sources. It is a real word, since several people are using it. Additionally it seems, by looking at their userpages, that MSJapan, Millenium Sentinel and SarekOfVulcan are members of Freemasonry (by the logo with the letter G inside a square and a compass), as such they are just teaming together for spreading their own opinionated views on that subject stomping out other ones.
Comment anonymous vote by User:212.54.221.227 [56]
Comment I created a user account, I am the 212.54.221.227 poster Mahabone 13:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but improve) or merge with Freemasonry, 1000+ google hits, including books so the info is verifiable (this site is useful [57], and the anonymous author above may sound like a mad conspiracy theorist but he's right 3 of the votes do appear to be freemasons! organized campaigns, to keep or delete, always seem susipicious to me. Zzzzz 19:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Grye 20:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: ya ever wonder why there's about 15 screens of talk about an article only 1/2 screen long?
    Because people are too interested in seeing it there at all, with critic's citations, than to actually write an article. Grye
The article has citations from four different books, including one written by an ex-member of that cult. What do you define as 'real citation'? User:212.54.221.227 (unsigned) MSJapan 23:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC) (MSJapan note: He refers to William Morgan, whose membership was never proven, and referring to Masonry as a cult clearly shows an agenda)[reply]
  • Merge with Freemasonry or related, where secrecy/the "Mason Word" is discussed. Rd232 talk 11:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even if the "word" is a hoax, it well enough suffused in popular culture to deserve an entry of some kind. On the question of "real citations" I can only refer to No true Scotsman. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 21:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cite the "infusion into popular culture" that you speak of. Third degree is. this word is not. Grye
The word has been associated, for some unknown reasons, with freemasonry since more than 150 years at least (read the publication dates of the referenced books). Additionally it returns more than one thousand hits on google alone. This is enough to classify it as an "infusion into popular culture". User:212.54.221.227 unsigned (MSJapan 23:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]


again with your "1000 hits". A few several of those were yours. A couple of those hits were you seeing how many hits there were. And finally, 1000+ Google hits 1) is nothing for a Google-searched page, & 2) Google is not a citable source, at least not in this context. Oh, & no, it is not enough to "classify it as an infusion into popular culture", not only because net users, I'm sorry, the sub-catagory Google net users, are not really "popular", in the "in crowd of society" sense of the word. Grye 22:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I got 468 hits on Google myself, some of which are unrelated, and most of which are book links to either Born in Blood or Mahabone, both of which are speculative in the extreme when it comes to the word. MSJapan 23:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some webpages that list that word, relating it to freemasonry, somehow:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/dun/dun09.htm http://mazeministry.com/resources/books/doombook/doomtext/14melchizedek.htm http://www.advweb.com/kw/misc/misc/kw_ncrm.html http://www.bannerstrade.com/raremasonic.html http://beachsidechurch.com/jesus/heals4.html http://iantiquedeals.com/Antique/Antique-Books/American-Antique-Books

I've even found T-shirt and bumper stickers with MAHABONE on it, but I would save them for later. mahabone

What do they cite for their sources? The abovementioned books? If anything? Grye
BTW those little tilde thingies sign your statements. Grye


The ISTA link is Duncan's Royal Arch Monitor. Royal Arch is not part of mainstream Masonry, and in fact starts on the 4th degree. It's certainly not pop culture.
Melchidzedek is something that looks like Masonry, but isn't, and is clearly meant to imply Satanism by being located on a ministry site for, presumably, "ex-Masons". Also not pop culture.
The third link is "Necromantic Origins of Freemasonry", once again attempting to claim Satan worship, and citing Morgan, no less. It plays with semantics to make a point, and is also written by an anonymous author. Also not pop culture.
Bannerstrade has a list of a whole lot of thngs for sale, probably on auction sites. That is not popular culture, or else you need to claim the same for "rosicrucian". That's not pop culture, that's collectibles.
Beachside Church's goal is also obvious: "recite this prayer if any of your ancestors were involved in Freemasonaray {sic). Also not pop culture.
iantiquedeals is an antiquarian listing site, which is also not pop culture.
I bet the church sells the shirts and bumper stickers? Now, let's try this again, shall we? Pop culture, by your definition, seems to be "evangelical Christian anti-Masonic material", which 98% of the world knows nothingg about. MSJapan 23:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be mainstream pop culture, such as word like "dude" or "cool" but that word is still there.
Additionally you seem to confuse Masonry with Freemasonry, we already discussed about it. You seem to have it forgotten already.
I am neither anti-masonic, read my comments in the discussion Forum for Mahabone, and definitely neither christian. Those links are just what I did pop up in a few minutes of google search. Good you read them. You vandalized the article a few times on the allegations of Copyright Violation, Ethymology uncertainty, and 'speculations'. The article do not present any of mine speculations, but actual quotes from books that are more than a century old.
Please behave.
Actually, you've misbehaved several times over, if in no other way by violating the 3RR rule with edits [[58]], [[59]], & [[60]]. Check you user talk page, if you know how. If not, here's a clue. Grye 04:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's the 4th revert that breaks the rule, not the third. He's still good.--SarekOfVulcan 04:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

pop culture

Freemasons all, combined, including Blue (Craft) Lodge Masons, + York Rite Masons, + Scottish Rite Masons, +Every other Freemason, put together, in any given country or the world, & divided into the populations of same, are not, now, theoretically or actually, by definition, Pop Culture.

Grye 06:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Masonry Vs. Freemasonry

I don't know what planet some are from, but here on Earth it is usually acceptable to refer to Freemasons as Masons, especially when Freemasonry is clearly being referred to. Grye 06:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK I know Serek is of Vulcan, but I think, maybe, that's true there too. Not sure though. Grye
  • Delete, the goings-on of Masons are trivial and unencyclopedic. -- Kjkolb 10:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Nice article.

*:"Nice"? OK, yeah sure. Flying Spaghetti Monster, you will from hereon be know as Prisoner:62.1.195.1, now lights-out!....;-D Grye 15:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, sounds like an interesting start. Peter S. 19:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, In John J. Robinson's 1989 book Born in Blood, he speculates on those works cited before him, and his work is re-hashed in other speculations that come after him. In other words it is all made up. Skull 'n' Femurs 22:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Time Radio[edit]

Apparent podcruft. Closely linked to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Overnightscape. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:29, Dec. 23, 2005

Comment its apparently an alternative name for "podcasting", along with Audio magazine, blogcast, audio blog. Zzzzz 01:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if "New Time Radio" was the word coined by so-and-so in 2003, the word "podcasting" has won in the marketplace of ideas and is the one people really use and know. Endomion 07:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Defence I must question the reason for deleting this article. This is a viable and used term and has been so for a much longer period of time than podcasting. Deleting it in place of podcasting for the reasons stated are laughable; given Endomion's reasoning does this mean the term 'tube' should be deleted because the term 'subway' is more widely used? I believe democracy and the free and open exchange of ideas are truely being trampled on by deleting this article; everyone has the right to use alternative termenology. As for the argument that it is not the one people really use and know, a) people in different social contexts use differernt terms and b) podcasting and New Time Radio are NOT interchangable; New Time Radio refers to audio programs done in the style of Old Time Radio but that are broadcasted through the internet rather than radio. Podcasts can be speech, musical works, interviews and such, and c) Old Time Radio is an established term, as such New Time Radio is merely a derivative which arguably makes it more widely recognised to a greater audience than podcasting even to people not familiar with technology. Rubenerd 11:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - Not only do I agree with Rubenerd, but I do not see how this article meets the requirements for deletion. Ross412

  • Delete NN term. The subway/tube analogy doesn't hold water. A better analogy would be if someone decided to call a subway a subtrain. --rogerd 06:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kashif Hasan[edit]

Vanity article created by User:Superkashif. Very, very vague on specifically why he should be on the encyclopedia. Google returns few hits. As an aside, The only other contribution by the user is Image:David_mohd_davachi.jpg, which is labelled as a photo of a personal friend and is not used on any article. GeeJo (t) (c) 23:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I don't see the notability here. Tom Harrison (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wiki is an inappropriate forum for him to deploy a value proposition centric marketing campaigns' Dlyons493 Talk 03:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: he does not appear special or pioneering when it comes to business-to-business marketing.—Stombs 05:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. JWSchmidt 21:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meow Wars[edit]

Delete. Yeah, a flame war on USENET is really encyclopedic. If this is encyclopedic then about half of the arbcom cases are too. karmafist 23:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination, unless we want an article space biography of Willy on Wheels too. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:49, Dec. 23, 2005
  • Keep. The article has been on WP since September 2003, and describes a notable series of events. The VFD appears to be part of Karmafist's recent and bad-faith campaign against Usenet; see [61] and [62]. Andy Mabbett 00:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep most usenet flamewars are surely not notable (I've been involved in several and witnessed many more) but some are, particualrly when there are real world effects. Shutting down the mail-servers at Boston University alone is enough to make this notable IMO, and being the, er, catalyst for the adoption of digital signatures in usenet control msgs is an even stronger reason to regard this as notable. One may diappapprove of or dispise internet trolls and vandals, but when they have real-world effects, we should report on them. DES (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia needs articles on every flame war that ever happens. And arbcom is a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I remember these events and have heard reference to them since then. I'm not sure that the label of 'biggest flame war of all time' is accurate, but it was certainly a notable event which established a 'Meow Wars' meme which people might wish to look up. Keeping an article on one notable flame war is not synonymous with keeping articles on all flame wars. It might be better to cut down and merge this into the Flaming article. --CBD ☎ ✉ 01:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep.... the Meow Wars literally changed the way Usenet conducted itself and was an important test of extreme free speech on the internet. wikipediatrix 01:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Seems slightly notable, but laden with POV. I remember WoW voting on the last one. -- Natalinasmpf 01:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This was the great granddaddy of flame wars. Endomion 01:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now nearly ten years on, we can reasonably measure whether the "Meow Wars" have had any lasting impact. The answer is not really. The article doesn't mention any substantial aftereffects outside usenet besides vague references to the fact that Web forums tend to be more moderated (they are, but not directly because of the Meow Wars). The article has no mention of any mainstream coverage by the media, no books, newspaper citations, etc. Finally, I count 151 unique Google hits out of some 350 total. If anything, it should be merged into a Usenet or flaming article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Considering that the History section of the Usenet mentions none of this, the only Links To are from the "see also" sections in a handful of articles, and based on the miniscule google hits, I think it don't even deserve to be a redirect to Usenet. Flyboy Will 03:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: seems to have affected Usenet as a whole.—Stombs 05:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This isn't just another flamewar. This is the flamewar. It pretty much brought most of Usenet to a standstill, and was basically the beginning of the decrease in the signal to noise ratio for the social parts of Usenet. There wouldn't be much in the way of google hits or mainstream press, as this was during the time that the Internet was still in its infancy and most of the MSM had not heard of the Internet, and the documentation of what exactly happened isn't great--all we have is the content of the flame war, so there's not much on the Web about it, as this was still three years before the creation of the first web browser. --Thephotoman 08:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. In 100 years nobody will remotely care about this specific incident. If not deleted, I strongly urge merging this into a flamewar or generic usenet article. —Locke Cole 01:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In 100 years will anyon remember Sharon Tate (a featured article)? Whther or not something will be remembered in 100 years has got to be one of the worst reasons for deleting an article. Johhny-turbo 00:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per other's keep arguments above. 100-year rule is good idea but would require massive gutting of pop-culture articles. Herostratus 04:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again, and again, and again.  Grue  21:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff 15:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Significant event, article seems well written and topic is notable and encyclopedic. All IMHO of course. ++Lar 07:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. --King of All the Franks 13:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- having real world consequences is preety big Johhny-turbo 23:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Geni (copyvio). howcheng {chat} 07:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Taylor[edit]

I orginally speedied this, but was disallowed because claims notability. Only notability appears to be as CEO of Taylor Reach Group, which you will see on AFD list below MNewnham 23:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tagged and listed it as a copyvio. -- JJay 00:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to copyvios. Stifle 14:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Reach Group[edit]

NN Call-center consulting company, appears to be 4 people MNewnham 23:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please put more effort into your nominations. Simply saying "NN" tells us nothing more than that you'd like the article deleted. Instead, explain why you think it's non-notable (in more detail than "4 people"; four-person companies are capable of being notable.) fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: first entry appears to be authored by the company itself.—Stombs 05:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert. Stifle 14:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert and does not meet WP:CORP --rogerd 05:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_23&oldid=1081091909"