Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 19 December 21 >

Purge server cache

December 20[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The result was Withdrawn. Mhiji 22:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical makeup of the human body[edit]

Seems superfluous, I am convinced thaty this article addresses things already present in Wikipedia and there is no reason to keep it. The title does nothing for me. If you all decide to keep it, it needs to be cleaned up and merged to an article relating to human anatomy. Thanks. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My idea is now that the article can be kept, or should be redirected or merged, somethings need to be added. Don't delete on second thought. This is on the border. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:55, 20 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 02:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ese Ceazah[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 speedy delete - non-notable (as are all accountants) and almost empty article. -- RHaworth 02:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Busch[edit]

Blatant vanity page on non-notable former accountant for a wrestling organization Mecanismo | Talk 00:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I tagged it for speedy, claiming to be an accountant is not claiming to be notable Chris the speller 00:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 01:33, 20 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 02:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nutmeg (football)[edit]

Dicdef of a slang term in football/soccer Daveb 00:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, real technique, and readers should be able to find examples of players who are known for using it. Kappa 00:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The standard term for this move and used by broadcasters all the time. Calsicol 01:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It is a common term, but it is a dicdef nonetheless. WP:NOT a dictionary. --Daveb 01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Expand it then. Or merge wikidictionary into wikipedia. All the coverage of football should be in one place. Calsicol 04:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • ... or put it in wiktionary where it belongs, and wikilink there instead of here where it doesn't belong... (I see that people are keen to keep it here and acknowledge that, but, again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Cheers, --Daveb 05:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you suggesting wikipedia users shouldn't be provided with examples of players known for using the technique? Kappa 06:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the list is verifiable, then fine. How do you propose to verify the list? --Daveb 06:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • They are, Kappa. It's called Wiktionary, and it's every bit as readily accessible as wikipedia. Denni ☯ 01:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wiktionary woudn't accept notable examples of players or nutmegging incidents, or any discussion of the technique - these things would be removed as "encyclopedic". Kappa 01:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Kappa is quite right. Whilst Wiktionary will take everything that editors have to give on the etymology and roots of the word, and is the correct place for such lexicography, Wikipedia is the place for discussion of the activity. There's no reason that shiny interwiki links cannot join the two together into an overall whole, though. Build the interwiki web. Uncle G 02:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above. -- JJay 02:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is a real and well-known football technique. Carioca 02:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per other commnets. --Thephotoman 02:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or Merge/Redirect into List of Football terms or some such. This is purely a dicdef as it stands, and probably could not be anything more. Moreover, a list of players noted for using the move does not IMHO constitute encyclopaedic material. Zunaid 08:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you're going to delete this you might as well delete Dribbling, Tackle (football) etc. «LordViD» 09:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The terms tackle and dribble are generic and apply to many sports as their articles show. W.r.t. tackle, many sports (including all types of football) have specific laws dealing with the legality of certain means of tackling an opponent (in some cases it goes further to define what constitutes a tackle and what laws apply when a tackle takes place etc.). "Tackle" is part of the official vocabulary of the sport. Nutmeg is exclusive to soccer and is a slang term which would not be found in any rule book. Consequently there does not seem to be much to say about it besides describing what it is. Zunaid 11:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Outside the U.S. "soccer" is about as important as all the other sports in the world put together. We're not talking about a korfball term here. Bhoeble 12:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but article needs to be expanded greatly. --MisterHand 15:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. {{footy-stub}} the article and allow for expansion. —gorgan_almighty 15:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per comments above Jcuk 22:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no good reason to delete, apart from overzealous editing. This is not Britannica, things are changing for the worst. The editors obviously dont like football.
  • Comment-in-reply: I put up this AFD and can safely say that I love football: the bulk of the current article Football (soccer) was written by me in a series of major rewrites, in addition to almost all the articles on restarts (many new articles), the article on fouls (major rewrite), the article on misconduct (new article), the article on the field (major rewrite), etc, etc. As mentioned above, I just don't think the Nutmeg article as it existed belongs here (essentially a dicdef with a tagged on non-verifiable POV list); I don't think the recent alterations make it any more encyclopaedic. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia afterall. --Daveb 00:04, 22 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. Ral315 (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smithtadism[edit]

Delete One google hit, guess where it leads? I'm No Parking and I approved this message 00:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Josh Parris#: 01:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should have been speedied as nonsenseTheRingess 01:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, it's still not too late. - Bobet 01:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, I think we are in nonsense territory. -- JJay 02:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as silly vandalism. Capitalistroadster 02:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per unfunny vandalism. --Thephotoman 02:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It may be vandalism but I think it's funny. Think I'm gonna go add that to bjaodn.--pielover87 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tobyk777 05:32, 20 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 02:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quest of the moon breed[edit]

Does not meet WP:Music. Durova 00:21, 20 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 02:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suspyre[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 Speedy keep as bad faith nomination. Capitalistroadster 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-phishing software[edit]

On behalf of User:62.31.82.51 "minor part of phishing, constant target of spam"

  • Keep. Why is this here? Is there a nom here? -- JJay 05:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't see why not to. Bkwillwm 05:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable subject, and being a magnet for spam/vandalism is no reason to delete. -- Megamix? 05:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is silly. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, speedy close. Bad faith anon nomination. Proto t c 12:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and assuming this nomination is intended to be a joke. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Megamix. --MisterHand 15:03, 20 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 keep (no delete votes, nomination withdrawn). --Stormie 09:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption 87[edit]

Does not meet WP:Music. Durova 00:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I added an amg-link to the page. Two verifiable albums that are listed there is good enough for me. - Bobet 01:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment One was a four song mini-album and neither appear to have been on a major label or to have made the charts at all. I may be mistaken, but doesn't WP:Music set the bar a little higher? Durova 02:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply to the comment, yes, probably. If you're just going by WP:MUSIC, the article states that the band contained a member of AFI (band) (Jade Puget), which would qualify them based on it. - Bobet 02:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination per User:Bobet. Durova 02:37, 20 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 02:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Tyler News[edit]

plus a sub-site thereof: Christians Coasters. Added -- RHaworth 04:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity -- Garfield226 00:23, 20 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 02:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Bori[edit]

NN actor Melaen 00:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really, he's more of a non-notable director. IMDb hasn't heard of him. Google results are unencouraging for notability. Entry at the BBC film network page (where you apparently register yourself, before you leap on that as evidence of notability) describes himself as an "art student", which is not a notable occupation. *Delete. Lord Bob 00:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 00:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Abstain - not really sure at this stage. But we should also be looking at his "friends", Behzad Yahaghi and Sebastian Wuttke. Whilst Behzad at least has an IMDB entry, I don't think that Sebastian Wuttke has anything. Francesco Bori seems more notable than those two. Would need to confirm whether his biography is true too. If he really is in production of that many movies, then he's notable enough, even if they are big flops. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete after seeing this [1]. Apparently he was deleted unanimously from another encyclopaedia called pseudodoxia. Check out their reasoning. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible speedy. Pseudoxia appears to be a mirror of Wikipedia and the debate was held in 2004. RickK was an admin here and Geogre is still a valued contributor. This means that this article could possibly be speedy deleted as a formerly deleted article.Capitalistroadster 02:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having checked this earlier the content is similar but the movies outlined are different.Capitalistroadster 02:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His filmography seems to consist only of student movies. --MisterHand 15:06, 20 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.

Francesco Bori - associate producer - The 1 Second Film (2007) - special thanks - Matters of Life and Death (2006)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Owen× ☎ 17:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Dowdy[edit]

Article is shameless vanity page Mecanismo | Talk 00:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possible speedy unless you think that claiming to be a music teacher is a claim of notability. Fairly ordinary music teacher. Lord Bob 00:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 00:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Vanity. NN. KC. 00:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and clean up. Dowdy was the drummer in the great 50s Jazz trio, the Three Sounds [[2]]. -- JJay 00:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - only 2 claims to fame seem to be as drummer in The Three Sounds and a group called Club 49 Trio. Whilst Club 49 Trio gets limited google action with just 9 unique of 12 total hits, they do get a few decent ones. Also note that he has his own allmusic entry here [3]. Seems to be enough. Even though the article is talking about a music teacher, it seems that in his "former life" he was notable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His career in the 50s is more than notable. Flyboy Will 01:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Recorded 10 albums before the invention of the CD burner. Played with notable musicians. Durova 01:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Part of a group that backed Lester Young, which makes him more notable than Gwen Stefani, Mariah Carey, and Ashlee Simpson (individually or collectively). At least it should. Monicasdude 01:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sounds like someone should make an article for The Three Sounds too... Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He did do some notable stuff historically, even if what he does now is not. --Thephotoman 03:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Allmusic.com has an article on him and the references in the article seem notable and verifiable. Google Books comes up with a reasonably impressive list of mentions. [4] Article seems in reasonable shape too. Capitalistroadster 03:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've done some googling about him, this article really does not do him justice. --Ezeu 04:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but it's just a start. -- JJay 04:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Three Sounds, and create that article before bothering with ones on the individual members. Proto t c 12:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a bad idea. I have initiated a poor stub (which I intend to work on) – and I am looking for MP3s of them too, however implausible. I reckon y'all should help expand that stub. I still stand by my Keep vote for Bill Dowdy though--Ezeu 12:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • MP3s? I have a few of their albums. I rapidly expanded your stub a bit. Will have more time tonight, if no one else rounds it out-- JJay 12:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know anything about him, but the presence of an Allmusic.com reference (the choice of many a "notability tester") leaves me satisfied that he's notable. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd like to see more about his music career in the article, however. --MisterHand 15:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Jporcaro 15:55, 22 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. Owen× ☎ 17:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Lade[edit]

NN. Being a candidate in an election doesn't make you notable. Josh Parris#: 00:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I disagree. This is the federal election. Victoria, Canada is a big seat. Has got enough media coverage [5]. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I disagree. If he wins the election, he's in. I believe guidelines are that winners are in but candidates are out, unless they're notable in defeat. Since the election hasn't happened, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, delete. That, and it reads to much like a promo anyway. Chris talk back 01:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into an article on Green Party candidates in the 39th federal election. Note that the rules regarding legislative candidates are under consideration at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates -- Mwalcoff 00:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Copyvio of official biography see [6]. Doesn't seem notable enough to warrant biography unless elected. Capitalistroadster 03:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but rewrite. The article is a blatant copyvio as per Capitalistroadster's link, but as a candidate for a notable party in an important regional election, he just about meets notability criteria for me. If someone has half decent info on him, a rewrite would be very welcome.
  • Keep, as with all other major party candidates. - SimonP 14:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm undecided as to whether he merits an article. In any case, I've de-copy-vio'd and de-pov'd the article, as well as adding him to Green Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. --GrantNeufeld 20:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Ajdz 03:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with green party Jporcaro 15:56, 22 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. Owen× ☎ 17:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Baird[edit]

NN. Being a candidate in an election doesn't make you notable. Josh Parris#: 00:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - according to his electoral web site [7] his activities have been reported in at least 7 national news reports. That makes him notable. Also you should note that he's written his own autobiography on his site, which should be used as reference. [8] Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is very similar to his campaign bio and may be a possible copyvio. Has some Google News entries mainly from local papers related to the race [9]. However, I am yet to be convinced that he crosses the notability bar. Capitalistroadster 02:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a pure copy and paste, save a "ssmall[sic]" spelling error, from http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/riding/304. Since this is just a list of facts, I don't know if copyright applies. I'll let others decide. --Rob 12:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major-party candidate for ongoing national election. Article might be of interest to many people. Verifiable information should be available from local media. -- Mwalcoff 03:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as with all other major party candidates. - SimonP 14:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepSjc 15:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. (even though I wikified it, I'm not in favor of keeping this as a separate article unless some notability beyond being a candidate is shown). --GrantNeufeld 06:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As long as he's in a list of Conservative candidates somewhere that's more than enough. --NormanEinstein 21:26, 21 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 02:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Mice[edit]

Band vanity article. Fails every guideline of WP:MUSIC Mecanismo | Talk 00:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was also a band called simply 'Mice', currently a red link from All About Eve (band). Presumably at some point 'Mice' will get an article, since they were Julianne Regan's outfit after the notable (in the UK at least) All About Eve split up. They released several CDs (I have some of them). Just a thought should a dab page come about. --kingboyk 23:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because they are sold on amazong...although it's not at all encyclopedic-sounding. Jporcaro 15:58, 22 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. Owen× ☎ 17:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Fox[edit]

Vanity article on very obscure and very non-notable singer Mecanismo | Talk 00:22, 20 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 02:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KXRZ-FM[edit]

Advertising. Obviously. KC. 00:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain - what's the rules for radio stations? Do they have to have a certain popularity? How high does it have to be? The article looks okay advertising wise. I know that Triple J radio's article stays up, and is written in much the same way. But then again Triple J has an audience in the millions. Zordrac (talk)
    • Triple J is world famous, not least for Live At The Wireless. --kingboyk 05:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC) (UK)[reply]

Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • keep. mikka (t) 00:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've seen lots of radio station articles around with this title format. You're right, though, it is advertising, so it needs to be rewritten. JHMM13 (T | C) 00:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deletion is for articles that do not belong on Wikipedia in any form. Radio and television stations are notable; an encyclopedia of U.S. radio stations would include an entry on KXRZ-FM. It just needs a clean-up to remove irrelevant content (which is an easier process than nominating an article for deletion). Davodd 00:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 02:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons stated. Calsicol 04:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Davodd is exactly right. ×Meegs 07:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. If anyone thinks the article is too ad-like, be bold and revise it. 23skidoo 12:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of other radio station articles out there with similar content. I agree with the cleanup tag. --MisterHand 15:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • <I'm gonna go for Merge - unless a rewrite can be done to make it less of an advert. As it stands, I don't think it's of wikipedic value. 9cds 17:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My initial thought are List of American radio networks 9cds 17:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That merge would create a factual error. The station's parent company would be a better choice, if a merge is used. - Davodd 09:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the reasons stated above. -- DS1953 talk 19:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno, it seems strange to me that a radio station is an automatic keep but a school isn't. (No vote). --kingboyk 05:17, 21 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× ☎ 17:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard caro[edit]

Comments ("Argument")[edit]

Promotional puff piece about the CEO of a corporation of dubious notability. Just 32 Google hits for "richard caro" "cmc associates". Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 00:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • quoting: at age of ten...amazing things by creating a turbine automobile design. puff-puff-puff. mikka (t) 00:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Fine then, delete that part. I'm sorry for mentioning a turbine automobile design that he made at ten. This is my first article for Wikipedia and instead of deleting it, maybe you guys could try cleaning it up instead of deleting my article? -AlexJohnc3


  • Delete. If he, his company, or indeed his industry are notable, then where is Automation Industry and CMC Associates? Flyboy Will 01:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think you can use self-reference as a guide to notability. - Bobet 02:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I suppose not, although when somebody is supposedly notable because of the company / industry where he works, I would expect those companies and indistries to have wiki articles. In any case, this guy is a CEO of a home business and I just do not see how he or his company are in any way notable. Flyboy Will 02:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply The company is hardly a small business, I think it is something for consulting Richard Caro. And as I said in reply to your the first post in this list, the Automation industry does have a Wikipedia article: Industrial Automation. -AlexJohnc3
    • Reply Okay, the argument against this article seems to be that it is not notable. The Google argument has been "beaten" and now we have the automation/CMC Associates not in Wikipedia. Flyboy Will brought up the latter argument. Well, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_automation and as far as the CMC Assciates not in Wikipedia goes, it is a small, "home business" (see http://cmcassociates.net/staff.html for staff). -AlexJohnc3


  • Note to AlexJohnc3 Could you please use the same standard as everyone else when adding your comments? It's impossible to sift through all you've written up above and discern your newer comments from the older ones. Add your stuff below other's comments, in chronological order, use the star symbol in the beginning of each paragraph, etc. Honestly, it's not that hard, just look at every other AfD. You're making this one into a huge mess. Flyboy Will 02:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Sorry, maybe if someone else had made a list before I could have added to it (by looking at the code used), like I am now.-AlexJohnc3
  • Comment to all experienced Wikipedians "DONT BITE THE NEWBIES". AlexJohnc3, welcome aboard, sorry your first outings been a bit rough! Jcuk 22:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

  • Delete, not notable Tom Harrison (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonnotable. mikka (t) 00:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio. -- Megamix? 05:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. MCB 06:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. AlexJohnc3 02:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable Edgar181 16:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN head of NN corp MNewnham 17:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to meet WP:BIO#People_still_alive, as a published author. I haven't seen the requirement of an audience of 5000 being documented in other author bios, so don't see why it should be documented here to have WP:BIO#People_still_alive considered relevant. (Of course I haven't read _all_(!) of Wikipedia, so it may be adhered to in most bios. I'm prepared to be corrected.) The Position section needs to be removed or rewritten, rather than a quote (IMHO), but I don't think the current edit is too puffy. Re the standard of authorship, there are thousands of less well written bio stubs which are kept - this article is comprehensible and formatted well.. Colonel Tom 10:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Colonel Tom, thanks for your vote. As I stated before, this article could use a lot of work; so it should be a stub/cleaned up. I don't know how many books he has out, but I'm pretty sure it is atleast 5,000. AlexJohnc3 02:39, 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 02:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Life and death brigade[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. - Mailer Diablo 02:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

X-EP[edit]

Not notable - it's only a demo. Delete CLW 00:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete KC. 00:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 01:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete demos have no place here, except maybe for artists who later become hugely famous. --MisterHand 15:12, 20 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 (a new version of a known tool). mikka (t) 07:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rpg maker xp[edit]

  • del nonnotable gamemaker soft. mikka (t) 00:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Based on its gamespot page [11] it's a popular piece of software, a sequel to the very notable RPG Maker line. Flyboy Will 01:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to RPG Maker. RPG Maker XP already serves as a redirect to there. --Apostrophe 01:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per apostrophe. This is the one that shows up when you don't use caps in the search box, and has clearly fooled at least one person (the creator) before. - Bobet 02:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Apostrophe (ESkog)(Talk) 04:41, 20 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 - Izehar 14:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Ray Stolz[edit]

  • del nonnotable/nonverifiable. Announcer. mikka (t) 01:11, 20 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.--Shanel 20:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paragone[edit]

Delete - dicdef, almost no content GTBacchus(talk) 01:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete is it just me, or is the article incoherent? Josh Parris#: 01:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - It's not just you. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if someone is a paragon, he's a standard of comparison, and that comes from this word in Italian. Huh; I did not know that. Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, if more information on the practice can be found. It's actually a relevant discussion in aesthetics as that field pertains to art, though there is not enough info here.--Thephotoman 03:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, or if thats not possible merge with Italian renaissance. Jcuk 22:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I couldn't make sense of it at first, or I wouldn't have nominated it. Now it's cleaned up a bit. Probably plenty of room for expansion. Other noted paragones? Techniques used? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move seems more wiktionary-ish to me. --Pboyd04 03:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think. It can't go into Wiktionary, which (I think) only would include English words or foreign words in common use. It could go into an Italian Wiktionary. But if it's real literary device -- the old-timey equivilant of "Death Metal RULZ! And all other music SUCKS!", I guess -- then keep it. Herostratus 20:53, 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 02:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Vilas[edit]

Delete. Notability not asserted, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC Colonel Tom 01:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NaconKantari 02:57, 20 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 User:Peter Campbell's userspace. —Cleared as filed. 21:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Campbell[edit]

Vanity article by fairly not notabgle green candidate. Page also created user called Peter Campbell Jgritz 01:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy, not delete. Colonel Tom 01:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Campbell might merit an article at some stage, but writing it himself is a bad idea. --Calair 01:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he stood for 2 federal elections in a seat that was considered to be a "safe" seat before he first stood, and he changed the balance of power, which in turn had an impact on federal politics overall. This is a very notable achievement, and hasn't been done by many politicians. In a two-party system, this is the kind of thing that the 2 major parties talk about. He has received a lot of major national attention because of this feat, and is discussed regularly in parliament. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment - the federal seat of Kooyong is still certainly considered to be a safe liberal seat; Peter Campbell's candidacy has not affected that status. I would suggest that he hasn't affected the balance of power, and that his achievements aren't notable - unlike, say, Michael Organ's achievements, which certainly were. With respect, Colonel Tom 03:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. --Thephotoman 03:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy if it is the same Peter Campbell. The only notable Green candidate to stand for Kooyong was Peter Singer. Kooyong is still safe for the Liberals and I doubt Petro Georgiou is losing too much sleep about him. Capitalistroadster 03:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]
  • comment. Peter Campbell 03:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC) I wrote this article before I was aware of the autobiography guidelines, so sorry about the breach of protocol in creating this page. Note that Kooyong has in fact changed from "safe Liberal status" in 2001 to "fairly safe liberal" now - as per the AEC website entry for Kooyong which is referenced in the article. If you have any doubts about whether Petro Georgiou thinks the Greens are a threat then you could ask him. During the 2002 State Election the Greens polled 19% in Hawthorn & 17% in Kew (lower house). I polled 15% in the upper house seat of East Yarra (now defunct). I have only included content that has been previously published rather than any "original content". Having said all this, I don't mind if the article is deleted.[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. Ambi 08:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he gets elected, then he can write an article about himself. --Roisterer 12:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USERNEW: Vanity articles should be deleted. This man is trying to get preselected for the Greens again and now looks like he will lose!

And it will not be speedy deleted as recreated deleted article? Hrm. Well, I am nowhere near Kooyong and have never been to Kooyong, and I have heard of this guy. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He's stood for 2 federal elections and possibly had some political impact. That said, I think the article is slightly POV, so I think a re-write or some editing would help it. - James Foster 13:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - a candidate that has yet to score more than 20% of the vote in any election doesn't make it in the notability department, regardless of country, on running for office alone. The article looks like a political party policy paper. If the survives the vote, I'd suggest a dismabiguation since more people are familiar with another Peter Campbell: the character in the TV series Soap whose murder midway in the first season propels the events of the next two years of the popular 1970s sitcom. B.Wind 16:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have updated the article to remove POV and party political content. I have also removed the personal website link and added several links to external verifiable information sources and articles. I have also added this content to my user page in anticipation of its deletion. Peter Campbell 00:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that it has been userfied. nn and vanity. Sarah Ewart 19:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As a new contributor, I think there is a problem with the process in train here. I checked the Help:Starting a new_page information prior to creating the page. There is no information there about criteria for page creation that is being applied in this discussion; namely that a page can only be created for a person deemed as notable, and that a person should not create their own page for vanity reasons. A Wikipedia search on "notable" and "vanity" yields no meaningful information on what these criteria are and how they are applied. Both appear to be very subjective and open to interpretation, and therefore considerably open to debate and dissent. I think this process needs to be made much clearer. Personally, I think any Greens candidate who scores the highest Green primary vote in any conservative held seat in Australia (in 2001) and the tenth highest Green primary vote for any lower house seat in Australia (in 2004) is notable. I think the top ten Greens seats (and candidates) would all be "notable". I bet each of the top 10 Liberal and Labor seats and candidates are. On the subject of vanity, the page now contains only information from verifiable sources, so I don't think it is "vain". Peter Campbell 21:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is (whether or not defined by the proposed Wikipedia:Importance)" .
"An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity. Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject."
"The word vain derives from the Latin word vanus meaning: empty."

I believe the article is not "empty" and not unimportant, author bias notwithstanding Peter Campbell 11:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

  • Userfy or delete, not elected = not notable. Note that the word "vanity" means something different in Latin as it does in English; its derivation is irrelevant, we're using the English meaning here. Radiant_>|< 13:40, 22 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 02:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merchantcircle[edit]

Commercial entity less than a year old. Not notable, or important. If it revolutionizes its industry or niche, write the article then. Airumel 02:04, 20 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, 8 to 2, (discounted unsigned votes) -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chumbly Biscuits[edit]

Non notable band turns up zero google hits.--MONGO 02:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This band did actually chart on GarageBand.com. Therefore the article should be entitled to protection under the rules governing music. (This comment was made by an anonymous editor with the IP number 216.0.142.29. --Thephotoman 05:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment What does charting on garageband.com assert? It certainly provides no indication that they have an impact inside of their genre or community in any real way. Looking at the rating given to the group's single on the site (rated at 2 stars) puts them somewhere down the line after #140 (out of some 1800). We'll need a little more than that to go on.DeathThoreau 03:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"It certainly provides no indcation that they have an impact inside of their genre or community in any real way." - Is it fair to imply that because they are not a household name like U2 or Coldplay, their existence doesn't matter?

  • Comment - Hey, I made this page for this band because the concert that I saw them in was unreal. All bands come from relative obscurity. Who's to say that they will not be the next big thing. I have personally had conversations with the drummer Bix Jackets and he gave me his permission to make such a page documenting there history. User:Kaox02
  • Delete. Wikipedia doesn't cover 'the next big thing': see WP:NOT under 'Wikipedia is not a crystal ball' and the guidelines for inclusion of bands under WP:MUSIC. --Last Malthusian 15:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not just saying they will be the next big thing, I am simply stating they are a real band, and deserve recognition of such here in the Wikipedia. The band Motion City Soundtrack has not "hit it big" but they are in the Wikipedia. So why not Chumbly Biscuits? User:Kaox02
    • Comment: Motion City Soundtrack has more than five albums released, and have appearantly been signed by a label. Chumbly Biscuts can make neither claim. They don't meet WP:MUSIC, and thus, Chumbly Biscuts has no place here yet. --Thephotoman 01:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not yet notable. If they do make it big, then will be the time to start an article. CLW 18:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - you can't delete something just because the rest of the world has yet to take notice of it. get out of here with your conservative attitude, i just want other fans of this band to know who they are and where they come from.
  • Keep - Harland sanders was 68 when he founded KFC. He had been making his origional recipe chicken his whole life and finally went public in his silver years. I bet your faces will be red when you delete this entry and they become the next George Michael. We as Chumbly fans are trying to save you the embarrasment of having gotten rid of their history as they were on the brink of success. Shame on you Wikipedia. have a nice day.
  • Keep. Mga 19:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under WP:NMG and not a crystal ball. If and when, they are the next big thing or at least meet at least one of our musical criterion, they can have an article. Capitalistroadster 22:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - First off, if you read the top of your WP:NMG you will see that it states very clearly "these are guidelines...not policy". But if you would like me to explain to pick one, which the article clearly states I need not do to keep a page from being deleted, I will do so. "Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre. " - This could not be more true of this band which if you listen to them, you will know they are more pioneers in music than most bands today. There are tons of bands out there that have a huge fan base but you may not have heard of them, so don't delete this page based on that.User:Kaox02
    • Which traditions or schools have they established and are there verifiable third party sources confirming this? As well, a bands with a "huge fan base" would meet the Wikipedia music criteria by having a charting album or single or complete a national tour or generate significant media. If we had evidence of any of those things, I would change my vote to keep. Capitalistroadster 00:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't even want to argue this anymore. I've put a lot of work into this page over the last couple day's and I plan on continuing this in the future. If you had a band you were very passionate about and you wanted others to know about them and LEARN about them, which is what the Wikipedia is for, then you would know why I feel so strongly. Just don't delete it, it won't be good for anyone.User:Kaox02
  • Comment: Most of the keep votes come from either anon 216.0.142.29 and User:Kaox02. There are, therefore, at most, two votes to keep. I suspect that these two might be the same person, and thus represent one person trying to stuff the vote in bad faith. Can anyone verify? --Thephotoman 01:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just so you understand something, by my count, I show 5 votes to delete, and 5 votes to keep. One of them is mine, and if I wanted to "stuff the ballots" as you so call it, I would have a hell of a lot more votes than 4. Not to mention, you voted to keep this page! As for the record label, I believe they are part of Eagle Records, but because I don't remember, I didn't want to put it in there. But they are legit CD's, I can get you one for 10 dolla.User:Kaox02
  • Delete. No allmusic entry, no google hits except from garageband.com. Sorry, Kaox, but we can reinstate the article when they do get big -- after all, encyclopedias don't predict, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Note: I cleaned up a spurious signature by Thephotoman, but didn't touch his vote. Bikeable 03:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reasons stated by others above. Mark272 11:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You can check my IP to verify that I am not the guy stuffing the ballot here. I understand that your buisness is to verify info, but the way you're treating this guy is not all together fair. As an innocent bystander of the situation, I've visited garageband.com, read their story and believe what I see. Wiki's purpose is not to predict the future, that much I agree with, but I believe it has a responsibility to report facts big or small. Maybe they don't have the large budget of U2, but they do exist as shown by the garageband.com entry and downloadable music from them. If I were voting, I'd vote keep.
  • Comment. By the way, for all of you that are using the "Wiki is not a crystal ball" arguement, please read the info on that rule provided by the hypertext. You are suggesting that Chumbly Biscuits has not existed in the past, when clearly they have released material, with songs provided on garageband.com and diskography dates given. Please stop using this as your basis for voting them off. I vote KEEP.
  • KEEP! - "after all, encyclopedias don't predict ..." - True. Encyclopedias state that which does exist or has otherwise been theorised to become established experience. I think this band has proven that they do in fact, exist by virtue of its garageband.com entry.
  • Question - So when do I find out if my page will be deleted or kept? I want to know if I should keep adding all that I know about the band?


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Stormie 09:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Optomtometric Association[edit]

Spelling mistake Natebw 02:28, 20 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 (even if it is real, it's a copyvio - translations are copyrighted) Renata3 07:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discourse on dispassion[edit]

Is this an original source or a copyvio? In either case, it is not an article and has no place on Wikipedia. Delete. Kusma (討論) 02:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete perhaps it's sophisticated Markov chain text generation, doesn't appear to be a copyvio of any online text Josh Parris#: 03:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, no google hits. Flyboy Will 03:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like original material. Delete. --Apostrophe 04:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikisource - this is Hindu mythology, I believe. -- RHaworth 05:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the place to self-publish short stories. --MisterHand 15:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource if this is real. Delete otherwise. howcheng {chat} 01:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga Vasistha[edit]

yes, this is an excerpt from the book "Yoga Vasistha" --Sadartha

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as blank page formerly A1 short article without context. Capitalistroadster 03:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The superbowl is gay[edit]

Looks like there is a new "is gay" vandal... -- Jbamb 03:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • reluctant Delete - article is still a stub and fails to provide references, I suspect a hoax Josh Parris#: 03:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was a redirect to a biography page, I cleared that to put in the delete tag.-- Jbamb 03:23, 20 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 [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Gary[edit]

NN Australian audio journalist, copyvio with no pages linking to the article. Josh Parris#: 03:13, 20 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 02:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ukcashbacksites[edit]

Blatant advertisement Kareeser|Talk! 03:21, 20 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 02:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Live music artists of Christchurch, New Zealand[edit]

A huge list of bands which, if they had individual articles, would all be AfD'd for failing WP:MUSIC. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Oy vey. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Flyboy Will 03:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. But I take issue with your comment about all of them being afd candidates - a few of them have perfectly acceptable Wikipedia articles (such as The Bats, for instance). Grutness...wha? 05:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more a gig guide than an explanation of the Christchurch music scene. Capitalistroadster 05:59, 20 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. Consensus is clear, no reason to continue with this silliness.--Sean|Black 06:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AppleAddict Forums[edit]

nn webforums. Only 97 unique Google hits for AppleAddict, let alone its forums. And all of appleaddict.com, forums and all, does not get a ranking from alexa. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, the site has an extremely active user body. Where is the boundary drawn at how large a forum must be for it to merit a place on Wikipedia? Must it have over X amount of Google hits?
—the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.13.227.241 (talk • contribs)
Delete, as AppleAddict is not a major site. (See Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines) Also, a major portion of the article is "The Great Migration", which is simply fiction, or at the most, historical fiction. SycthosTalk 03:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about you people leave it alone and let those of us who are members have our fun? "The Great Migration" is actually rooted in real events. Don't judge when you have no idea what you're talking about.

We have 1100 members with 469,000+ articles, I believe that meets the notability standard.

The Great Migration is a lyrical retelling of the events described in the History section. If you weren't around for you, of course it seems like nonsense.

  • Don't Delete* We have extremely valuable research potential. If you read up on our haikus, they are probably some of the finest minority poems on the web. Not only that, but the sound advice from our inhouse experts on finace, decorating, cunnilingus, and general debauchery (all Banky of course) would impress any would-be sophisticate. Our site is a valuable source for anyone interested in Apple Computing, automobiles, entertainment, and shovels.
  • Delete and that overview didn't help your case any. --194.215.208.5 09:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Exhibit A of everything that's wrong with forumcruft on Wikipedia. "Hey, we've got a neat0 forum. This is a bunch of fake stuff about how kewl we are, and here's all our l33t moderators, yeah awesome." Banish it from our shores. FCYTravis 05:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.--nixie 05:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. -- Megamix? 05:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete* All components of the article are based on fact. There's no basis for deletion except very biased opinion of a few people. Absolutely none. Wikipedia doesn't have to be the bloodbath all you all make it out to be. Psychomonkey 05:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's 21st edit (most of which are user space edits)
  • Don't Delete -- sounds like Travis is a bit of a forum social outcast and has more than a little bit of an unfair bias. The whole forum's nature is very "inside-joke"-y as it is, and the entry reflects that quite well, while not being completely alien to the casual viewer.
    • Unsigned- could someone please find who this was?
      • I spend a lot of time on forums with thousands more users than AppleAddict ever wished it had. And no, none of those forums are encyclopedic either. FCYTravis 07:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Notable —499699787
    • User's second edit.
  • Keep; Notable —User:Smithmatt
    • User's 7th and 8th edits.
  • Keep; Unique —user:rgejman
    • User's first edit.
  • Delete even though being saucy and involving goats usually means automatic inclusion in any encyclopedia, we must make an exception here. Flyboy Will 07:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; That AppleAddict is smaller than other forums in itself should not be cause for deletion. A forum can be noteworthy for accomplishments other than the size of its membership. In this case, AAF was founded and initially populated by members of MacAddict magazine's online forum. Since it's founding, AAF's membership has grown while MacAddict's active membership has diminished. In addition, MacAddict's once highly useful and active website has diminished both in daily traffic and amount of regularly updated content. Daily news articles, weekly feature stories, and a tech-help section previously authored by Mac Addict's own editorial staff have all but disappeared in the years since the AAF migration. The departure of so many forum members is likely not the cause of MacAddict's significant decline, but it is an undeniable marker in the history of a once important Mac enthusiasts' website. In addition, the "Migration" passage is clearly written in an ironic tone meant to depict actual events in a humorous style and tone consistant with the sensibility of AAF. The forum is a small and growing gem of internet culture and, as such, merits inclusion in the Wikipedia. —user:BW
  • Delete Completely unencyclopedic and fails to meet WP:WEB Note to new posters:
    • Please see this discussion to see how futile it is to argue on the basis of "our forum is so cool and popular" without providing evidence that the forum meets WP:WEB
    • This may sound obvious, but please read WP:WEB
    • Please read the big orange box at the top of this discussion. Multiple posts by new users (a.k.a. meat puppets) will not count for much unless you can show that the articles meets the various inclusion criteria. The reasons provided above such as "notable" and "unique" are useless without evidence to back them up.
    • Please read WP:WEB.
    • Lastly, please read WP:WEB.

Zunaid 08:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you read that page that you linked to five times? Especially the words 'rough guidelines'? (Previous unsigned comment by 499699787 09:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC) and is user's 7th edit.) Zunaid[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable web forum. --Stormie 09:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes I have read the page, and no, it is not a "rough" guideline. It is in fact a guideline followed by many many editors when deciding on the merits of a website's inclusion on Wikipedia. The fact that the membership falls so far short of the recommended 5,000 is compelling enough for most editors to vote delete. The current non-encyclopedic/whimsical tone and content of the article does not help either. P.s. please sign your comments with four tildes like so: ~~~~, it will expand like so: Zunaid 10:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The forum, based on the comment above, falls well short of the 5000 user guideline. It also has not demonstrated that it has an impact outside of it's own community. Also, once again based off the above comments, the site does not have a Alexa rank of 10,000. Does not meet WP:WEB. Movementarian 11:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am sick of newbie bashing that often ends up here. The forum has had 472 users on at a time, which, if you can figure that out, suggests a user level well and truly above 5,000. Think about it - if the forum is big enough to get users come on here in droves, then its obviously a big enough forum for us to keep. They have 469,000 articles, which is a pretty good number you know. Just because they don't require all of their members to create accounts in order to post does not mean that they are a small forum. Easily meets the 5,000 required for WP:WEB. Thanks. And the little sign at the top IMO doesn't help matters. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The guideline says: A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community. This has not been demonstrated in the article. Zunaid 14:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • GOOD GRIEF! - 472 on at a time means an actual forum size of 10,000+ = just that they don't require you to register. 10,000 IS MUCH MORE THAN 5,000!!!!! Are you guys unable to comprehend basic mathematics???? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, 472 on at one time means a minimum of 472 members. That's mathematics. Claiming it means 10,000 is applying some unspecified theoretical formula. Besides, the site itself claims around 1,100 members, and while I agree that there may be many anonymous users, WP:WEB itself states that the 5,000 apparently unique users guideline is in fact designed for forums that allow anonymous users. Unless there's some claim to notability, such as a mention in the press, or evidence that it is well-known by Mac users (which means if I took a random bunch of Mac users several of them regularly visit it), I say delete.Confusing Manifestation 18:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Utter, utter utter nonsense. If you have 100 users on at a time, you usually have 5,000 unique members. This is a ratio that is in common place and is the accepted average. 50 is usually about 2,000. So ergo 472 would mean around lets see 25,000 unique members. Or are you expecting me to believe that 472 on at a time means 1,100 unique members? For that to be true, the AVERAGE USER would need to be on for almost 12 hours per day. Do you honestly believe that? I think not. This is the most absurd interpretation that you could possibly imagine, and anyone who thinks that 472 on at a time equals 472 unique members has to have their head read. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • In what policy or guideline is this "common place" and "accepted average" enshrined? More to the point, who came up with it in the first place? I've spent years on forums and never heard of such a thing. FCYTravis 02:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I understand it, that 472 is the most users ever online at one time. For perspective, the Something Awful Forums have 3803 users online right now. Furthermore, your "formula" is utterly flawed: by your math, Something Awful has 190,150 users (it has 69,948).--keepsleeping sleeper cell 04:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Are you actually defending this lot or are you playind Advocatus Diaboli for the kicks, Zordrac. --194.215.208.5 09:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The author (and member of the forum I assume) claims 1100 members. Movementarian 15:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Speedy delete vanity trash Lapinmies 15:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No verifiable impact. Zordrac, I don't really see the newbie-bashing you're referring to - I think everyone in this particular discussion has remained pretty civil. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if newbie-bashing is going on, which I don't see any of, I don't believe a 'newbie' which registers to defend his forum should get the same benefit of the doubt as a newbie which registers to contribute to Wikipedia. And the little sign is a very, very good idea, shame no-one pays attention. --Last Malthusian 15:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Forum vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Gateman1997 18:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Preost talk contribs 20:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't a vote......why are you all voting? Jcuk 22:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, it's not a vote, it's an attempt to come to a consensus. I find that there is a consensus to delete. Any objections? FCYTravis 22:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of Order I find no such consensus, and do indeed object. The guidelines that have been referenced many, many times here before have more of an apparent focus on web comics than they do forums. The guidelines for the forums appear to be directed at the average forum -- a forum where the vast majority of registered users do not post, and those that do, do so sparingly. The guidelines inappropriately ignore the potential for a small forum filled with very active members, or a forum that prunes its inactive users. To provide an example of where the AppleAddict entry may find itself useful, consider this: on the MacAddict Forums, it is quite often that references are made to the AppleAddict forums, and allowing a wiki entry for the AAF would be beneficial to newer members of the aforementioned MacAddict Forums who do not understand the history of such a reference. I feel the entry for the AAF represents an important historical reference, and given the nature of the history of the forum, that the entry itself is appropriate and not simply useless vanity. Dan Parnell
    • We don't have an article on the MacAddict Forums, and if one was started I would speedily merge it back where it belongs - the article on MacAddict magazine. The reality is, the great vast majority of what happens on forums is unencyclopedic. The minute "history" details of who pissed off what to whom and did wrong to someone to cause some great DRAMA... is utterly uninteresting and uninformative to anyone outside the forum. I've been involved in some pretty big forum splits myself. Lots of DRAMA. Pissed off people. Split-offs. But guess what? Who cares? Nobody! Forum drama is unencyclopedic. It's especially unencyclopedic when it's a bunch of utterly uninformative bogus fakery. Please see WP:DRV for an example of a fansite that is doing it right - Gtplanet. They may very well get a consensus to undelete and take another shot, because they've shown in detail why their site is encyclopedic - more than a forum, has reviews, file downloads, etc., notable in its field, etc. Nobody here linked with AppleAddict Forums has done any of that. Instead, y'all threw up a bunch of made-up crap on a page and expect us to keep it... why? FCYTravis 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The content you are referring to is neither 'bogus fakery' nor 'made-up crap'—it is factual. The opinion on a matter of notability from someone who is responsible for devising the notability guidelines has an inherent bias, and your comments are proof of that. —499699787 01:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • NOTE: This comment is addressed to FCYTravis: A "bunch of made-up crap"? All of it is based on fact and is directly related to the style of the AppleAddict Forums themselves. Which, if you'd been paying attention, you would know. Then again, since you also don't know that the relation between the MacAddict Forums and the MacAddict magazine is so extremely loose that merging articles about the two distinct entities would be inappropriate, I suppose it's unfair to assume that you pay attention to what is going on. It's clear you have an opinion, and it's clear that you think more highly of it (and yourself) than anyone with two brain cells to rub together does. I won't be heartbroken if the entry disappears, but if it does, I want it to do so for reasons other than the lame illogic and FUD you've been spreading to further your personal agenda and embiggen your ego. It's clear you have an ulterior motive behind your deletion recommendation, and the fact that you still cannot understand why the entry is there or what it is saying irrevocably establishes your inappropriate bias. It'd also be nice if you stopped editing out people who posted opinions on this page you didn't agree with. Lumbergh 01:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC) || Edited: Lumbergh 01:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC) to correct an inaccuracy.[reply]
        • If you consider this to be factual and encyclopedic, then you clearly have no idea what "encyclopedic" means. Please see WP:NOT for encyclopedia policy. This is something y'all made up because you think it sounds funny. Back in the second age, the Asslickers wielded more power, and all the races of the Forum prospered. All was well, for a time. Unbeknownst to the Asslickers, though, a great evil brewed all the while. Justine was building a great army of minions, bent on the destruction of all the free races of the forum. The time of the Asslickers seemed to be nearing its end. That's an interesting example of Internet storytelling, but it's not factual, which means it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I encourage you to start a WikiCities site to have your own Wiki. I have not deleted anyone's comments from this page, nor am I doing this to "embiggen my ego" - an accusation that is, I will note, a violation of the no personal attacks policy. I believe this article should be deleted for one reason only: It's not encyclopedic. FCYTravis 01:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, please! Your bolded comment is a literary retelling of actual events! How inane of you to declare it non-factual without actually having been there to watch the events unfold. What, exactly, gives you the authority to arbitrarily decide what is factual and what is not based on absolutely no evidence or background information whatsoever? And considering your very own user page megalomaniacally brags about you having been "Proudly Playing With My Deletion Button Since July 1, 2005...", I don't think my assertion that you are on an ego trip here is at all a personal attack: it is simply a statement of fact. It just so happens that that fact is the very foundation of your opinion and the recommendations you've formed based on that opinion, and therefore is an important and relevant piece of information to consider when evaluating your statements regarding the possible deletion of this article.
            • For someone who gets all high and mighty about the allegedly funny "literary retelling," you don't seem to have a very cromulent sense of humor. "Literary retellings" are not allowed on Wikipedia. The very fact that it is allegedly "literary" means that liberties have been taken with the facts in writing it, meaning I'm perfectly justified in flat-out calling it bogus. FCYTravis 01:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Outstanding. Now you're arguing semantics. I guess it saves you from the task of actually establishing and defending a position. —499699787 02:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't have a legitimate sense of humor? Now who's throwing out personal attacks? Oh, and if you could, please direct me to the wiki policy which states that artistic licenses are not granted when they are used to illustrate an analogous point. Speaking of points, this little debate between you and I is really starting to lack one. I think I'm going to go watch television and have a martini. Have the last word if you must, but don't expect too many people to respect it. Lumbergh 02:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Literary writing is inherently original research, which is prohibited by the no original research policy. Judging by the consensus on this page, I think the question of whose position is respected is fairly clear, n'est-ce pas? FCYTravis 02:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article at appleaddict was already deleted on 12/14 by User:Merovingian [12]. I highly doubt anything has changed here in the last six days. | Klaw ¡digame! 02:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, or at at least clean it up to remove the stupid amount of inside jokes. --Apostrophe 04:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've already speedied this once, and silly little forums have no place here. --King of All the Franks 04:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we have more then proved why this page should be left on the wikipedia. All those that say "don't delete" seem to have to say is that it's not a big enough forum. I feel, however, that size of something as arbitrary as number of users is rather meaningless. It would not surprise me if there was a webforum on wiki that had many more users but less *active* users. The history of AppleAddict is very much important in the world of the web, espically related to macaddict. For evidence of this, I would suggest one to scroll up and read the comments left. While it is true that perhaps the headings and grammer used may need some modifications, it is policy of Wkipedia to not jump the gun and delete things rightaway; it's always a work in progress. Perhaps if those of you that say delete without really looking into or trying to understand how the forum is pertinent, you would see so more clearly. Also, I would like to say the little box at the top of the page made me laugh my ass off. I really doubt anybody thought this was a vote. I believe most people wrote that as a type of heading to their post; to declare their position clearly. Arguing that you have to have a lot of edits is moot as well: it makes absolutely no sense. Just because someone has edited a few hundred times more then someone else doesn't mean anything. Perhaps the user contributed when you didn't have to register to edit? Also, perhaps the user just found the site. Then what. Then your saying that those that have spent more time going and doing research to edit posts or those that make up their info or those that don't know what their talking about have more authoritah. And that is, quite frankly absolutely dumb. Also, the point is it was deleted once out of haste. We know that it was deleted before. We know, and it still doesn't matter. Psychomonkey 05:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anyone here who disputes that 472 users on at a time would mean that the number of actual unique users would be more than 5,000? And is there anyone that doubts that they have in fact a lot more than 1,100 users, since they do not require you to be a member in order to post and 90% of their posts are by non members? Anyone who doubts that? Meets WP:WEB. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually AAF does require that you be a member to post, and 100% of posts are by members. ~ Scott
    • I don't see the 472->5000 math. Even so, however, that criterion in WP:WEB has a second half you omitted: "A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community." (emphasis mine) So, to satisfy that criterion, you'd also have to demonstrate the impact beyond your own community. Given the insular nature of the article and the lack of meaningful non-forum content on the site, I don't believe the criterion has been satisfied. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community." - This is as ambiguous as the rest. What does verifiable impact mean in this case? An impact that can be verified? Ok, here you go: If the user community specified in WP:WEB is the user base at the AAF, and the AAF and MAF today exist as two separate entities (the user bases are not co-mingled) then the impact that the creation of the AAF has had on on the MAF is verifiable. i.e., it can be proven. Rgejman 07:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • One other point from WP:WEB "(A good rule of thumb is three times the number of unique members; so a forum with 5,500 members would need 16,500 posts.)" Using this rule of thumb, and defining the number of posts on the AAF at just over 270,000, we can solve backwards for the number of users, giving us roughly, 90,000. 1,100 users are posting enough for 90,000. That seems notable in it's own right. Rgejman 07:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You need to read WP:WEB a bit more clearly. The point says first 5,000 or more apparently unique members applies to forums which anonymous users can read. I still have no idea where this "472 registered members means thousands upon thousands of unregistered ones" comes from, and the way I read the guideline is that since all anonymous users are necessarily impossible to call "apparently unique", you have to look at the registered user base. I admit that is merely my interpretation and that it is partially what I have based my judgement on. Secondly, the rest of the guideline states that measuring userbase on the number of postings is only for [f]orums which require a user to sign up to read or see messages, so I do not believe it should be applied here (and in fact stating that "1,100 users are posting enough for 90,000 is missing the fact that anonymous users can post). Thirdly and hopefully finally, and again a matter of my own interpretation of the guideline, a verifiable impact outside its own community needs to be a notable impact, and I don't consider the fact that it's taken a lot of users from another forum whose only notability is a weak association to a magazine to be notable in itself. A simple question: Has AppleAddict, or its forums, been mentioned in a newspaper or magazine, significant online news outlet, or by a prominent person? If so, then provide evidence, and then I will reconsider my vote. Confusing Manifestation 11:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Frankly, you said it. You are not operating within the strict guidelines you purport by consistently exclaiming WP:WEB. The WP:WEB ""does not"" say that a website needs to have had a notable impact - it says it must have had a ""verifiable"" impact. There is a huge difference there. Now, if you want to argue that what is ""meant"" is notable, then by all means edit the WP:WEB - but until then, don't throw the WP:WEB at this discussion as if it were the holy grail of wikipedian thought. Rgejman 15:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah well, even as such, what it comes down to is the page that discusses websites and forums says, in a nutshell "yeah, this isn't real policy, just proposed policy", which means it should be taken with a bucket of salt. That ends that. Psychomonkey 05:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps if the MacAddict article was edited to add in some of its forum history. Their forums comprise 21,000+ members, with 1,000,000+ posts. Given that AAF managed almost half that many with 95% fewer members seems notable to me. S0sumi
    • The minor details of forum histories are not encyclopaedic. In 5 years, nobody will care who got banned on which forum when. Those great DRAMAS never have any verifiable impact outside their userbase or a few LiveJournals. The fact that MacAddict has a forum is interesting and verifiable. The fact that JoeBlow92 got banned from the "Yeehaw w00t" board and proceeded to flame the moderators until the community decided to have his account crushed by an elephant... is neither particularly interesting nor is it independently verifiable. FCYTravis 11:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For such a small forum, it's impressive that they put up such a fuss over article deletion. - CorbinSimpson 09:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mostly because all the linked guidelines seem horribly arbitrary in what they deem "notable." As well as the people thinking Wikipedia is the intellectual equivalent to the Oxford English Dictionary or Encylopedia Brittanica. S0sumi 10:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. Poring over every new article like you're trying to cram the sum of human knowledge into ten leather-bound volumes is ludicrous considering what makes Wikipedia unique is that the marginal cost of each new article is so small; it's just extra bytes on a hard drive in Florida. The hostility towards new users and new content—clearly illustrated above—is completely inconsistent with Wikipedia's open philosophy. How many people will continue to contribute after having to battle this Afd process on each article they create? Especially when formerly anonymous users who register so that they can create articles have their opinions discounted simply because they have only a handful of edits. —499699787 11:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • People commonly cite our 'open philosophy' when they try to get what amounts to free webhosting to advertise their life/website/band. Wikipedia is about openness, but first and foremost it is an encyclopaedia. The most important thing, therefore, is that every article is verifiable. Most of this article is not verifiable, parts of it are complete bollocks, and even if the whole thing is pared down to that which is verifiable (very little), because this article is non-notable it's not worth Wikipedians who aren't part of the forums trying to keep unverified first-hand stories and suchlike out of the article. --Last Malthusian 11:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not advertising my website, and neither is the author of the article. —499699787 12:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advertising? Now your just making things up, malthusian.Psychomonkey 17:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB, meatpuppets. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:WEB is a set of generic guidelines, not a test to be passed or failed. Just because the number of users is smaller (by the way: we don't allow anonymous/unregistered posting) doesn't mean that the forum does not deserve an historical entry. This seemingly small number of users have posted almost half a million articles. How can that not be noteworthy? Don't delete. Lumbergh 05:54, 22 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 Goa'uld. --Celestianpower háblame 16:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snakehead (stargate)[edit]

Fictional dicdef or insult? Non-notable in any case. Delete. Kusma (討論) 03:45, 20 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 wasKeep.--Shanel 20:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The dark prison[edit]

Neologism. That eight people called something something does not merit inclusion. Gets close to POV. --Quasipalm 17:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quasipalm, doesn't your nomination count as your vote in an {afd} discussion? You wouldn't want to vote twice, would you? -- Geo Swan 13:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. A nomination is not a vote. It's a nomination. Sorry I forgot to sign. --Quasipalm 17:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep -- disclaimer, I started this article
  • POV is not grounds for deletion. Check the guidelines for deletion....
  • The article is well documented. "The salt pit" is another, similar site. It probably has an official name. A classified official name. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have an article about this important site, because we don't know its classified name? Note: Everyone calls The White House the white house. Its official name is(was?) the executive mansion, or something like that.
  • I'm not convinced this article is well documented. If only eight people have seen this place, how can it meet Wikipedia:Verifiability? I could find eight people abducted by aliens on the subway yesterday morning. I know that's an absurd example, yes, and not to make light of the situation, but we need to only create articles that can be verified, not articles that rely on such weak grounds. --Quasipalm 17:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) I know you've admitted your analogy is weak, but it's worth bearing in mind that it's more likely that the Americans have a torture camp in Afghanistan than it is that people have been abducted by aliens. 2) We've verified that eight people have claimed that they were in this prison. They were given enough credence to have their claims printed in two sources whom we should have no problem treating as reliable. As long as we don't state as fact that this place exists, which we don't, I see no problem with verifiability. --Last Malthusian 21:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging this article with Guantanamo Bay is a bad idea. The prison is in Afghanistan for crying out loud. Merging with the geographical location Guantanamo Bay would be an invitation to have the material deleted, because it would be off-topic.
  • <pedantry>Actually it's in Cuba.</pedantry> --Last Malthusian 15:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Lol. My bad, you probably meant the dark prison was in Afghanistan. LM [reply]
  • Merging it with Camp Delta, which may be what you really meant, is also a bad idea. The detainees in Camp Delta are all in military custody. The captives in "the dark prison", "the salt pit" and the other black sites are all in CIA custody. There is an active debate over whether the CIA should be exempted from the restriction against torture. That makes this site, where the detainees claim some pretty horrific torture, highly notable. -- Geo Swan 05:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yeah, I challenge the description that the article is POV. There are topics which some people think reflect poorly on the Bush administration's policy decisions. They want those topics suppressed, without regard to how neutrally the facts are expressed. If you really think the article contains bias, you should say so -- specifically -- on the talk page. A perceived POV is not grounds for deletion. -- Geo Swan 05:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too speculative and narrow. We can't be putting in Wikipedia every phrase ever coined. Put it in Wikitionary if appropriate. Madman 05:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is about a prison, and not the prison's name. Do you have any other objections? Would you object to the article if it had a different name? -- Geo Swan 07:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Geo Swan, I see your point. Yes, I would think that this prison would be notable enough. I would also support Merge. Madman 14:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Secret torture centres run by a democracy are kinda notable. And as pointed out above, the spooks are unlikely to come and tell us its official name. --Squiddy 10:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Some of the detainees in this black site were not captured during the invasion of Afghanistan. The sources say that the captives didn't spend more than a month or two in the prison, but prisoners are reported to have been sent there as late as 2004, two years after the invasion of Afghanistan. And some of the detainees weren't even captured in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or any of the other countries bordering Afghanistan. Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil al-Banna, for instance, were captured thousands of miles away, in Gambia. They had never even travelled to Afghanistan, prior to their capture.
  2. I think every one of the prisons in the CIA's network of extra-judicial interrogation centres merits an article of its own.
  3. I know some of the regular followers of {afd} consider themselves followers of "mergism". I am not assuming that you Jamyskis are a "mergist". I am addressing this comment to those who consider themselves mergists. My idea of how the wikipedia should evolve are strongly influenced by the ideas of Ted Nelson. I strongly agree with him that computers free us from confining our knowledge to linear forms. Constellations of related small articles can serve the inherently anarchic nature of some topics far better than imprisoning them in linear monolithic articles. -- Geo Swan 15:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup/expand. --MisterHand 15:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well documented, by its nature it can't at this time have a more "official" name (ESkog)(Talk) 15:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs cleanup but verified and significant. --Last Malthusian 15:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep— Jeandré, 15:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dsol 17:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refresh whenever more details show up from the slush Nol Aders 21:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to me that this article clearly has enough merit to warrant it's presence, provided that emphasis is made of it's disputability. Credible sources, such as Human Rights Watch, are approaching this subject with the same attitude. -- Lukehought 17:20, 27 December 2005 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamedome[edit]

Forum with 126 members, failing to meet WP:WEB. Delete. Kusma (討論) 03:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Josh Parris#: 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Interiot 04:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete creator of article has even changed the text to read "Please delete this." --MisterHand 15:21, 20 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 02:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indie:Indie Radio[edit]

This is just a small online radio station, and this seems like an advertisement. pielover87 03:58, 20 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 02:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sadorexia[edit]

This page seems very suspicious! The only hits on Google appear to reference the website at http://www.sadorexia.com , and the website itself seems to be some kind of joke/parody/spoof, trying to get at those in the BDSM lifestyle (and even if this is serious, it surely counts as original research). WANBULA seems to be a genuine organisation, but I can't find a reference of sadorexia on their pages (although I can't read Spanish to be certain). If this was a genuine eating disorder, there would surely be more references to it. (I'm also at a loss to see how masochism is a slimming technique...) Mdwh 04:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone can point to actual medical validity. OR, Vanity. I haven't heard of anyone using any form of sex as an appetite suppressant. Also, over-use of irrelevant NSFW images [13] makes me lean more heavily on thinking it's a hoax. --Interiot 04:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We can probably shed this. -- JJay 11:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the talk page is to be believed, the entire article is an extract from http://www.sadorexia.com meaning that there is no GFDL content on this page at all. —gorgan_almighty 15:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. no official diagnostical category, only sources mentioned above, although WANBULA is definitly talking about it, but that is not enough for creating a new diagnostical category ... --Enfiladissa 15:28, 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 02:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Sonic Team Sonic Games[edit]

The whole article sounds like an essay more than an encyclopedic topic; also, it lacks neutral POV, and sounds rather crufty. The information about the Sonic games not developed by Sonic Team has gotten around well enough without this page (which, might I add, was unlinked to by anything until I made this AfD), so this article is unecessary. In short, Delete, unless anyone has any better ideas; I don't really think there's anything it can be merged into, or that would really benefit much from such an action. --Shadow Hog 04:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --NaconKantari 04:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Extreme POV and original research. --Apostrophe 05:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what sounds like a badly structured review. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personal essay, no content worth merging. (The team that created Sonic CD was split off from Sonic Team, and later remerged with it, IIRC. It's only a non-Sonic-Team game in that it wasn't directed by Yuji Naka.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:06, 21 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. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 18:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas, Christmas[edit]

Theres more info

Nothing other than an infobox -- King of Hearts 04:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable vanity bandcruft etc. Formed in June 2005 and it's already world-famous, ah yeah right. Have already listed the band itself (and its "album" for AfD as well. Marblespire 08:29, 20 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. --Celestianpower háblame 16:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Cosmic Pterodactyl Experience[edit]

Proposed delete: fails WP:MUSIC, passes WP:VAIN, fails WIN For Things Made Up In School One Day... Yeah. Let's just call this done. Marblespire 06:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete and ban user who posted it. That "greatest band" comment is anti-wiki on so many different levels.Jporcaro 19:34, 22 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 02:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum (album)[edit]

Proposed delete: fails WP:MUSIC, passes WP:VAIN, fails WIN For Things Made Up In School One Day... Yeah. Let's just call this done. Marblespire 08:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note have grouped this band's entries together on the AfD page for clarity's sake. Apologies if inappropriate. ~Mbsp
  • Delete per nom. The "article"'s last "sentence" is "It still got" B.Wind 16:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article, and move Platinum (Mike Oldfield album) to the article title. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 11:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete out of respect for the wiki.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 and redirect to Are You Being Served?. - Mailer Diablo 02:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Peacock[edit]

The band was the first to use Captain Peacock for its one and only page. THE FIRST PAGE FOR THE BAND THAT WAS DELETED DID NOT FAIL WP:MUSIC. A notification was never sent that the band's page would be deleted to a canceled british TV show. This would have allowed me time to create an alternative page for the band. I felt it only right to take claim of the page by removing Are You Being Served?'s redirect. Why does Are You Being Served need this redirect? Captain Peacock the band holds American copyright and trademark for the name. Perhaps the solution is that we are allowed the page since Are You Being Served? has countless other redirects and let us have this ONE page. Also, perhaps wikipedia should make a "wikipedia UK" (along with one for Australia), as british culture is apparently VERY different from American. That way, all of your "bold redirections" can fit in with the appropriate culture. THE MISSION AND GOAL OF WIKIPEDIA IS TO CREATE KNOWLEDGE AND PROVIDE INFORMATION. BY DELETING INFORMATION - YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THE ABSENCE OF KNOWLEDGE FOR OTHERS. NOBODY DELETED ARE YOU BEING SERVED? SHOW SOME RESPECT AND TREAT OTHERS THE SAME.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The TV-show-page creator made no attempt to contact the band-page creator that they would like a redirect. Band-page creator would have been happy to add one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.16 (talk • contribs)

WP:OWN is policy on Wikipedia. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 09:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page makes no claim to notability, seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Page was boldly redirected to Are You Being Served?, as one of the characters is named Captain Peacock. This makes sense to me. However, the page was reverted [14]. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 04:36, 20 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. --Celestianpower háblame 16:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aarella[edit]

Not a very notable surname; article appears to be a hoax due to lack of sources. Also, the first hit on google is this article. While google returns 387 hits, most of them are as surnames of some people. Several Indian surnames would easily cross 5000 hits but they are not notable as such Gurubrahma 09:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Too bad we can't speedy groups. Movementarian 11:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It has some interesting information (six fingers is cool), but it seems more likely to be a hoax than anything else. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 12:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it atleast has some info and context and lot better than other such articles like Andem --Vyzasatya 20:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep- Its not a hoax definately, cos its me who wrote it, yes it is not a common surname, but its got its history and if u go by surname Aarella's will be the first surname in whole of india.

So please consider keeping it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.65.177 (talk • contribs)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, there is no other reason to retain this article. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Zoe Zunaid 09:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The author claims it is true. There is no other evidence that it is anything other than made up. With evidence he/she can rewrite.Obina 10:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actually, the Norwegian Aschehoug paper encyclopedia I have at home does have a few articles on some surnames with a "glorious" past. Nonetheless, this article appears to fail the very important verifiability condition. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most lastnames have interesting stories behind them. That's not encyclopedia material. If we don't have an article for something like Stalin (lastname) and Shakespeare (lastname) , I see no reason to have this one. Flyboy Will 21:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cant understand the reason for deletion, as for proof i hve only got the oral proof from my elders, but i will be very disappointed if 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 merge and redirect to vomiting. howcheng {chat} 00:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical chunder[edit]

neologism אריאל יהודה 21:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the name of a compromise, I would support a merge per Smerdis of Tlön. --אריאל יהודה

  • Delete, per nom. Tom Harrison (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 22:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wrote it cos I didn't know what it was and it wasn't on here. Now I do. Whilst not particularly important information, its worth keeping. Mnd999 21:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, topic of academic study in pharmacology. [15] Kappa 05:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - ~1500 Google hits so I'm reluctant to vote delete. Move to Wiktionary maybe? Samw 04:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • After thorough cleanup for encyclopedic tone and style, suggest any remaing information of value could be merged and redirected with vomiting. This is a behaviour that's been reported since ancient Rome at least. — Smerdis of Tlön 05:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Smerdis of Tlön Zunaid 09:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Smerdis of Tlön. Sliggy 12:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As someone who googled to find the meaning of the phrase Tactical Chunder I am very dissapointed to find that this article will be deleted. The subject matter is clearly quite vulgar but none the less a part of British culture. I believe the article could be rewritten in a more "encyclopedic manner" but it should not be deleted. With the exception of personal distaste, what reasons do people have for deleting this entry? I believe a merger would be acceptable as long as google can still find it relatively easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.72.113 (talk • contribs)
    • There is no one who has suggested deletion due to vulgar content (and honestly, we have pages based on much more vulgar things). The only reason so far provided for deletion is that the page is a simple definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --אריאל יהודה
      • I disagree that this is purely a definition. I deliberately attempted to place some social context in the article. A definifition would be 'making oneself throw up in order to drink more' Mnd999

- I say keep also, very useful to find the meaning behind the term via google. Keep up the good work Wikipedia! 20:59 22 December 2005 (UK)

- I would be happy with a Merge with vomiting provided that this type of vomiting is clearly differentiated and the social context is kept. Would also be happy to keep. Mnd999

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Watson Twins[edit]

Seems to be a rip-off of some sleeve notes. Assuming the Watson Twins are notable eneough to warrant an entry, this can always be created in future. In the meantime, Delete CLW 21:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No AMG entry. Article contains an <img> tag from MySpace, which is always a good indication that it's a NN band. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a signed musical review with second person writing does not belong in Wikipedia. B.Wind 16:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nomination. Badly written too. Gaius Cornelius 17:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Per nom.Obina 10:52, 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 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BAD Crew[edit]

Vanity and void of encyclopedic value Mecanismo | Talk 21:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN. Google finds references only on a couple of graffiti-related sites (and one of them is down). Unverifiable. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm from Chicago, never heard of them. Short, unverifiable. Madman 05:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete..."Bomb and Destroy" this article. nn. --MisterHand 15:23, 20 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 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad apple[edit]

Article reads too much as original research and copyright violation. Article is uncategorized and is orphan Mecanismo | Talk 21:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not sure whether this research is copyvio or original, but the essay is too diffuse to merit inclusion or redirect. Seems to be talking about problem people in team structures. Durova 21:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Random cut and pastes under a random title.Obina 10:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's either copyvio or as above. {{test1}} the original author. —gorgan_almighty 13:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikify or Delete This material is really typical of a consultant group that promotes better practices in a workplace, meaning that ad hoc explanations are plentiful, references scarce, and big words abundant. Importance of the concept should be estabished, the context should be properly set up, and the content condensed to perhaps 1 or 2 paragraphs in plain english, not consultant-ish. Santtus
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

58th Seascout System of Volos, Greece.[edit]

It's just a youth club, nothing to make it somehow special or encyclopedic. feydey 21:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless expanded. -- JJay 22:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination, unless something pretty spectacular is brought to our attention. Saberwyn - 10:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.NN.Obina 10:53, 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 keep Renata3 07:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mañana Será Otro Dia[edit]

This is an old page with no users attempting to justify its place, the film is not a notable release in the English speaking world, nor has the original author attempted to take non-English language information and provide it here. It is a non-notable film outside its home release country. doktorb 21:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, Tim, but for what reason? doktorb | words 15:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kappa. Its notability outside its home-release country is unimportant; there are certainly many MANY articles here with little importance outside of the United States. Mind you, I'm not stating that "we should keep" a', after all, look at all of the b we have" is a valid argument. Anyway, if you check the IMDB link, the television show had 120 episodes; although this is a short run for (what I think is) a telenovela, it's enough to be notable, whether or not it's of notice to Wikipedia users who speak primarily English. It is very much ideal for Wikipedia to combat systemic bias, especially in media, where the project has an extremely deep, although narrow (mostly English lang.) focus. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, just because it isn't Anglo doesn't make it nn. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Overcome systemic bias &c. Smerdis of Tlön 06:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable within their respective countires. Capitalistroadster 08:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone. Perodicticus 09:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Zoe and Kappa. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, speedy close. Little point in this being relisted. Proto t c 12:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Believe it or not, they make movies and television shows outside the US. --MisterHand 15:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am actually in the UK. My point is that this is a non-notable movie/tv show for the English language Wiki, in my opinion. doktorb | words 15:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as both are notable in their respective countries. Also, we need more non-English language movies and television shows. Carioca 20:19, 20 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. Mo0[talk] 20:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bash.org/Draft[edit]

Draft article which was already implemented as the main article Mecanismo | Talk 22:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per nom. Zunaid 09:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a draft subpage article, there's no need to request additional consensus, it's just clogging up AfD. Be bold and speedily delete it. Proto t c 12:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, I agree entirely with the Speedy delete. 9cds 17:09, 20 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. Mo0[talk] 20:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bash.org/Draft2[edit]

Abandoned draft Mecanismo | Talk 22:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per nom. Zunaid 09:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a draft subpage article, there's no need to request additional consensus, it's just clogging up AfD. Be bold and speedily delete it. Proto t c 12:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. 9cds 17:10, 20 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 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Foundations[edit]

Non-notable, vanity. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above, possible advertising. Madman 06:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No listing at Memory-Alpha (the Star Trek Wiki) under "Star Trek: Foundations" [16] or "bDv" [17]. Movementarian 07:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR.Gateman1997 18:56, 20 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 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bwth[edit]

Dicdef for nn internet slang acronym. Kusma (討論) 04:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it's less than non-notable; it's non-existant. Doesn't even have an urbandictionary entry, much less a Google presence or people actually using it anywhere. Might even be a candidate for speedy delete. Snurks T C 04:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Megamix? 05:07, 20 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 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Brown[edit]

nn musician whose only album is a demo. Article seems to be an autobiography, based on the name of the original author. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:45, 20 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 I urge those who believe this article should be kept to cleanup and expand it. Ral315 (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cashback[edit]

This is not an encyclopedia article. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, trim it with a blowtorch and mold it with a hammer. Reward programmes are a common enough phenomenon to warrant an article, although this is in an atrocious state. Zunaid 09:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]
    • Comment: I've ever so slightly wikified the article and added an {{unreferenced}} tag. If the article is kept the title should be changed at some point to something like "cashback reward systems" or "loyalty programs". (On a side-note
  • Strike everything, I've just found this: Loyalty program. changing my vote to merge Zunaid 10:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is this the same as loyalty programmes? -- JJay 11:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In the UK, 'cashback' is something one can get when purchasing goods with a debit or credit card. You could, for example, ask for ten pounds cashback. Your bill is increased by £10, and you get £10 'cash' 'back'. Hence, cashback. It saves going to ATMs, etcetera. That should be referred to in this article. Proto t c 12:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Hmmm...it is certainly a "rewards program", which is basically a form of loyalty program isn't it?. Maybe it's not exactly synonymous with "loyalty program" but IMHO it would still be better served as a section in the loyalty program article. As for the use of the term "cashback" in the UK, that could probably be dealt with when this AfD runs its course. (On a side-note, the loyalty program article itself seems to be almost exclusively about loyalty cards and does not clearly define what loyalty programs are. I'm surprised to find only a link (not even a brief outline) to frequent flyer program.) Zunaid 12:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hmmmmm....being on the European side of all this, the name actually implies the system used in British supermarkets, where if you pay with a bank card of some description, you can opt to receive cash as you would from an ATM which will be charged to your card together with your groceries. I think in this sense the name is quite confusing. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as as above if appropriate or delete. The UK meaning of cashback should be defined at Wikionary as it doesn't warrant and entire Wikipedia article. —gorgan_almighty 14:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For those outside of North America, this is not a loyalty program. The functional advantage is that it saves a trip to the bank. Sometimes people make a small purchase (such as a pack of chewing gum) because cash back purchases are not subject to transaction fees and the price of a candy bar is less than the cost of withdrawing an evening's spending cash from an automated teller. I doubt this trivia is worthy of an encyclopedia. Durova 16:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Keep/expand or Merge per User:Jcuk, whichever way the consensus leans. Durova 23:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Loyalty program.--Bkwillwm 22:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems that Cashback mean different things depending on which side of the Atlantic you're sitting. Would it not then be worth having A) a Disambig page pointing to the Loyalty Program AND an article on Cashback in the UK, or B) Keeping this page and expanding it, to explain the differences. I for one had no idea what it meant in America..... Jcuk 22:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think there's a lot more to say about the concept of "cashback" in the United States than there is for the UK version (where the US definition of cashback is Loyalty Programme or Loyalty Scheme in the UK), but it still has the potential to hugely confuse Commonwealth speakers.
  • Keep atleast where I've gone shopping you can get "cashback" when you pay with a debit card and they withdraw the specified amount from your account. This should probably be disambig to point to loyalty programs and Cashback from debit cards. --Pboyd04 03:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment and I live in the US. Doesn't everywhere have something similar to this? --Pboyd04 03:13, 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. FireFox 19:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guntaas' Father[edit]

An article about someone's father. Relatives of notable people are often not themselves notable, and here we haven't even established that the daughter herself is notable. -- Curps 04:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nn-bio. Kusma (討論) 05:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Movementarian 13:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A 7 JoJan 14:28, 20 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. -- RHaworth 06:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fattymoo[edit]

This looks like it's just a bad joke. Possibly BJAODN? Egsan Bacon 04:53, 20 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} 00:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

21 Society[edit]

Secret societies are, by their very nature, unverifiable. This one doesn't even seem particularly notable even if it weren't secret. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been verified and external links to references added. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 08:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. -- Megamix? 07:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Actually, many secret societies are verifiable. This one happens to be among them, given that its creation was announced in the UVA student newspaper. It is only six years old, but that does mean that it has demonstrated an ability to survive after its founding members have graduated. They have offered a scholarship and made donations to various UVA activities. Their traditional "gift" of 21 bottles of beer is controversial. People list 21 Society recognition on their CVs. The bottom line is, WP:ISNOT paper, and as that page says, "This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." This is verifiable and not deletable for any of the other reasons listed on that page. To people, like myself, who are fascinated by secret societies, it is interesting. To people interested in US college/university culture or in UVA history, it is interesting. There's no reason to delete this. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 08:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Are student newspapers considered reliable sources on Wikipedia? -- Megamix? 08:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The society's existence and nature are verifiable without reference to the student newspaper. Note these links from above: [18] [19] [20] - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 08:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Verifiable or not, this is still NN. —gorgan_almighty 14:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Per nom. Agnte 14:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. University student organizations are rarely encyclopedic. Secret society status does not change that standard. Compare this to a notable student organization, the Columbia University Marching Band. The latter group received national press coverage and appeared on David Letterman. Durova 16:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment - It is verifiable and NPOV, which seems to be enough for Jimbo. It is certainly not a vanity article (I have never been to Virginia and had never heard of this society before the AFD vote). It is not original research, as everything in the article is based on easily accessible sources. Somebody please explain to me how on earth it's going to hurt anyone to include this article in Wikipedia. Obviously, somebody who's not the creator of the article and is not personally related to its topic (me) finds it interesting. Why delete it? - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 20:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a precedent on AfD: a mention under the parent university is usually sufficient for a student organization. Student groups and local scholarships come and go. The relevant university maintains up to date information. So Wikipedia readers are better served by reference to the university. Durova 23:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then shouldn't the vote be to merge to University of Virginia? - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 23:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt this little student group merits equal attention with the architectural legacy of Thomas Jefferson. Mention doesn't mean merge. Durova 01:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a member of the secret Delete Crap Like That society, I must insist. Flyboy Will 21:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – agree with Momentarian and AdelaMae. Questionably interesting, but factual and verifiable. Certainly not "crap" if they've offered a scholarship. I'm sure that many would find it interesting even if I don't, just like many of the articles on Wikipedia. Who are we to say it is not notable if it is unbiased, factual, and someone has taken the time to painstakenly verify it? Uris 22:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians I suppose I would though....oh and As Per Uris too. Jcuk
  • Keep - ,remove personal attack - User:Zoe|(talk) 00:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)>. Piecraft 17:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Who cares if it's NN??? The point of Wikimedia is to collaboratively collect the "sum of all human knowledge". This article can be a resource for somebody that wants to know more about the 21 Society. It should be kept. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 06:16, 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 02:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fong pay[edit]

WP:NOT a dictionary (of rude Catntonese terms). -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:06, 20 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 02:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urbaniacs.com[edit]

nn website, nonsense article, 87 Google hits for "Urbaniacs". User:Zoe|(talk) 05:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's a new website -- 87 hits isn't so bad for something that's only been in existence for 7 months. Give it some time. (not sure how to put user name -- JenQ, maybe?)

  • Delete This is ad copy, not an WP article. Billbrock 07:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JenQ. Why? Because "something that's only been in existence for 7 months", only has 87 hits and is not otherwise remarkable, is by definition non-notable. If and when the site becomes more notable/famous an article can be written, but not before. p.s. to sign your posts insert four tildes at the end like so: ~~~~. This will expand like so: Zunaid 10:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 14:40, 20 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} 00:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hold The Horses moved to Hold your horses[edit]

This must be really rare! I went to law school in New York and I have been a lawyer in Texas since 1982 and I have never heard this phrase. I think the writer has confused it with "Hold your horses!", which is a common American phrase. Also, there is no source or references. RickReinckens 05:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think you are right, but I may be jumping your gun. -- JJay 05:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. A lot of dubious claims with no sources to back them up, probably because the claims are unverifiable.TheRingess 05:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Hold your horses which is the correct phrase. It means "Hold on" and is in very common use. [21]. Also what it says in there as to what it means needs to be referenced, as I don't believe it is correct. this dictionary suggests that its correct meaning is "If someone tells you to hold your horses. you are doing something too fast and they would like you to slow down.", while this idiom dictionary suggests that its correct meaning is "A U.S. origin which dates back to the 19th century which means to be patient and to wait." and "This pre dates even your brief history as well as most of Europe... even the Romans used to have a man to 'Hold your Horses' whilst a noisy battle was ensuing! It’s probably Chinese in origin as they invented gunpowder.", while this dictionary suggests "something that you say in order to tell someone to stop doing or saying something because they are going too fast. Just hold your horses, Bill. Let's think about this for a moment." Whoever wrote this clearly put in the wrong phrase. Should be renamed. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - is it possible to move this to Hold your horses and then have a vote on that? I don't think that there is any doubt that Hold the horses is the less common way to describe the phrase, and should be a redirect to Hold your horses. I think that there is an exceptionally strong case, however, that Hold your horses should remain. But can I move it during the AFD? P.S. I have rewritten the article using references, although it is still a bit sloppy right now. Feel free to clean it up. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Hold your horses and expand. --MisterHand 15:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hold your horses belongs in Wikitionary. It's an idiom with no particular cultural relevance. Durova 16:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Weak delete then. Cite sources for cultural relevance in Australia. It's common enough in the States, but merely as a somewhat dated idiom. Durova 23:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean no cultural reference? It means a totally different thing in Australia as compared to USA, and in Australia at least has a big cultural meaning. Its up there with mate and g'day. I can't say what it means in USA or England or anything else though. But its huge here. My grandpa used to say it all the time to us little uns, and my uncles did too. It was usually a kind of condescending way of talking to those less experienced than you. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, I wrote it badly. But you know, its hard to do and I get tired. But it should be said that this is predominantly a male expression that is predominantly said to other males, and that the age thing is important. It is almost always said from an experienced older male to a less experienced younger male. That younger male might be an employee, an apprentice, a nephew, a son, grandson, or in any other way under their care. This kind of term is VERY RARELY used by youngsters talking to adults. Almost never. It is also sometimes used with specific reference to horses, more as a joke than anything. It is in unbelievably widespread use. I can think of a game I used to play called Totologies that used this expression as part of the game (it was a horse racing game). Not sure if the game is notable, but the expression certainly is. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was bold enough to move the article to Hold your horses. I hope no one minds. B.Wind 20:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. This article is a list of (copyright-infringing) definitions, plus usage and etymology - in other words, a really good dictionary definition. Wikipedia, however, is not a dictionary. There's an existing Wiktionary entry at wikt:hold one's horses, which would really benefit from the usage and etymology given here. —Cryptic (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's breaching copyright by quoting something and stating the source that you got it from? I thought that that constituted fair use, especially given the absence of a copyright sticker on the sources. If I am wrong, please can you help me to find the relevant legislation that demonstrates that quoting something with references is a breach of copyright, as I have been doing that for tens of years, and indeed was told in school that that is how you are meant to reference something. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:53, 22 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 02:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Mindless Tripod Experience[edit]

NN band. Fails WP:MUSIC, no discography yet [23]. 16 Google hits total [24], a good deal of that from Myspace/Audiostreet/personal website. Megamix? 05:29, 20 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 nonsense, attack, and possible hoax. Ral315 (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Beckermann[edit]

A lot of "facts" that are not proven, specifically the ones that attack Jennifer. It's a hoax. Ristau 05:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as non-notable biography and/or attack page. Capitalistroadster 06:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom & Capitalistroadster: I'm a xenaphobephobe. Billbrock 07:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above. The whole thing may be a veiled attack. Certainly nn. ×Meegs 07:34, 20 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 02:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anshuman Gaur[edit]

Non-notable. Vanity article by User:Anshumangaur. -- RHaworth 05:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--a Google search including war nuclear shadow India Pakistan returns oodles of his, but nothing for "War Under Nuclear Shadow". Billbrock 06:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --DelftUser 18:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nn-bio already userfied.--Pamri • Talk 05:14, 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 speedy delete (that didn't happen so speedily) for being a repost of Joshua Anson Ballard. howcheng {chat} 00:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Ballard[edit]

I believe that this page should be deleted because there is little content which is Important. The person did die which made it semi-notable, but other than that there doesn't seem to be much more to it than any other page created for bloggers or forum posters. Chooserr 05:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated by one editor, and the subpage created by another, and I added it to the log, and then couldn't figure out why it didn't appear in the list, but we had all missed the {{afd2}} template, it turns out. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If it was an Internet phenomenon, it would get more than 876 Google results [[25]. This is a tragic youth suicide but not notable enough in my book. Capitalistroadster 08:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOT a memorial, and Internet phenomenons demand at least five digit Google counts. FCYTravis 08:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as recreation of Joshua Anson Ballard. --Last Malthusian 16:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Zig 23:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't a fad and it's not important. Anonymous 21:25 EST, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Seems to me that it might be worth keeping since it is unusual. If anything it should be mentioned on the MySpace article. --The_stuart 17:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an unusual story that gained a decent amount of popularity. The use of MySpace for a suicide note is notable. - Dalta
  • Merge into MySpace -Arm 07:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into MySpace as it has only real significance with this site. - (Erebus555 16:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete If We keep this We might as well list all of the other people that did the same as Him.
  • Merge with suicide and Myspace. Shows the outcome of reactions from friends,the humilaty of doing such an act and shows how selfish that they are.
  • Only marginally notable. Should be Merged into MySpace and replaced with a redirect to MySpace.Rast 01:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is just a fad. He wanted attention now he has gotten it.

  • Comment Am I seriously the only person who remembers that this is a recreation of previously deleted content? --Last Malthusian 18:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I abstain. --TheEvilBlueberryCouncil 03:01, 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 no consensus. --Angr (t·c) 17:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Terrapist[edit]

Delete. Student newspaper magazine with only one issue out. --Idont Havaname 06:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Terrapist is actually a magazine. Jussenadv 18:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my nomination based on what you said. However, I'm a senior at UMCP and had never heard of this publication until I saw this article about it. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising. --Idont Havaname 22:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This vote was actually by User:129.2.225.126. --Idont Havaname 17:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting this person changed his/her sig, yet knew how to make one. Counting this one is very questionable. Jussenadv 01:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The front page of WP:AfD says how to make a signature. If you look at the edit history of this page, User:129.2.225.126 made two edits. One had the correct ~~~~, and in the other, s/he changed the signature to read "theislandofmoldova". --Idont Havaname 03:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote it is a discussion, so it really doesn't matter. The post in question didn't say anything useful so will likely be ignored anyway. —gorgan_almighty 11:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with University of Maryland. Since this is in fact a magazine, it's reasonable that only one issue has come out. However, that may not be justification for an independent article, in which case I think The Terrapist should be merged. Jussenadv 18:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Flyboy Will 21:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looked at the magazine. Seems like it has the potential to run for awhile. Note, all the articles in that category seem pretty poor, this one actually seems to be the most extensive. Qoforensics 01:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, this magazine has only run one issue with a small circulation, but it will continue on, and it does exist--and if the Harvard Lampoon, Dartmouth Jack O'Lantern, Princeton Tiger, Stanford Chaparral, etc. have pages on Wikipedia, why can't the Terrapist? 68.48.86.63 15:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if it has the potential to run for a while, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and it's not a place for advertising. Once it becomes noteworthy, that's when we should have an article on it. For now, it's not, and we shouldn't. —Cleared as filed. 06:04, 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 keep. howcheng {chat} 00:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding animal[edit]

Nonsense, original research, whatever you want to call it, it's garbage. -- Jbamb 06:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this article has changed significantly since the date of this nomination.
violet/riga (t) 10:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. As I was just saying on the talk page, the template and category are funny, but as an article, it reflects a term best known inside Wikipedia itself- see 211 Google hits minus Wikipedia. I've no problem with the subarticles; exploding snake may not be tremendously notable, but for the purposes of building upon a weird and wacky project started with exploding whale, a BBC story is notable enough for me. It's just exploding animal, itself, that bothers me. Where's the sources? CanadianCaesar 06:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Billbrock 06:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Didn't Dave Barry start the whole 'exploding animal' meme? I think there could be a place for a 'list of animals known to have exploded', but this article as written now doesn't make a lot of sense. Perodicticus 09:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We need this for the whole exploding animal series. -- JJay 11:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has a chapter on it in Dave Barry Talks Back. Not sure if the link will work, but you can check out the book at Amazon [26]. -- JJay 14:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But with reservations! Sorry to be a citation nazi, but this article needs to cite its sources. If Dave Barry's book can be used as a legitimate reference, please cite it in the article (though not as a blanket reference; if anyone has read the book, he or she should cite specific page numbers). I also think that various related articles (the shorter ones at least) could be merged into this article—that might give it more legitimacy. -,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Special thanks to JJay and Perodicticus. I was able to rewrite it. Verifiable, referenced to a published work. Reccomend not merging it with anything, because the exploding animal category is just so fun. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 20:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I took the liberty of wiki-formatting the reference. It was not quite what I had in mind, but you certainly fulfilled the spirit of my request! Still, the book itself would be a better source, but I won't belabor the point. Also, the article is rather short and probably should be marked as a stub, though of what kind I have no earthly idea—perhaps a new Detonable fauna-stub? (Not serious on that last point.) -,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      (Of course, all this may be rendered academic if the final consensus is to delete.)
      -,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a central article for all the topics which will no doubt be expanded into a full summary article. violet/riga (t) 21:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I concede defeat. The first sentence in the next book i read will become a wikipedia article. --Ezeu 21:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is already a template which covers this adequately. Denni ☯ 02:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Delete - is a bit from one humorist really enough to hang an article on? Is the idea actually notable??? Not every gag idea is an article! The cites seem tenuous, not all are related to this topic. Also, perhaps the part about dynamiting whales just belongs in the whale article and the rest under WP:BJAODN??
    • Not every gag will deserve an article, but it can be a introduction for our legendary exploding animal series. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why is there an article on a comment from a book, but not an article on the book itself? Suggest you make the article about the book (Dave Barry Talks Back), then make 'exploding animals' redirect to the book
  • Delete I don't see why this merits a separate article. It could be included in the person's biography. Antidote 03:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia:Exploding animals. It's really more Wikipedia folklore than anything else, not really worthy of an true article entry. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 03:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Summarizes the entire exploding animals theme. You can't find this sort of oddity in Brittanica! – ClockworkSoul 16:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Exploding Animals for fun and profit. helohe (talk) 18:31, 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 02:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Walker[edit]

Originally tagged with a speedy for nn-bio, which was removed with no edit summary. The only assertion of notability in the article is that the subject appeared in two low-budget films, the existence of which (and her appearance in them) are not confirmed by Google search or IMDB. Otherwise a non-notable schoolteacher. MCB 06:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nomination. No google coincidences of her name and either film title [27] [28] ×Meegs 06:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Billbrock 06:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge good parts with Princeton Day School. -- JJay 06:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While she may be a good teacher, she fails to meet WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 08:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted this message on the discussion page of Barbara Walker:

"As is this article may meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but I intend to expand it so that it does assert the importance/significance of Barbara Walker. I understand that it is the policy of Wikipedia to accept stub articles for the time being. Within a week I will have a much more expanded article that certainly will meet the criteria. As such I have removed the speedy deletion notice. Thank you for understanding."

If we cannot make her notability plainly evident to your standards, we will merge it with the PDS article. But please do not delete it until we are able to either merge it with the PDS article or make it good enough.

--Mendy Fisch, 18:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Okay, I created a new section in the PDS article called "Biographies of Princeton Day School Faculty" and moved the Barbara Walker entry there. I hope that is kosher according to Wikipedia policy. I guess you can delete the original Barbara Walker entry.

-- Mendy Fisch, 19:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete fails WP:BIO, borderline vanity article.Gateman1997 19:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even though this pillar of originality drives a beetle and likes Mona Lisa (where does the crazyness stop?), I must sadly vote to delete. Flyboy Will 21:25, 20 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 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pall Mall Jetpack[edit]

Looks like it fails WP:MUSIC. Delete --Spring Rubber 06:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Billbrock 06:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 5 google hits. I can't load their web page, except the google cache. No evidence of published recordings. ×Meegs 07:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Their webpage hasn't loaded throughout the week. The article says nothing about any published recordings of any kind, and with this little presence on the web, there's no reason to think they're even in the ballpark of WP:MUSIC ×Meegs 05:56, 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 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flashtrek[edit]

Spam.DeleteTheRingess 06:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as spam. The article might also be a copyvio. B.Wind 17:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 00:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - is it copyvio or isn't it? If not it might be worth salvaging, maybe. It does read like a commercial but could be just an an enthusiastic fan. I'm reverting the page-blanking, if for no other reason than the AFD notice should remain in place. --LesleyW 13:23, 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 --Angr (t·c) 17:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heartburn (cont. by William Daniels)[edit]

Obvious merge. It's not clear to me why this was not added to the Heartburn article, but this article should be deleted and not redirected. The title alone is unkeepable. Nominator votes merge and delete. Bikeable 07:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's full of errors and not a merge candidate. JFW | T@lk 08:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No worthwhile information to merge that isn't already in Heartburn, and there's no point in redirecting. —Cleared as filed. 06:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CaF. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:12, Dec. 31, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (nomination withdrawn). howcheng {chat} 00:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macologist[edit]

Fails to meet WP:WEB, here's the Alexa rank. Kusma (討論) 07:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see that the Alexa rank argument isn't valid due to Alexa's systemic bias, so this does seem to pass WP:WEB, maybe just barely. It would still be useful to put some of the info below into the article to clarify the website's notability (from WP:WEB: The article in question must document the notability of the described web topic.). And I hereby withdraw my nomination for deletion (does this mean we proceed to speedy keep?) Kusma (討論) 03:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal[edit]

Argument against deletion Does indeed meet WP:WEB, which notes:

  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.

Although the Alexa rank does not meet this standard, the website qualifies on the other two categories. Also I believe the Alexa toolbar (used for traffic ranking) is a windows-only product, which results in a difficult-to-interpret ranking for sites the cater to a non-windows-specific niche of users.

Explanations below:

1) National Media Attention: Macologist has been mentioned three times in one of the two largest industry (Macintosh computer) print magazines in the US ("MacAddict") three times in two years: Oct 2004, Oct 2005, and Dec 2005. Coverage of Macologist is also frequent in the only other website on this topic of note, macgamefiles.com. The other major magazine is "MacWorld", which uses software developed at Macologist (see below in Impact section).

2) Forum size, verifiable impact: Forum size: The (publicly viewable) forum has > 5000 members. (Currently 8455).

Forum size and media attention as above are extraodinary for such a young site that was only founded in June 2004.

Impact outside forum user community: As for impact beyond its user community, several game publishers refer their users directly to the site for technical support. For example for the popular game Doom 3, at the publisher's site http://www.aspyr.com/games.php/mac/d3/ , click on Support> then Optimization, and there will be a link to Macologist. Also their telephone and email technical support staff will refer users to this Macologist URL. Also note that the website for Feral Interactive also has several direct links to game reviews from Macologist, for example Chessmaster 9000.

References are available from the director of development of Aspyr Media, and the public relations director of Feral Interactive, two of the largest publishers for this platform.

Editors for Macologist have also been recruited into beta testing (Mac Ninjas, console) and other media (Mac Games Radio) http://www.macradio.com/press/igameradio/gamepr051118.php

The largest Macintosh magazine "MacWorld" uses software developed by Macologist for Unreal Tournament 2004 in their benchmarking suite: http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2005/05/speedmarkblog/index.php

Finally, entering the search term "Macologist" in the Apple.com website will return two entries. The software above used by MacWorld magazine for benchmarking is also listed at Apple.—preceding unsigned comment by Santaduck (talk • contribs) 22:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep as per Santaduck, but I would suggest adding some of that information to the article itself. Confusing Manifestation 12:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Santaduck and add info from his vote to article. Note to users in vote on similar forum above. This is how you should argue a case in Articles for deletion. Capitalistroadster 17:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Santaduck. Flyboy Will 21:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am still not totally convinced that this makes this website notable. 13000 articles looks like very few for 8000 contributors. Also I don't like that Santaduck is one of the creators of the website, and I have just removed a couple of borderline spammy external links. Kusma (討論) 21:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it matters. We prefer that people don't write about themselves or their projects because they tend to ignore NPOV and verifiability, but if the article meets those standards, it shouldn't matter who wrote it. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, yes. We should judge the article by the content, not by the creator. I apologize for that comment. Kusma (討論) 03:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as nomination has been withdrawn. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 07:38, 22 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 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redball[edit]

Game created and played only in the social studies office of an unnamed Maryland high school. Not enough context for anyone besides the article's creator to expand the article. External links have no relationship to content of article. Not verifiable. Already on BJAODN. AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 07:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. No reason to think this tradition exists outside of the one school. The three links are definitely not related. ×Meegs 07:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Movementarian 13:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This looks like an tongue in cheek inside joke.—gorgan_almighty 15:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps students in this class should make their own wiki. --MisterHand 15:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should be BALEETED! because it's non-notable. --Kuroki Mio 2006 23:07, 21 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 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestle.gt-man.net[edit]

Delete A small forum no-one has heard about Lapinmies 07:32, 20 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. —Cleared as filed. 06:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering design[edit]

Delete - dicdef which is almost identical to the first sentence of Engineering. Unless this one shows promise of expanding beyond a sentence... GTBacchus(talk) 07:50, 20 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 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noldarien[edit]

Non notable character in non notable book. No references given, no author given, either delete or merge elsewhere.TheRingess 07:54, 20 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. --Celestianpower háblame 16:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salvador Minguijon Perez[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO. Google test failed (only 5 independent hits incl. Wikipedia [30]). Being granted a European patent is not enough to claim notability. (More than 50,000 European patents were granted in 2004 [31]). Edcolins 07:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 07:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Per original author. I put this article in in order to make sure that the original inventor of telematic auto insurance receives at least some credit for his breakthrough. If you Google "pay as you drive", or "telematic auto insurance", you will get an appreciation for the enormous potential impact of this invention. By virtue of my own consulting practice, I've been studying telematic auto insurance for many years. It wasn't until this year that I discovered, quite by accident, that Salvador was the original inventor, and not the putative inventor, Progressive auto insurance.--Nowa 11:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Author admits above that this is motivated by something close to WP:POINT. Does not meet WP:BIO. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the WP Bio link. Based on that, I reluctantly agree that this article should be deleted.--Nowa 23:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having a patent is not grounds for encyclopedia mention. Flyboy Will 21:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that having a patent alone is not grounds for a separate encyclopedia article. I also understand the above point that it should not be my place alone to emphasize the importance of a given inventor's work.--Nowa 23:48, 20 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. --Shanel 21:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies of the ichthys symbol[edit]

Delete. As the progenitor of the article, I originally fought against requested deletion/redirection because I felt the article had merit; this is no longer the case. As I mention on the article's talk page, the page's purpose is to list a large amount of non-notable information, a list of things which taken as wholly equal is almost staggaringly long. I believe that the phenomenon while notable is and of itself, should be noted as a parody on the original article: the ichthys. — THOR =/\= 08:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup - The Darwin and Gefilte parodies are notable phenomena in their own right. Daykart 08:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Daykart. Famous parodies such as the Darwin fish are deserving of an article. This can be made into a good article with some cleaning up. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 08:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per Daykart. Notable, and merging into the Ichthys article would swamp it. --Squiddy 11:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup - The article definitely serves a purpose, but has lost a lot of its focus due to the name. Perhaps re-titling it as "Darwin Fish" will give it more focus and relevance. The Bearded One 14:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep worth having, but this should be cleaned up and perhaps renamed to something better so people can find it...like "Jesus fish parodies" --MisterHand 15:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: A different name may be a good idea, but the term "Jesus fish" is slang & derogatory & would not be suitable. —gorgan_almighty 15:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Should add the Burning Man symbol of a fish wearing a fedora with the name "Larry." Durova 16:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article should have a small mention of the most notable parodies. If any other parodies are to be listed, they should be shunted to this sub-page. --Fastfission 01:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am not sure this is the best name for the article but the material seems encyclopedic to me. Perhaps it should be merged with some other article (not sure why Ichthys has the name it has, but it is the best choice though... plus it has more redirects to it than any page I've found yet!) It's a widespread phenomenon and has many variants. ++Lar 06:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment... Daykart kindly messaged me with the derivation of "Ichthys", my comment was more wondering whether ichthys is the best name for the main article than wondering what Ichthys meant... sorry for confusion and thank you for that just the same... ++Lar 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is informative and the phenomenon would easily be missed if relegated to the end of the Icthys page. 70.180.108.198 23:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep don't merge: As I have already said the article should be kept. But it should not be merged with the main Ichthys article, because although the parodies of a subject are notable, they are not relevant to an article discussing the main subject its self. For example, Spaceballs is a parody of Star Wars, but it would hardly be relevant on the Star Wars article. —gorgan_almighty 16:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no merge. Allow it to grow. Ifnord 23:09, 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 as vanity. Ral315 (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Ramirez (New Jersey)[edit]

NN, vanity Qutezuce 08:14, 20 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 vanity. Ral315 (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Ramierez[edit]

NN, vanity Qutezuce 08:14, 20 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 vanity. Ral315 (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Browne[edit]

Vanity page. Sarge Baldy 08:16, 20 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 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cap N1ne[edit]

Featured on a "compilation." No albums released, Fails WP:MUSIC. FCYTravis 08:37, 20 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. --Angr (t·c) 17:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical revisionism (Catalunya)[edit]

Article is a copy of Catalan negationism, already requested for delete since 16 december 2005. The reasons are therefore the same (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Catalan_negationism for the original request, and talk:Catalan negationism for details about the content Wllacer 09:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep -- Don't bite the newbies. I am voting keep because nominator is not following the WP:AFD policy.
See the first entry in Talk:Catalan_negationism. The author of this article is obviously trying to comply with the suggestion that the article should have been created under this name.
Nominator is conflating their dispute over what they perceive as a biased point of view in the original article with whether the article should exist. Their discussion of POV issues belong on the talk page, they should not lead off an {afd} discussion, according to WP:AFD. -- Geo Swan 14:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This explanation is going to be messy. User:Geo Swan was also the sole keep vote under the original AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalan negationism. As someone who holds a university degree in history, I can assert that this title is inappropriate regardless of the outcome of the original vote. Revisionist history has distinctly different meanings in academic and popular use. See Historical revisionism and Historical revisionism (political). In academic circles this is a legitimate pursuit that reexamines events in light of new evidence and new interpretive techniques. Someone who admitted to not understanding that distinction suggested recreating the article under this title and User:Geo Swan endorsed that faulty idea. The change adds inherent POV to the stub's unresolved problems: it still appears to be original research. All of the author's English language references are tangential to the article's central claims. One is even a Wikipedia mirror site - possibly an effort to give the appearance of scholarship by creating a superfluous external link. Neither term has a Google presence. The stub names no historian or journalistic source. User:Geo Swan fails to substantiate the claim that the nominator is reacting to perceived bias. If the original stub can be saved it should be merged with a larger article. Its present content is not worth keeping. This title fails on its merits. Strong delete. Durova 16:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Durova. Flyboy Will 21:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Durova. --Quasipalm 21:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep -- unsigned comment by User:85.138.0.73 07:34, 2005 December 26
    • I believe the policy is that the only votes that count are by wikipedia contributors who have created a userid. If 85.138.0.73 wants their vote to count, they should come back, after logging in, and sign a vote..-- Geo Swan 13:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:16, Dec. 31, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dateless[edit]

Rambling advert for non-notable website imdateless.com written by Imdateless. -- RHaworth 10:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It isn't rambling so much as setting itself up to be the savior of the world. Melchoir 10:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. starts of as a dictdef and then... well, you can hav spam, spam, spam, eggs, and spam, or spam, spam, chips, spam, spam, and spam, or... Grutness...wha? 11:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Worthless article, as anyone who spends more than 40 hours per week on Wiki... umm.. ignore the previous sentence. D.valued 11:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page is not well written, not wikilinked, mainly a dictionary definition and probably not valid topic for an encyclopedia. It also may have been originally placed as an ad. Cedars 14:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Ad spam pure and simple, the rest of the content is just to add bulk & make the article acceptable at first glance. Should have been speedy not AfD. —gorgan_almighty 14:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...after reading this article, there's no mystery at all as to why the original author can't get a date. --MisterHand 15:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I do not like it, Sam I Am. I do not like green eggs and spam. Durova 17:06, 20 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 02:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mephit Black[edit]

With no books published and 12 Google hits [32], I'd have to agree with the article itself, which says the books "should NOT be referenced on this site yet." Non notable, vanity. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 11:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Madman 14:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN, unverifiable, no details given, no external links, probably vanity. No need for AfD on this one, should have been speedy. —gorgan_almighty 15:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 00:53, 21 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 as non-notable biography and short article with little or no context. Capitalistroadster 18:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan_Scott[edit]

Delete nn possible vanity page about a college student Gimboid13 11:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete --Whouk (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete non-notable bio, nearly contentless (ESkog)(Talk) 15:43, 20 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. --Angr (t·c) 17:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ankete[edit]

From WP:PNT, been there since December 6th. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie (talk/contribs) 11:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, some kinda Slavic?
  • Appears to be Croatian. Solver 00:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like Serbian or Croatian, and seems to say something about a student poll. Looks like a school work, or something similar to this. Milena 11:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I second that conclusion. From what I can roughly derive (based on my limited ability to read Croatian): the text describes some student project entitled, "Teaching quality evaluation", which also includes a sample of (a part of) a student questionnaire. "Definition... Why evaluating... Evaluation method... ", based on self-analysis, statistical analysis and student poll targeted both at the teaching process itself and at the teaching staff; suggestions for which criteria to use during the evaluation, etc. I am not sure how this can possibly become an article, because it seems to be some unfinished piece of student-level research or a survey proposal or such, without any verifiable source too. My vote on this is to delete, no transwiki. Perhaps, still a good idea would be not to move this entry for a while longer, so that someone who is actually fluent in Croatian language could take a look at this review and confirm. - Introvert talk 08:26, 14 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 02:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ecaddindia[edit]

Not notable. ONly 3 google hits. Basically an Ad. Jgritz 11:32, 20 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 02:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cozens[edit]

Non-notable vanity page. Speedy deletion has been contested. --Whouk (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree - Delete - Tim Fellows 11:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio -- Karada 11:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is it too late to do a speedy delete? AdamJacobMuller 11:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. The "award winning radio show" claim helps it avoid speedy. PJM 13:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I think about it, I've made an award winning radio show, but I'm pleased to say you won't find it on Wikipedia :-) --Whouk (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the real thing here is that he created an entry about *himself*, If a third party had created the entry it would not be such an issue, if someone takes it upon themself to create an entry about your show, then it probably deserves that page, and for all we know the "award" he recieved was a cardboard cutout of a microphone, one of those "everyone is a winnner" awards AdamJacobMuller 15:11, 20 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 in its current state. --Celestianpower háblame 16:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday spirit[edit]

Original research Dan100 (Talk) 11:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite. It's definitely a concept that should have an article, but this is not that article. Proto t c 12:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Movementarian 13:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It also seems tongue in cheek. PJM 13:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and {{subst:test2}} the author. I agree with Proto that the concept has promise, but the article should be deleted until it can be rewritten. —gorgan_almighty 14:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I think there could be something here, with a better article and actual sources. --MisterHand 15:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I originally tagged it as a merge to Christmas (possibly under the Christmas#Social_impact_of_Christmas section), but it encompasses all the holidays during the same period. It seems like an encyclopedic topic that should be easily sourced. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see it as pure speculation. Not encyclopaedic Kareeser|Talk! 19:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This version is no good, per above. I don't like the rewrite option because I don't think there's much neutral source material out there on this topic. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:28, 20 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 02:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Devon geyer[edit]

A budding musician. This was tagged for speedy deletion but there is some dispute on the talk page. Does have a little bit of local news coverage e.g. [33] so no vote from me, but see WP:MUSIC. Kappa 12:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article does not provide evidence of notability with respect to the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Good luck for the future, though. Sliggy 12:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet criteria in WP:MUSIC. Movementarian 13:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Page author has removed the AFD tag, but still fails WP:MUSIC MNewnham 16:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This amounts to a me-too but I don't like page authors who try to remove AfD tags. Durova 17:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(I reapplied the AfD tag. Sliggy 18:14, 20 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 02:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-racist feminism[edit]

Original research: one of a number of pages by 24.86.192.164 (talk · contribs) reporting the unsourced statements of a Yashar Keramati, whose entry was VFD'd in May 2005 as unverified/non-notable (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Yashar Keramati). Tearlach 12:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as original research. Movementarian 13:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination with a suggestion to start over with a legitimate article. The historical link between these two subjects goes back much farther than the stub suggests. The first United States feminist movement actually started when female abolitionists found themselves banned from an abolitionist convention because they were women. Meeting among themselves, they decided the slaves were not the only ones who needed liberating. A worthy topic, an unworthy article. Durova 17:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and restart as suggested above. Tearlach 17:54, 20 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 Veganism. --Celestianpower háblame 16:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist veganism[edit]

Original research: one of a number of pages by 24.86.192.164 (talk · contribs) reporting the unsourced statements of a Yashar Keramati, whose entry was VFD'd in May 2005 as unverified/non-notable (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Yashar Keramati). Tearlach 12:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, without prejudice to re-creation. Somewhere I have a copy of a book called The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory by Carol J. Adams; if unintended humour is your bag, I recommend it. Point is, this is a noteworthy concept, if not actually worthy of note; it's "out there" in the attestation sense as well as the other sense. On the other hand, this is original research and will not be particularly helpful to writers of a better article. Smerdis of Tlön 15:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - agreed. The relationship between feminism and veganism is a perfectly valid topic, but the problem is with an article claiming an entity called "Feminist veganism" (which doesn't verify) drawing entirely on OR. Tearlach 16:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Veganism without merging. The main article already discusses the topic. This stub looks unsalvageable but may have a search-worthy title. Durova 17:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per above. Drn8 17:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Veganism. Tearlach 17:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No one in their right mind would search for "feminist veganism" - womyn like that don't go anywhere near man-invented evil gizmos like the coMputer with intErNet. Flyboy Will 21:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're kidding, right? Durova 21:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have a huge problem with being serious even when I need to be; but seriously, searching for feminist veganism is like searching for "socialist aerodynamics", or "slavery and ancient philosophy". The intersection between the two terms is so marginal I don't believe it should have a separate page. Flyboy Will 22:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's notable enough that it's already a subtopic on the main page. I'd gauge that as redirect-worthy after the subject gets created as a separate article. Durova 22:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Holy mackerel. I stand corrected, even though I personally fail to see any legitimate link between the two; that is, people can justifiably be both, but one because of the other? In any case, definitely Merge. Flyboy Will 22:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the common thread is the ethical stand against exploiting one's fellow creatures. Durova 23:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep: or put another way, the idea that oppression of women and oppression of animals are both consequences of the traditional man-the-hunter ethos. Tearlach 23:25, 20 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 02:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Strike[edit]

NN Flash game. NicM 13:41, 20 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 to delete. --Angr (t·c) 17:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vagina tightening and toning[edit]

Provides no usefull information, and is strongly biased, and seems like an ad for the link in the article. It's simply not encyclopedic.--Vidarlo 13:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Info: A google search for "vagina tightening" +surgery -wikipedia -porn brings up over 400 hits. Zunaid 13:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could actually become a very useful article (although as it stands I'm tempted to say redirect to Kegel exercise). BD2412 T 14:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • If redirecting, I'm more for incorporating it into the Vagina article. I agree it could become a usefull article, but as it stands, it is not encyclopedic, and it looks like an ad. It's also strongly biased. -- Vidarlo 14:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup or rewrite. Subject matter has potential, current subheadings make a good article plan, but POV & bias must be removed. —gorgan_almighty 15:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This entry appears to be an add for the website linked.

  • Like I've said numerous times, just get rid of the damn link (which I have done). Illuminus
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley's choice[edit]

Seems like well-intentioned band vanity. Fails WP:NMG on several counts. Have not released an EP. Do not have an entry on allmusic.com. Delete Zunaid 13:45, 20 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 02:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interfic[edit]

Delete. From Wikipedia:Neglected articles, this is a sentence on a foreign language dicdef coupled with a sentence on a non-notable company. BD2412 T 14:02, 20 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 keep (2 deletes vs 5 keeps from long-time users) Renata3 08:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Business Plot[edit]

This article appears to be a complete creation using conspiracy theory sources and a doctored photograph of a non-existent event. References in the article to alleged events are sourced to someone's personal (or group) web page. - Ted Wilkes 14:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Madman 14:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: please specify in what way the photo is "doctored". Its source is on a .gov site [34] and I don't see any obvious "doctoring" except for contrast enhancement. The caption is copied from the source site as well.Trapolator 15:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is backed with more than enough references. In the future, before you propose an article for deletion, spend some time on the talk page. All I see you've placed a single dispute notice. --Cigor 16:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ted Wilkes has never contributed a single word to the Business Plot until yesterday, when he posted his comments on the article page itself (not on the talk page)[35], and deleted a reference, calling it "pure crap" with no evidence for his accusations[36]. He also deleted the entire criticism section of DuPont article which mentions this plot.
The accusation that the photo is a fabrication is baseless. If Mr. Wilkes would have bothered spending his time clicking the image, instead of posting his comments on the article page[37] and making accusations, he would have read this: "This image comes from the National Archives and Records Administration..." Click here to see. Mr. Wilkes wants wikipedians to believe he knows something that the National Archives and Records Administration doesn't! Thank you Trapolator for pointing out the US government archives site which has this photo.[38]
In fact all of Ted Wilkes accusations are baseless. The true "non-existent event" is not the Business Plot which has been exhastively referenced with 15 footnotes covering several sources, including the Congressional committee of the McCormack-Dickstein Committee.
The REAL "non-existent event" is Ted Wilkes accusations. I have no patience for ideological Don Quixotes who use wikipedia policy to push their own POV.
In addition, madman, who voted for deletion above, may be a sock puppet of Ted Wilkes. madman has no contributions on wikipedia[39], except to vote on deleting Business Plot. Travb 20:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article needs lots of work, but its status as a significant subject should not be in doubt. Gazpacho 20:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No apparent grounds for deletion as per above. The Business Plot reference also needs to be restored to the DuPont Corporation page, where Ted Wilkes deleted the entire criticism section. Bwithh 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is this Ted Wilkes doing? Join the discussion man, instead of trying to kill it in such an arrogant way - that is, if you have arguments. pomos
  • Keep If need be, mention its disputed state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.204.211.226 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Needs work, but still worth holding onto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Hardly worthy of delection, and I don't know what Ted Wilkes was thinking. May need some cleanup to indicate that the existence of the Plot is disputed, but if we have an article on Majestic 12, we can have an article on this. --Technogeek 07:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This dispute is unwarranted and contrived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.127.62 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Please sign your posts Travb 19:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rather then deleting the page, please provide a second POV. If it happened or if it is a hoax, either way it deserves a page. A 22:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The debate here deserves a hearing. If such discussion is flagged as qwestionable, readers will be able to check these references for themselves. Deleting this page is a kind of censorship that this community should be wary of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atheist (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Please sign your posts Travb 19:38, 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. --Angr (t·c) 17:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Island of Time[edit]

Fictional place in fictional game. Ack! Madman 14:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite/Redirect Just needs to be wikified and expanded a bit, or folded into Prince of Persia: Warrior Within. As for its fictionality, you couldn't have other fictional locales like Faerun, Middle-Earth or Liberty City deleted without someone noticing  ;) ka1iban 15:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter. It's still important, even if you don't like it, Madman. I guess we should delete the articles about the LoTR locales, then. Whatever. This should just be merged into the main PoP: WW article. Starwind Amada 14:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per ka1iban. -- JJay 19:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand or redirect. From notable game. QQ 01:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The article isn't needed. The Island of Time can just become a small portion of the Warrior Within article.--DethFromAbove 06:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Keep we could create a big location from the POP page.--sturm 17:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is very useful. Please don't delete it. --costan
  • on behalf of all of the POP fans i would like to say that keeping this page would be much appreciated. As said above, all it needs is to be expanded a little and it would be perfect. Personally i found it useful in answering a few of my questions. - sincerely l.p

I withdraw my nomination and have tried to wikify the Island of Time entry. Madman 23:13, 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. --Angr (t·c) 17:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerator Operator[edit]

This is apparently just a job description for a position at TJNAF. NickelShoe 14:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteNN and non encylopedic. Obina 17:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can't this be merged with TJNAF? -- JJay 19:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think any of the material is really encyclopedic. I don't see anyone looking for this information unless they want a job at TJNAF, and I don't see anyone looking for info on TJNAF caring about the job descriptions. I don't see what there would be to merge, and it seems like a redirect would be odd, since it's a job title--it'd be like redirecting Cashier to Wal-Mart, you know? NickelShoe 19:19, 20 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 FireFox (non-notable). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boppers Cafe[edit]

Seemingly unremarkable establishment. Delete unless proven to be more remarkable. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 15:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete criteria for speedy met.Obina 17:53, 20 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. Mo0[talk] 11:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golf-gulf merger[edit]

Since this merger only affects the word golf, it's no real merger at all and so this should be deleted. Robot32 18:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to the talk page, it does affect other words with /ɐl/ plus consonant, such as multiply; pulse; bulk; culture. However, no sources have been provided since I first asked for them in July, which makes me suspect original research. That's my reason for voting to delete. --Angr (t·c) 19:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Angr. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 00:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Don't you have that merger? 64.194.44.220 01:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but given I've been trying to find a source on it since Angr put up the unsourced template and I've not found anything (because it seems no-one's looked, rather than because it doesn't happen), I think that it obviously counts as "original research". If you can find any sources, include them! —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 04:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. Established and widely reported phenomenon, though I wouldn't know where to begin looking it up online. Can some linguist come up with some nice jargonese term like "velar-labial shift paradigm" that would better be used as a title and as a search tool for verification? Grutness...wha? 00:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Except to the extent that "gulf" and "golf" are apparently homonyms to a group of people for whom "multiply" isn't pronounced "moltiply", I don't think there's anything wrong with the title. There's many others in the Category:Splits and mergers in English phonology category with similar names. (Still, one potential name could be "pre-lateral mergers in Australian English" which would cover this one and the celery-salary merger of Melburnian English, or "English-language vowel changes before historic l" to parallel English-language vowel changes before historic r and discuss things like the doll-dole merger, the fill-feel merger, the vowel-val merger etc.)
    As to how widely reported it is, how has it been reported? Do you mean just by people, or has it been in things that can be cited?
    —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 02:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Real merger 152.163.101.14 03:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hey, I know it's real. I have the merger. However, there being no source for this, it is original research no matter how true. I second all that Angr & Felix write. Jimp 06:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR without references, as per Angr. u p p l a n d 08:58, 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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng {chat} 23:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Salas[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Correspondant at a Guam television station, seems notable enough to me. Article could be better, though. --MisterHand 15:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page needs to be removed as per employer Guamnewsjunkies 23:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep of minor notability, just barely.--MONGO 04:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity, little notability. The state of the article suggests a copyvio, but I can't find the source. Not worth cleaning up. The JPS 09:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable. Jcuk 19:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no external references and suspected copyvio. Stifle 01:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio from [40]. howcheng {chat} 23:03, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wyandotte businesses[edit]

A list of small businesses in a city is hardly a useful encyclopedic article. This reads more like a yellow pages. If there were some kind of historicity here, it would be more notable. As it stands, list includes a gas station among other things.

  • delete actually looks more like thinly disguised advertising for a bowling lane MNewnham 17:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert, listcruft, umaintainable, fails WP:NOT... take your pick.Gateman1997 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 19:15, 20 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} 22:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

National Caffeine Awareness Month[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. No reason for deletion is given, and a quick google search reveals that this is indeed a real thing. --MisterHand 15:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MisterHand or merge somewhere. -- JJay 19:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to where? Pilatus 23:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thinly disguised advert on a non-notable topic. March is also Honor Society Awareness Month, National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, National Athletics Training Month and International Listening Awareness Month among others... and none need articles.Gateman1997 19:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's an advertisement. Following the links that a Google search for Marina Kushner (the author of the book that is plugged on that website) provides quickly shows that the idea behind the effort is to scare people into buying a certain coffee substitute. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or advertising medium. By the way, the Alexa rank of the site is > 3 millions, and the article should be killed per WP:WEB alone. Pilatus 23:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into caffeine with a redirect to discourage re-creation. TMS63112 23:32, 20 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 somewhere. I'll leave it up to people who know more about this to decide where is the best target. --Angr (t·c) 18:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Forgotten Realms Atlas[edit]

Non-notable role-playing game book that, according to the article itself, suffered from a "lack of interest from the RPG community". Madman 14:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen this book: it's probably not worth a separate page, although it would make a suitable reference for other FR pages. Delete — RJH 17:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Faerûn or Geographical_index_of_Toril. Those are two articles on the geography of Forgotten Realms and it would seem a good reference. I don't believe it needs its own article. -- JLaTondre 03:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per JLaTondre. It's a real product, but doesn't merit its own page. Nandesuka 14:13, 22 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 keep per general consensus that high school articles are to be kept. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walkill Valley Regional High School[edit]

Not a notable school Paul Carpenter 18:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep We have fought this battle many times, most recently regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garfield High School (New Jersey). While that article was (and unfortunatley still is) in need of much additional work, and that article consisted of a few fragmentary sentences, "The result of the debate was keep per general consensus that high schools are notable." Given the far more extensive content of the current article in question and the fact that it clearly meets the qualifications laid out at WP:SCH, this article should be kept. Furthermore, as this is a regional school serving four separate municipalities, it would make no logical sense to insert the content into all four of the constituent pages, as might be the case if it were a high school in a single community. I appreciate the concern in addressing trivial pages in Wikipedia, but we need to put this issue to bed once and for all. Alansohn 19:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per clear past precedent on high schools. The article is as good as any we have on that subject. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all valid High Schools. Bad faith nom. IMO. — RJH 17:04, 20 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 Renata3 08:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red badge of courage[edit]

Redirect/Delete Original research; it was proposed to fold this article into 'The Red Badge of Courage' article, but this text is clearly either plagiarized or original composition/interpretation. Additionally, if this article was meant to define what the "red badge of courage" signifies in the novel (hence the listing in lower-case), it completely fails to accomplish that. The "red badge's" metaphorical significance *is* explained in the book's entry. ka1iban 15:36, 20 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. --Celestianpower háblame 16:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Tony Danza Tapdance Extravaganza[edit]

NN Band fails WP:MUSIC no allmusic listing, label is redlink MNewnham 15:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Madman 16:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If it was actually Tony Danza I would have voted keep, but uh, no. Copying a vaguely known B-list celebrity is very bad. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of releases or otherwise meeting WP:MUSIC... But oh how it pains me... I saw these guys live in a parking lot in Nashville I think. --W.marsh 19:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason I wrote this article was because they were mentioned on a few other pages here with no further info and since I was familiar with them I figured I'd give it a shot. It's fair to say that this band has never charted but the genre of music (grindcore tech metal metalcore) is so obscure that most of the other bands listed with pages here have never charted either but have still sold thousands of records and have tons of fans as witnessed by other people adding them here on Wikipedia. The page on Psyopus for example desperately needs to be cleaned up but I don't know enough about the band to do it. As for simply deleting the band because they named themselves after Tony Danza I don't think that's a fair reason to delete a page. This isn't some fly by night garage band that I made up. A simple google search will confirm that they are quite real and have a viable music audience. If my article gets deleted I'm not going to cry about it but it's kind of weird to list the band on other Wikipedia pages and not have an article explaining who they are.-- Maddhatt 13:01, 21 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 was Speedy Delete G4 by User:Teke. ColourBurst 01:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tony Danza Tapdance Extravaganza[edit]

Not sure what's happening here, but this seems to be recreation of previously deleted content! Their label Corrosive Recordings gets some 90 distinct Ghits and they get a few hundred themselves. I don't think it meets WP:MUSIC but I'd like peoples views on this one please.

I think we should keep it- because Tony Danza is probably the most influential and important member of American society, and without him we would all be wandering hopelessly in the depths of our own insecurities. Bob Santanos

  • Delete per nom, speedy G4 if it is indeed a similar repost of previously AfDed content. --Kinu t/c 23:44, 30 August 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 - I can count you know, I don't need a running commentary. --Celestianpower háblame 16:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Icebird[edit]

Doesn't meet criteria of WP:MUSIC that I can tell Nv8200p talk 22:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article 'does' seem just a bit useless. It's probably just some people posting their own group on wikipedia for the purposes of self-promotion...in a rather useless manner. Well, I found the article using good ol' random article. So, yea. User_talk:Volcanictelephone 12:03, 16 December 2005 (EST)

Debate relisted for lacking votes. And AFD IS NOT A VOTE!!!1shift+one1!. Johnleemk | Talk 15:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominate. That's 3 votes. Madman 16:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL. Some people just get silly with thsi stuff. 2 people said "delete", which is their vote, whether its counted or not lol. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find notes pointing out the "number" of "votes" to closing admins exceedingly obnoxious, and I'm sure I'm not the only closing admin who feels that way. Just referring to comments as "votes" in itself isn't a problem. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote delete. Let us not forget that the entire process was originally called Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion. The name changed was to clarify that this process was for articles, not to suggest it was not a voting process. Proto t c 11:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A "vote" backed up by an excellent argument is better than two or three "delete nn ~~~~" or "keep ~~~~" "votes". All the time we talk about votes and tallies and suchlike, we get confused people saying "that vote tally equalled exactly 66% delete! Why wasn't it deleted?" or whatever. And that's Bad. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll simply say that I urge to delete as the act fails WP:MUSIC with their 2005 album released on an obscure indy label... and leave the squabbling about the AfD process to the people who are getting worked up about it. B.Wind 17:49, 21 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 02:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alples[edit]

Article reads as a official website. Spam article. Mecanismo | Talk 20:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Debate relisted for lacking input. Johnleemk | Talk 15:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Advertising for NN furniture manufacturer MNewnham 16:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:44, 21 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 [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belong[edit]

Debut record not yet released. Enough said. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of the members of belong has collaborated with Nine Inch Nails and Telefon Tel Aviv. Doesn't this make belong relevant information for Wikipedia? --Alanflood 10:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Debate relisted for lacking input. Johnleemk | Talk 15:58, 20 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 02:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Said[edit]

This is User:Tancarville's father. Maintain your objectivity... Fplay 01:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for lacking input. Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - article should be rewritten to be more encyclopedic. I was bold enough to eliminate the reference to his son (who originally wrote the article), but this article needs to read less like a family biography (for example, the emphasis on a vacation, and "older Uncle" without naming the man) and more like a substantive Wikipedia article. B.Wind 18:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the consensus cited by Uncle G above. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nobles are of interest to those who believe in the concept of nobility. Kappa 23:33, 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 02:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gems from Vedas[edit]

This had a chainmail ending ("email this to your friends!") at the end that I already removed, but it still seems silly. Really these are quotes or adages. Fplay 10:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for lacking input. Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 20 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 02:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FlexiBlog[edit]

This is software written by workman161 . Notable? Fplay 07:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for lacking input. Johnleemk | Talk 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete' NN software, sourceforge link is dead MNewnham 16:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as said by MNewham. 9cds 17:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 00:54, 21 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 [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trauma bonding[edit]

Copyvio from http://home.mchsi.com/~ftio/mc-trauma-bonding.htm; also very POV with an agenda. Madman 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia ought to have an article on Traumatic bonding, which is a well studied psychological phenomenon, but not if it violates copyright. Durova 17:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this is a copyvio, how come it has not been tagged and listed on the copyvio page? -- JJay 18:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has now. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:50, 21 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 02:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Element Development[edit]

This team was founded by Daniel Becker . Notable? Fplay 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm new to this whole deal but... What is the reason that this entry should be deleted? What would be required of it so that it could remain? (unsigned by DBecker a.k.a. Daniel Becker, founder of Dark Element Development) B.Wind 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia editors generally treat articles that people have written about themselves with suspicion. (See Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas.) But apart from that, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. Your article is an "about us" web page for a software development project — a project that has yet to demonstrate any tangible evidence of its existence other than your setting up a web site and posting on some discussion fora and in some self-submission software directories. The thing that is required for the article to remain is nothing to do with editing the article, and is everything to do with your project itself, and it being deemed to be notable by the world at large. Your project should be the subject of non-trivial third-party published works (such as "in depth" magazine articles, news reports, reviews, books, player guides, papers in academic journals, and so forth) by multiple reliable sources that are independent of your group. That way, an encyclopaedia article can be written that (a) is an encyclopaedia article and not simply an entry in a software directory, and (b) doesn't rely upon your sole word as its source. Uncle G 18:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for lacking input. Johnleemk | Talk 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity. The article was written and repeatedly edited by the founder of the subject of the article. B.Wind 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only available source for this article is Daniel Becker himself, as far as I can determine. The article is unverifiable and original research. Delete. Uncle G 18:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Preost talk contribs 21:07, 20 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} 22:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darimasen[edit]

This is software by User:Sudrien. Notable? Fplay 04:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For me a principal question is how to decide whether software is notable or not... This here is an alpha version and provides no binaries (according to project site). I think if any software project, however new, unfinished, and alpha, would be listed in wikipedia, it would become terribly overblown. What's more, the article seems to be written by the author of the software him/herself, which could be regarded as self-promotion. I suggest, the article should wait at least until the software is more developed and binaries are provided. Therefore, delete Ben T/C 16:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. WP:CORP#Criteria_for_products_and_services makes it clear that darimasen is not notable. Ben T/C 14:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for lacking input. Johnleemk | Talk 16:01, 20 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 to a subpage of User:Sepa. howcheng {chat} 22:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General Election Committee[edit]

From WP:PNT, been there since Nov 20. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie 04:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bahasa Indonesia. - splot 04:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The information in here could possibly be added to a Politics in Indonesia article, but isn't worth a stand-alone entry. It's too complicated for me to translate and move right now, and I'm not going to have time for another month or so, unfortunately.--Sepa 22:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for lacking input. Johnleemk | Talk 16:02, 20 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 02:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abulaye[edit]

  • Well, other than this article's being absurdly written, it's about a little-known 'fictional saint' invented by two nn artists with little more than 30 mentions on Google (and not many of these mentions are anything but fleeting.) I would say delete. Iinag 16:03 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • La idea me parece buena. El articulo necesita algo de edicion. Parece algo que va ha ir progresando.
    • It needs more than editing, 209.178.213.118. It needs references. For starters, it needs a reference that gives the correct name of the artists. Was the first artist Eduardo Garaico or Carlos Garicoa? Without references, readers cannot even verify that basic fact from the very first sentence of the article. Uncle G 17:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly, Uncle G: but what I ask to you all is... do the artists themselves even merit their own Wikipedia page? If not, then it is rather crazy to give a page to a single character from a work of theirs. I mean, only a few big writers get pages for all of their inventions: so, giving the same liberty to relative unknowns is really frivolous. We can barely justify the artists' notability... can we justify the inclusion of subsections of their work? I think that, unless these guys have some reknown, which doesn't seem so, the answer has to be no, or we're making a strange precedent. Iinag 17:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Preost talk contribs 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notation. --Mozillaman 20:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 21:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly the other way round, actually; African slaves were taken to Cuba, which is presumably why the subject has a Yoruba name and the article includes a Yoruba prayer. Humansdorpie 22:07, 21 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 Brookie. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quillow[edit]

dic def אריאל יהודה 16:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems regional, but move and delete.Kareeser|Talk! 16:10, 20 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 02:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fleeting Meeting[edit]

Advertisement - unencyclopedic. I am also listing the related page Craig Swaffield for deletion. CarolGray 16:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. A fleeting appearance on wikipedia MNewnham 16:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - advertisement. -Satori (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It might look a bit harmless now because I removed some of the NPOV stuff but this has no place in this encyclopedia nonetheless. -- Beltz 05:35, 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 02:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Swaffield[edit]

Vanity article. I am also listing the related advertisement article Fleeting Meeting for deletion. CarolGray 16:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - I think this could be speedied under nn-bio MNewnham 16:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Self-advertisement or such. -- Beltz 05:33, 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 DELETE. Harro5 01:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theafers[edit]

non-notable gaming club Zzzzz 16:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per nom Zzzzz 16:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 17:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no longer active and non-notable, non-verfifiable gaming club. --Habap 17:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Message to nom, if this were a speedy, you would not have nominated on Afd. I removed your speedy on this as it is a group. -- JJay 18:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you put that in English, please? -- JJay 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment restored speedy tag as it is now policy - groups can be speedied.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)
    • Concur that this one is speedy-able is it makes no assertion of importance or notability, but I worry about such a plicy in the hands of people bent on deleting pages and little else, which is how I would characterize Zzzzz's edit history. --Habap 19:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. This looks like a very bad policy. -- JJay 20:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7. "The purpose of the Theafers is something not clear to outsiders, and certainly unclear to the Theafers themselves", and "The dwindling forums (The Theafers' Haven) offer only a few new posts per day, and the chat room (while still populated) has been reduced to a idling room, with only a few lines of chat on a bad day. " --Idont Havaname 22:37, 21 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. --Angr (t·c) 18:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of motorized bicycles[edit]

This is yet another POV fork attempt by CyclePat. Apparently, the CCM light delivery safety bike picture is being taken off of the main motorized bicycle article, so now pat has created this fork, which has absolutely no purpose. The motorized bicycle topic really only needs one article, but we have 2 now with the timeline article (also created as a fork) and now this. Please delete it. Absolutely no reason for it. The problem if we let this in is that then Pat is going to create more forks. He's been threatening to do it for awhile now. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment: This is not a POV fork. This analisys is based on the precedence from the similar page titled: gallery of motorcycle trikes. Yes! CCM light delivery can be found at CCM (bicycle manufacturer). Precendence sugest that we should at least include the name of an item to avoid a POV. This being said. Woohookitty's analisys needs some reviewing. The alleged concensus to remove the picture of CCM picture of the article motorized bicycle has not been proven. What will happen when others attempt to place the many thousands of different model electric bicycles on this page. Either we put them in the [[category:motorized bicycle]]? As for the assumption that timeline of motorized bicycle history is a fork, this article has been previously nominated for deletion and failed to be accepted for deletion. We discussed this issue. A precedence exist such as within the article of bicycle that show that a fork for the history is possible. The problem is if we don't let this in our article will be limited to one POV of 2 or 3 people that seem to be ganged up together and offended by my manerism. (AfD? has even used some offencive language) As for threathening to do fork I can not understand where he would get such an idea. This is pure "hear say..." I believe these users are more worried about the possible changes that are currently happening and that some of these fact may contradict their or even our "expert" knowlege. --CylePat 19:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Not exactly sure what you are talking about. I've never even *seen* a motorized bicycle. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pat, I believe WHK got the idea from here, where you said "Oh! Now I remember. What about a list of motorized bicycle? That could be subdivided into addition kits, and manufactured" in response to the removal of the CCM from the timeline.
The idea that the CCM was removed by consensus is dotted around the talk pages of the two articles. You have more than once used the analogy of the Toyota Prius. It is a good one: if the CCM were among the first vehicles of its class manufactured by manufacturer whose name is a household word on every continent, the bike would indeed merit inclusion in the articles on the motorized bicycle. But it is neither, as you have acknowledged elsewhere.
Your single-minded determination to raise the profile of this machine shows admirable enthusiasm, but as I thought you understood by now the purpose of these articles is to document the significant, not to elevate that which individual editors admire. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment:No, you see, you're putting words in my mouth again. And you are avoiding the main subject wich is the deletion of this "entire" article. If you have POV issue (which I apparently have when you remove this item) I sugest we move the discussion to the appropriate place. But to argue about the CCM, that talk page does not show any conclusive evidence of concensus. The idea that an item needs to be "Popular" is not a very sound argument for dis-inclusion into an article. I'm sure there are some un-popular and much more contreversial subjects on wikipedia. A question for you. If you where working on the article of telephone, would you not include a picture of a 1932 telephone into the article? If that telephone was a rare one, wouldn't it be even more intriguing to add at "least" a little sentence on it. (for example: what if, I dunno, Avro built a rare telephone and it was suddenly removed from the market. It's popularity might not be extreme, it's alleged significance might not be "comprehensible," however this telephone did exist. (I strongly believe a quick blurb should be included in the article... where is another question, which obviously seems to offuscate you via your literally bolded comments from Talk:Motorized bicycle#1st POV (THE CCM Pixie bicycle motor) that was recently removed stating...
"Pat, HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? What is at issue is not the existence of this bike but its significance." and your comment on User talk:Woohookitty#CyclePat "But Pat wants that f***ing CCM Light Delivery Safety in this article, and he doesn't seem to care how it's done." and further more you go on to critisize my method of work stating "He also has a habit of rewording stuff in incredibly idiosyncratic English." (idiosyncratic meaning "eccentric" or "out of the norm"?) (I would assume my writing skills are out of the norm when you come from a different culture and 80% of the time I use french) (Wiki is an intercultural encyclopedia, and your denial of the relevance of the CCM bicycle is just as offencive to my canadianism and Ottawa culture as much as if you where to deny the fact the hockey is alleged to have originated from Canada.) user:CyclePat 13:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pat, your English is idiosyncratic. So is mine. But "attested", for example, is not a word used in everyday discussion by most people - I (usually) manage to keep to everyday vocabulary in articles, that's all I'm saying. And your relentless addition of the CCM bike is a matter of record. The bike has no demonstrable significance to the global development of the motorized bicycle. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Be it noted that I resisted the temptation to immediately AfD this. It is as Woohookitty says: another WP:FORK. For the record, although the pictures are nice, there are not yet enough to make a decent gallery; there is a Gallery of motorcycle trikes wihch I created as a way of reducing the size and load time of the tricycle article. If we have that many pictures I'd gladly embrace this article, but there is only one picture in here which is not in the parent article, and it's not in there because the machine in question has been removed as being, by common consent, not relevant to the global history of the motorized bicycle. To be honest I thought we had seen the end of this argument, and the sudden re-insertion of the bloody thing with a fork as well is a serious disappointment at this late stage. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are there galleries of other things that have been left alone? If so, Keep. At the worst Merge with the article about motorised bicycles, if they dont already exist on that page. Jcuk 23:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! That's the whole point - all but one of them does already exist on that page, the sole exception being the bike which User:CyclePat has been repeatedly inserting and re-inserting against consensus - which is why he created this fork in the first place :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment: This Afd can be technical. A precedence is precisely that. It is a previous thing\ occurance that sugests it should be permissible to redo that same or similar thing. We have such a page in regardes to this subject. Meaning yes there are other galleries of other things. See for example gallery of motorcycle trikes. user:CyclePat 12:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Er, Pat? I created the gallery of motorcycle trikes in order to speed the load time of the tricycle article and to balance up the emphasis between pedal and motorcycle trikes. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (I guess I should vote hey!) Inherently it may be seen as a creation for a list of photo's of various different motorcycle trikes. Er, Just zi...? Then I created the gallery of motorized bicycle in order to speed the load and to balance up the emphasis of old, older, newer, modern, electric, gas, funny looking, weird looking, rare, common, pedal like, not pedal like (but still), blue, pink, purle, etc... etc... etc... etc.... The gallery says it all because a picture is, I believe, a thousand words. --CylePat 16:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Userify the one image that isn't already on the page if there's a really strong desire to have it around but I'm not sure I see how having a gallery helps if all but one of the images are in the main article already. I could be confused though. ++Lar 01:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It already exists in the article for the manufacturer of the bike, which is a great place for it as it fits just nicely. Although apparently they mainly make hockey equipment... - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 01:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Image gallery is there to place existing motorized bicycle photo's. There are thousands of "motorized bicycles" that have been manufactured\built. The idea that a page be deleted because of the lack of information that exist within the page is just a stupid as deleting a page because the information in a page is to abundant. Give it some time, I'm sure this page will fill. (I guess we're going to have to do like I did for the timeline for Motorized bicycle history and ask for some external help from some friends from http://www.mopedarmy.com ) Again the idea that a page should be virtually complete before it is even started is a discriminatory opinion on my work method and on the wikipedia process. user:CyclePat 12:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You will noticed that I have added a new picture to the Gallery of motorized bicycle. For those user that started the page motorized bicycle you will notice it is a perfectly good picture that we used for more than 2 months. Image:Motorbike2.jpg (A motorized bicycle (the motor unit is above the back wheel and appears to eb a friction drive unit). This is an aftermarket conversion.). This picture was recently removed from motorized bicycle article. Seeing as it is inpractical to include too many pictures in the main article of "motorized bicycle," it only makes sense to be able to mention this finely researched and perfectly relevant "machinery" elsewhere. What better way then a gallery which is somewhere quite relevant to the main article. The utility of this gallery page that is currently up dor deletion, is important to the development of the article motorized bicycle and is preceded by the example of gallery of motorcycle trikes. user:CyclePat 12:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So that's now two pictures which aren't in the main article. Both of which are, I believe, in other articles as well (unlike the motorcycle trikes). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pat, calling for meatpuppets is really' bad wikiquette. And discussing it openly is worse. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Call them whatever but I'm sure they will be able to bring some critical comments to the discusion. (You may find the conversation at http://www.mopedarmy.com/forums/discuss/1/237478/237478/) --CylePat 15:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe they'll upload enought pictures making the above vote for delete futile and insignificant. (Again, this vote is base on the idea that an article should be finished before it's even started) --CylePat 15:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing there is no proof that this is a POV fork, there should be no problem ignoring this afformentioned "vote" for delete. --CylePat 15:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As Guy pointed out earlier, your relentless addition of the CCM bike is a matter of record. I really don't care if you think my contribution is valid or not. That decision is down to the user closing this debate, not you. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another ridiculous and disrespectful POV crusade fomented by CyclePat. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 15:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I still haven't seen any proof that this is a POV crusade. "Au contraire" this is merelly a copy of the precendence that exist with the page called Gallery of motorcycle trikes. If you have an issue with the inclusion of CCM I believe you should bring that up with a user-rfc against me or perhaps within the appropriate POV section. The article is legitimitate. --CylePat 16:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Pat, but whatever it is, it is not a "copy of the precedence" as above. The Trike article was 50% taken up by the gallery, which unbalanced it and made it achingly slow to load; it also distorted the balance between motor and pedal trikes. But indeed there are other galleries, in fact there's a whole category of them. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: should the deletion of this article occur, unavoidably, this would be a precendence for deleting the article gallery of motorcycle trikes, and other galleries. --CylePat 17:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:according to the POV fork... "There is very little that can make a separate article "inherently POV." If the issue is the title, the solution is to rename it to a less improper title. If the issue is the manner in which it was written — be bold in editing it that it may better conform to NPOV. Often a simple renaming and refactoring of a fork article will yield good results, and may satisfy all parties involved. But simplistically calling for its deletion is commonly referred to as "m:deletionism" — a misapplication of deletion process, often to enforce a POV rather than to enforce NPOV, and often to outright negate the work of new contributors. This is a misapplication of deletion powers."
Pat, you are very fond of accusing others of POV. Have you never stopped to think that perhaps it might be possible that it is you who is pushing a POV rather than everybody else? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Yes! what if these pictures are a POV. I'm assuming that they are motorised bicycles.... but have they trully been defined by "someone" that is non partisan. (ie.: National Post says that Bionx is a motorised bicycle... actually they would probably say it's an electric bicycle but anyway.) I hope you realise that if this gallery is POV because of it's content inherently the content on the main page will also be. However if the pictures are not POV then inherently they should be able to be displayed. The idea that this article be up for deletion is against commen sense. As those that vote delete... I assume this is because you see some sort of POV. Can you explain because right now, I really don' see any logical POV. If there is one, maybe the photos (as afformentioned) and in that case the main article would also be POV, making for the removal of these pictures all together. (wich would be totally unproductive and totally "dense"). --CylePat 03:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Missing the point again. What is POV is your promotion of this insignificant machine in this and other articles. The bike (and this picture) already has a place in the CCM article, where it belongs. As has been stated more than once, if you want it in this article or the timeline fork you created and from which it was also removed, all you need to do is show its relevance to the global history and development of the motorised bicycle - something you have consistently failed to do. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Missing the point again." (humm... just that comment seems to lead into your POV that this motorized bicycle is insignificant.) I have neither stated if this CCM bicycle is significant or insignificant. All in all, if what you are saying is true, (that of which you alleged I have POV, I believe you are fighting a useless battle. This is because again I haven't stated the significance or insignificance... it simply is a motorized bicycle, just like African pussy willow is simply a flower (I think, or a bush or something). (asside: It would be somewhat difficult to find non-original research that seems to support most historic significances of our wiki category that "we invented"... and for some reason called "motorized bicycle." A gallery, is worth a million words and doesn't need to elaborate into the historic significance (that of which can be elaborated within it proper article... such as the CCM (bicycle manufacturer)) Now, according to WP:DP#What to do with a problem page/image/category(in "Article is biased or has lots of POV") this the proper step to take if you believe their is a NPOV issue is to to add {{npov}} or {{POV check}} to the article. Again, this does not require a delete. Having this page nominated for deletion, I believe, is a waste of wiki deletion process. Which I believe is somewhere on wiki guidelines.
Now after reading through, the WP:DP (Problems that don't require deletion) I noticed this article could use: {{disputed}}, {{stub}}, arguably (left-wingedly) it could be {{mergeto|article}} and possibly "Annoying user". Under the problems that require deletion I could not find anything.
So let's talk about WP:NPOV even though this should be elsewhere then on this delete page. So, I believe WP:POINT. You apparently have a dispute with the content and with "me", and we have dispute resolution mechanisms for that. This isn't one of them. Finally, WP:NPOV "(Neutral Point Of View) is an official Wikipedia policy which states that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views fairly and without bias." So after perusing quickly through the WP:NPOV#What is the neutral point of view? I figured that the issue might be that we are accerting, through inferance from the title, that these are pictures of motorized bicycles... yet according to Wikipedia's policy we are supposed to be "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." (For those of you joining in on the conversation, the reason there is conflicting views is because of the entire subject itself. Already we have had much discussion on what the big difference is between a motorized bicycle and a moped... take a look at those two article and tell me if you can see a difference?) According to WP:NPOV#Making necessary assumptions it is necessary to make some assumption and present some idea for the "enemy". Anyway... the question to ask according to WP:NPOV#How can I tell if my article has a POV? is, "Does the article fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each?" Humm... I was going to type "and finallly"... Another issue you should look at is WP:NPOV#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. It is my opinion, seeing as you nominated this article for deletion under a spell of rage (afformentioned vulgur language or user:Woohookitty ability to openly state he doesn't like me), that you have done so as a type of punishement or lesson. This goes against WP:NPOV#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete.
Finally as for the guidelines from POV forks, this is a gallery of pictures that have an article themself. It is there for easy access so people can say "oh! look this is a motorized bicycle! wow!" and not have to be an expert like you or many others that have commented or edited this article and look around for velosolex or CCM (bicycle manufacturer). And who knows maybe some other expert will come along and add a picture and we will say... "oh my God! We missed that one! That's true it's a motorized bicycle" (ie.: http://www.revopower.com/main.html ) (You know after putting that example done, maybe it's time to start an article for "hub motor" and put that information in there for this example... and at the same time I could start an article on the company!! Would that be a POV fork?) --CylePat 15:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to do something that's a bit shocking and that is to vote against the grain of some people I consider excellent editors and judges of policy. As of right now, there are seven images in the gallery (including the incredibly-disputed CCM model) and as someone who has absolutely no knowledge of motorized bicycles, it looks perfectly fine. I don't think it matters what the intentions were in creating the article. As it stands now, it's in an acceptable form, and unless someone can explain to me what policy(ies) the article violates WITHOUT taking into consideration any of its background, I say keep. howcheng {chat} 22:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't hold it against you :-) What frustrates me most of all is that Pat will happily devote masses of energy into saving articles he's forked for his pet bike (see also timeline of motorized bicycle history) while ignoring a load of redlinks on which he could easily write good articles from his known expertise. He does some really good work sometimes, but boy is he single-minded! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:55, 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 re-tag as Speedy Delete.  J\/\/estbrook       18:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phileas[edit]

Wikispam 9cds 17:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agreed  J\/\/estbrook       17:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I changed the tag to speedy delete as this artcile is not supposed to be deleted using this process as it clearly qualifies asa speedy delete candidate.Gator (talk) 17:43, 20 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 02:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tristeza[edit]

hard work has been done in several edits since Oct., but is nn Gator (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Band has healthy allmusic listing, music buyable at amazon.com MNewnham 17:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep band is on allmusic and amazon, although no indication of widespread sales; they are, however, stated to tour a lot, which for me clinches the deal. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per MNewnham Jcuk 23:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep band has cult popularity, significance in recent indie-rock history. KASchmidt 16:58, 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} 22:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Payjr[edit]

Advertisment for NN software MNewnham 17:31, 20 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 02:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Canada- Strange Sights, Extraordinary Events, and Peculiar Places[edit]

Non-notable book. Amazon.com sales rank near the bottom of the heap.[42] The stub is nothing more than a poorly spelled book report. Durova 17:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.Gateman1997 18:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. Notable book (at least here in Canada) by a very notable author. Have you tried the sales ratings for Amazon.ca? It was also published in 1989 so most of its sales pre-dated the Internet. In any event, I'm surprised John Robert Colombo doesn't have an article yet. He's up there with Pierre Berton. And do a Google search -- this book is referenced all over the place. Additional: book is not listed at Amazon.ca suggesting it is out of print. A book being out of print should not have a bearing on whether it deserves an article or not. 23skidoo 22:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate the cleanup. If you add some citaton of cultural relevance I'll withdraw the nomination. Regards, Durova 05:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I leave for 2 weeks vacation in about 10 minutes. Someone else will have to do this. I do not, however, believe that this is necessary. What defines "cultural relevance"? Should one just put a link to the Google search page? This ain't Gone with the Wind we're talking about here. 23skidoo 12:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 23skidoo. Obviously. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd change that hyphen to a colon, but John Robert Colombo is a notable writer. Consider him stubbed. Oh, and while I wouldn't deem this particular title to be his most notable work, I think Wikipedia is generally of the view that any title by a notable writer can have an article, so keep. Bearcat 18:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's a book, the ISBN is cited. I don't see a problem here...a book doesn't have to sell millions to be relevant.--Hraefen 18:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per above comments. --GrantNeufeld 00:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, published book by notable author. Kappa 23:30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Scooters Incorporated[edit]

Purely advertising. Wish we could speedy stuff like this. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete spam, per nom. - and I think it possibly could be speedied as a contact attempt. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; Not a speedy. -- JJay 18:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the faster the better. B.Wind 18:49, 20 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 02:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twentieth Century Enders[edit]

The article describes a social grouping who were intending to have a party on New Year's Eve, 1999-2000. The social grouping broke up in 1996 when it had 140 members, according to the article itself. The group did nothing, nothing resulted, there is no news coverage nor permanent record. Delete as unverifiable and not notable. Sliggy 17:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bizarre - not vanity at least, since it ended in 1996. But this article title could be rewritten to refer to the predominance of groups like this. In Sydney there were hundreds of such groups (by various names) and some of them had over 100 members. Actually, for such a group, 140 was pretty huge. But I think it'd be better to have an article to refer to the phenomenon, not just to 1 of the probably millions of groups around the world. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. And profoundly odd. A group which was intended to celebrate the Millennium but failed? Er, right. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as hoax. Did nothing, nothing happened and no coverage. A moose bit my sister once.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 20:24, 20 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 02:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roberth Edberg[edit]

I originally marked this with a WP:CSD A7 speedy delete, as I couldn't see a claim to notability. An objection has been raised, so I have moved this to AfD. The objection was noting that the subject of the article is involved in Twentieth Century Enders, which I have separately nominated for deletion. Aside from this, there is no evidence of notability/significance, just a lot of grandiose claims (for example he is a "modern day prophet"), and links to personal homepages. Delete as vanity. Sliggy 17:53, 20 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 02:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Les Preffer[edit]

Recently formed band that haven't released an album yet. Non notable. Francs2000 17:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Article written by user of the same name; other than a link on the Les Preffer talk page, this is an orphan article. B.Wind 18:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 00:54, 21 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 Robert Adams (disambiguation). howcheng {chat} 22:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Adams[edit]

I see no problem with a disambig-page that has a few red links. I do consider, however, an article that has nothing but red links very unlikely to be useful, therefore; here's my suggestion to delete it. SoothingR(pour) 17:59, 20 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 02:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Langfjord Trio[edit]

Delete: The article says it all: local band, only released a demo, recorded in 2001. If the band still exist no-one knows Lars T. 17:56, 20 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 02:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Langfjord[edit]

Delete: Duplicate of Langfjord Trio - also see that AfD Lars T. 17:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 21:21, 20 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 02:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What Good This Deafness[edit]

extrac of a novel? not encyclopedic Melaen 18:05, 20 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. --Angr (t·c) 18:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feature Model[edit]

Notability not established. Possibly just vanity. Gaius Cornelius 18:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Light Delete. Unless the article can be expanded to show notability (which it currently gives no trace of). --GrantNeufeld 06:29, 21 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 all with IMG Soccer Academy. --Angr (t·c) 18:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bradenton Soccer Academy Spring 1999 Class[edit]

Bradenton Soccer Academy Spring 2000 Class[edit]

Bradenton Soccer Academy Fall 2001 Class[edit]

Bradenton Soccer Academy Spring 2003 Class[edit]

Bradenton Soccer Academy Fall 2004 Class[edit]

Not notable. Should be replaced with categories, if anything. —Keenan Pepper 18:06, 20 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 02:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet and Innocent[edit]

album not listed in the official Diamond Head website, see talk Melaen 18:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Of course it is. Scroll to middle of page [43]. -- JJay 20:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay ComputerJoe 21:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Quarl 12:09, 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 redirect to Jimboroni. howcheng {chat} 22:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hysell[edit]

Does not seem to be a notable person. Deb 18:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Agreed, my mistake. Merged back with Jimboroni. Brian Hysell 18:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note and question. I Wikilinked this to the article in question. Does the discussion end with the redirect, or should we discuss the merits of hanging onto Jimboroni? B.Wind 19:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should nominate "Jimboroni" separately. Deb 20:19, 20 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 FireFox (nn-bio). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harlan Annsworth Powers[edit]

Unencyclopedic Ian Pitchford 18:36, 20 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 02:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical revisionism (Japan)[edit]

This stub adds nothing meaningful to a subject already discussed in depth as Japanese history textbook controversies and Japanese war crimes. Furthermore, historical revisionism probably should be avoided in subject titles because the term has different technical and popular meanings. See Historical revisionism and Historical revisionism (political). Academic historical revision does not necessarily serve a political agenda. For example, Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem is not an attempt at apologetics but a fresh interpretation asserting that some Nazi leaders were banal careerists rather than virulent racists. A title that lumps legitimate scholarly research under the same heading as apologetics is unworkable. The title is inappropriate and the content is redundant. Durova 18:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It can be managed to be merged with articles mentioned above, but there is no need to delete it before the mergence is completed. Qrfqr 22:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


There's no content worthy of merging. Every legitimate statement is already expressed in the main articles. The rest is just the author's confusion over the meaning of historical revisionism. Durova 20:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not the place to bring merge requests. Charles Matthews 20:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you mistake a response for the nomination? This is not a merge request. Durova 21:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Durova. --Quasipalm 21:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No content worth keeping that we don't already have, and the title isn't useful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:23, 21 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 02:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Turtle[edit]

advertising Melaen 18:43, 20 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} 22:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kettering university clubs[edit]

not even remotely notable. Delete MisterHand 18:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. The list was spun off from Kettering University because of length. If that is objectionable, should be merged back. -- JJay 21:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We keep schools and colleges... but not school clubs. Also violates WP:NOTGateman1997 21:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We keep lists of American Zip Codes, need any more be said!? Jcuk 23:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This can be added on the bottom of the main article and in no way detract from it. That article is not so long that it needs subarticles. The morgawr 01:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've merged this list into the main article in a way that does not disrupt the flow of the text, which is why it was made a sub-article in the first place. The morgawr 03:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory of university clubs. --Last Malthusian 11:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are only a few notable clubs (at best) at any school we don't need a list of every club at a school. --Pboyd04 03:23, 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 02:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jyväskylä prophecy[edit]

probable nonsense, otherwise non notable Melaen 18:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Complete Bollocks! Jcuk 23:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as unverifiable. CDThieme 00:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 01:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google says nothing. The single "source" is useless (Google doesn't know about it, either). Delete per CDThieme. --Zetawoof 09:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Quarl 12:03, 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 to delete. --Angr (t·c) 18:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The RipOffs[edit]

NN UK Band, fails WP:MUSIC Note that this is not the 90's punk band The Rip-Offs listed at allmusic MNewnham 18:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifies?[edit]

Band qualifies under point: "Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network" - Beat 106 is national radio station in the country of Scotland - the band featured heavily as part of the alternative music show, with dedicated time-slots and website reviews. The band have also been featured by BBC Radio (Nan Gaidhal) and Cullin FM - North of Scotland radio. Boorishbehaviour 21:38, 20 December 2005 (GMT)

    • OK you're close to qualification - From WP:MUSIC 'Also, please keep in mind that the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true.' I can find no google references associating the band with either the BBC, Beat 106 or Cullin. Point me in the right direction and I'll withdraw the nomination MNewnham 22:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


No problem. Allow me to find.

http://www.beatscene.co.uk/beatbreakersR.htm << is the homepage of the beatscene - find the RipOffs further down.

Boorishbehaviour 22:22, 20 December 2005 (GMT)

    • I'm not sure that one 10 month old article counts, but in view of my newbie status on wikipedia, I'll go with a very weak keep and defer to others on the list MNewnham 15:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Well there's not much else that can be used to prove for Beat 106 - radio stations don't keep public logs of such. The article proves that the band featured in the Beatbreakers show - which is a week-long feature, with regular airplay - easily confirmed on the main site. As for the BBC etc - if need be, I'll provide the email address of the DJ at BBC Radio who we are in contact with to verify this situation, as well as email from Jim Gellatly of Beat 106. I suggest removing the earmarked for deletion tab till it is brought up by someone else.Boorishbehaviour 17:07, 20 December 2005 (GMT)
  • I'm curious... this article has been earmarked for deletion again, but no comment has been left as to why. Any particular reason?

I re-added the tag because the AfD nomination was never closed off properly in the first place. IMO, the qualification for WP:MUSIC is weak, and since WP:MUSIC is a guideline and not policy, I'd vote delete. I don't feel The RipOffs are notable enough for their own entry yet. If they gain greater success in the future, the article should be re-created, but in the meantime Delete CLW 10:41, 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. --Angr (t·c) 18:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kettering university fraternities[edit]

Notable? NO! Delete --MisterHand 18:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved by Flintoid2005 from the main Kettering University to a separate sub-article. The information is useful, but I'm inclinded to say that the main article is where this information should go. Delete. The morgawr 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep its no more harmful than a load of articles on Motorways in the United Kingdom, and just as notable! Jcuk 23:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's even worse than your zip codes argument. There are hundreds of zip codes, all completely identical, which you can't say about motorways. And why am I even comparing motorways to zip codes? Unlike either of those, this is of no interest to anyone who isn't at the university of Kettering. --Last Malthusian 11:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I've merged this in with the main article in a way that does not disrupt the flow of the article. The morgawr 03:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory of university fraternities. Ketteringkruft. --Last Malthusian 11:34, 21 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. FireFox 21:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Knightmare[edit]

non-notable gaming club. a group of boys who play quake. Zzzzz 19:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 19:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You can call me Al 19:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What a great idea it was to create a category for these pages to clump in... (ESkog)(Talk) 22:47, 20 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 02:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bauman[edit]

Delete per Wikipedia:Autobiography -- Eagleamn 19:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. Major scholar with numerous books at Amazon. [44]. -- JJay 21:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the autobiography policy page: "If you or your achievements are verifiable and notable; and are thus are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will create an article about you sooner or later." The reason for listing the article for deletion is not non-notability, it's the fact that it's an autobiography. - Eagleamn 21:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any problem can be cleaned up. Like you, I am also well aware of the official policy guidelines here. -- JJay 21:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, my comment was intended for next voters. - Eagleamn 21:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable theologian with numbers of books to his credit. Capitalistroadster 22:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, articles are not deleted just because they begin as autobiographies. See Cyrus Farivar Kappa 23:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Being an autobiography is not a criterion for deletion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficiently notable given his publication history. --GrantNeufeld 06:34, 21 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 02:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erickson Marketing Studio[edit]

Fails WP:CORP written by User:EricksonStudio MNewnham 19:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. They should find a more creative way to market themselves. Edgar181 21:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 01:01, 21 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 to delete. --Angr (t·c) 18:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rowell Fair Society Band[edit]

amateur musicians: NN Melaen 19:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Apparantly just a jam session with a name MNewnham 19:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - doesn't come close to WP:MUSIC criteria. -Satori (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and expand. Local phenomenon with major press coverage such as the BBC [45]. -- JJay 20:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Local editions of the BBC are for material with local interest only. This band appears nowhere in the BBC national site. In addition, google has zero entries related to national press coverage. If there are other sources, please indicate. MNewnham
  • I have nothing against local interest particularly when the BBC mentions it. Nice picture too, would be cool if we could get permission for use from the BBC. If you are so opposed to this, why not merge with Rothwell, Northamptonshire? -- JJay 20:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, gets media attention, making it verifiable and showing it has an audience. Kappa 23:10, 20 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. Mindmatrix 15:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Labchuk[edit]

  • Delete. Non-notable candidate in election. --GrantNeufeld 19:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merely being a candidate does not satisfy WP:BIO, unless other information can be added to the article to show that she is notable for other reasons. I just don't buy the argument that any credible candidate merits an article. Skeezix1000 19:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wikipedia users deserve to be able to read about any credible candidate. Kappa 23:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current consensus on unelected candidates permits a merged page for "X Party's candidates in Y election". This does create its own set of problems, but unless you're prepared to take on the job of proposing an alternate policy, established consensus stands as the final word whether you like it or not. Merge to Green Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. Bearcat 23:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is this consensus defined. I've read the ongoing debate but my take from reading it, was that consensus had not been reached. It looked to me like the debate died before consensus was reached, and a vote is still pending. Is there another discussion that I've missed? Nfitz 00:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm a little concerned. This article was written 10 months ago, summarizing her results in the previous general election. I'm not sure why there is a move to delete the article, just after the new election is called. Why was this not done months ago? She had a decent result in the last election, and is running again. The election aside, she is notable. She's referenced no less than 31 times at the CBC's website with many quotes! Nfitz 00:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. In my round-up of candidate articles today, I was trying to avoid articles that had been around prior to the current election. I must have forgotten to check the history when looking at this one. In any case, there's no information in this article that's not already in the Results of the Canadian federal election, 2004: Quebec and Atlantic Canada article. There remains nothing to indicate notability beyond having run in an election (which I have seen cited in numerous other places as insufficient to merit inclusion in Wikipedia). --GrantNeufeld 04:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the main runner-up in a person against person election. Consider merging with the list of Green Party candidates if the article cannot be expanded further. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 21 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, with mass-messaging for votes taken into consideration (well, I got it myself). - Mailer Diablo 02:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote count : 47 delete, 12 keep (approx. 80%) - Mailer Diablo 02:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmgrenadier[edit]

gaming clubs inherently non-notable. Zzzzz 19:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC) furthermore, it is established that the article is a vanity page, written by club members. this non-professional school club has also apparently never won anything, and is organizing a campaign to "save" their page. Zzzzz 18:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a school club. Not made up of schoolchildren. Written about in USA Today. Worldwide organization that is 5 years old, notable within it's gaming communities (Planetside, World War II Online, Star Wars Galaxies, and Eve Online among others), contains hundreds of members. The folks I have directed to the page are not members of Sturmgrenadier and were not asked to come "save" the page, but to review and comment, even if they thought deletion the most prudent course. Your mischaracterizations, unsigned comments, and apparent vitriol are beginning to frustrate me. --Habap 20:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 19:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article was previously nominated for deletion. Result was no consensus. See: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sturmgrenadier. You can call me Al 19:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - per coverage in USA Today - but clean up the stupid unencyclopedic "elitist" bickering - here's a hint, nobody cares about stupid Gaming Clan Drama (tm) on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 21:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Preost talk contribs 21:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Flyboy Will 22:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons listed here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sturmgrenadier. --Habap 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment a self-vote by a member of the club. wikiguideline policy: "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly". Zzzzz 18:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: this revised ad hominem attack was originally posted unsigned by Zzzzz at 0800 on the 21st. He chose to edit my note that it was unsigned and that it was an ad hominem attack. I think editing others comments in an AfD might violate Wikipedia policy. If we're going to revise our comments to quote policy, we might want to make sure we follow all of the policies. --Habap 21:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Forgot. My apologies for not posting that I am a member right away. I was unaware of the policy and figured all I needed to do was reference the original VfD. --Habap 21:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with significant cleanup per FCYTravis. I think a lot of the article as it exists now consists weasel words and uncited, unencyclopedic material. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Sturmgrenadier. Cant we have a policy that says you can only have one deletion vote on an article!? Jcuk 23:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see who's voting twice, unless you mean Zzzzz there at the top. I don't think s/he meant that as two delete votes. People nominate in different ways and I trust the closing admin can interpret the consensus accordingly. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jcuk's comment is in reference to the prior VfD, noted above. --Habap 13:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this was VFD'ed once. We can remove the part FCYTravis and see if anyone else objects to that, since that was put up there because of a dispute. ChronoSphere 00:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment a self-vote by a member of the club. wikiguideline policy: "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly". Zzzzz 18:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • See the note about the ad hominem attack listed above.
      • Comment Member or not, I've been on Wikipedia for a while even if I don't have a massive list of edits - I do actively edit other articles, and I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "self-vote" since everyone votes for their own opinions anyway. In any case, my vote counts as much as the next guy. ChronoSphere 18:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if there's anything left after cleaning out all the drama and unencyclopedic nonsense. You can call me Al 13:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is not a deletion criterion, and even if it were, nothing could ever be "inherently" non-notable. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be silly, notability has been a deletion criterion for ages. Judge articles on their merit please. Speaking of which, the size and age of this clan sound notable to me, so keep. Radiant_>|< 17:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not some small, fly-by-night kiddie clan, but a LARGE, long-lasting and widespread organization. Which makes it a notable part of online gaming history and thus worthy of retaining.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment so why has nobody ever heard of it? did this club ever win anything significant, like Ninjas in Pyjamas? if not, its non-notable, as there are thousands of other gaming clubs that have won more than this one. and 800 people is large? messageboards need 10000 members to be considered at least notable.
      • I've heard of them, not only that I've played with/against them. Ninjas in Pyjamas I've never heard of though. So if your criterion applies fairly, then we should vote to delete that article as well. Obviously SOMEONE has heard of them, and for those who have not, well that's why we have articles in the first place, is'nt it ;>. And why, when in doubt I believe it is usually better to err on the side of KEEP. BTW, you should learn to SIGN your comments, that way they will carry a bit more weight, even if your arguements may carry none:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean no one has. (Don't forget the USA Today article.) Sturmgrenadier participates generally in games that are MMORPGs or otherwise persistent worlds. There are no tournaments to win. It is also not a message board, as it fields organized units in the games in which it plays. The public portion of the forums is not a significant part of the unit and it makes no claims to being a "gaming community", a gaming news site or a professional "clan". --Habap 17:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • so it hasnt won anything. its not professional. its a bunch of schoolboys playing videogames. despite the article calling it a "an online gaming syndicate" and "gaming clan", its not, in fact, a community or clan. all good reasons why its not notable.
          • I'm no great fan of gaming clans of any stripe having articles, but that's a misrepresenation. (I have my own clan, thank-you-very-much, and am about 20 years removed from being a 'schoolboy'.) You can call me Al 19:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment an organised campaign to keep the page is being organised by User:Habap. he has so far contacted the following users (presumably all club members) on their talk pages so maybe any votes from these names should be noted:

User talk:Average Earthman User talk:DragonflySixtyseven User talk:Ryan Delaney User talk:Yuckfoo User talk:Mel Etitis User:AllyUnion/AFD List User talk:Radiant! User talk:Simoncursitor User talk:SpuriousQ User talk:Dan Granahan User talk:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) User talk:Andersoft User talk:FlooK User talk:Kappa User talk:Splash User:Destinova1 User talk:Plutonick User:ELiToX

  • i understand its sad when your precious club is deemed irrelevant by the outside world but please note its nothing personal & there is no objection to hosting your club's website on the user space instead.
    • You are correct, I did contact them. Destinova is the only one who is part of Sturmgrenadier. He, Chronosphere and I are from Sturmgrenadier. The rest are folks who have written gaming articles, voted on VfDs or otherwise shown an interest in this kind of article. I don't think any of them (except Mel, who was the admin handling first VfD) have ever edited this article and I am certain some of them had never read it before this. While I did ask all of them to comment, I did admonish them to think about what was best for Wikipedia. I assume shining a light on this article will either improve it, or send it the way of the dodo (sp?). You are more than welcome to contact others and shine a bigger light on this article.
      • P.S. I think this represents a second set of ad hominem attacks on people commenting on the AfD. --Habap 17:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think its perfectly acceptable to contact others who've one has made acquaintance with while working in this Wiki to take a look at a VfD and render their own opinion. The names Habap stated are the only ones I see on that list being SG, the rest being unassociated editors of Wikipedia. ChronoSphere 18:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • For the record, I have no affiliation with User:Habap, and am not certain why he left me a message about this particular AfD - perhaps because I (like many others on that list) am an administrator. I am explicitly not going to vote on this AfD, not just because of the possibility of appearance of collusion, but also because I simply don't have time today to give the article-and-deletion-debate the attention they deserve. DS 18:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Don't be absurd, I'm not a member and haven't even heard of this club. Assume good faith on other people's votes. Most of those people you mention are longstanding Wikipedians frequently active on AFD. Radiant_>|< 22:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a member of that club, and I believe that I was only contacted as I had voted on a games-related subject before (which I was able to find verifiable evidence of notability for). Don't leap to conclusions. Average Earthman 12:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor am I a SG member. I have my own gaming, mafia family-House Of Painful Enlightenment, thank you. But I have played Day Of Defeat with SG on their servers many moons ago. I found them to be a very together crew who ran a good, fun shop. I'm not easily impressed by online gaming groups in general, but they made a good impression on me. Habap merely asked me to come take a look and give my opinion. So I did. He did not ask me, nor any of us, to vote to keep. This article has already passed through the VFD gauntlet, putting it though again is a waste of time, space and bandwidth! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Zzzz has taken me up on the suggestion to invite more users to comment, though his note his note implied I was hiding my membership in the group (evidenced in this discussion long before he sent the note, in the extensive discussions on the articles Talk page, in the prior VfD and on my own user page) --Habap 21:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No vote -- appearing here to comment that I am not, nor ever have been, a member of this or any other gaming clan. However, it appears clear to me that, once againb, the cabal are out in force and that (to borrow a word) "voting" on this will be singualrly useless, as any vote which doesn't suit the cabal line will be "pointed out" to the closing admin as a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, pseudonym or, as in this instance, "someone who has a vague interest in the subject, as opposed to the utterly altruistic people voting to kill off articles just because they don't fit Certain Criteria". Note to admins: I do not consider this a personal attack, for two reasons: 1) it is legitimate comment directed towards a class of people who use AfD as stalking ground for an exclusionist agenda; 2) it is a criticism based on what people do, not on who they are. Thank you and Merry Christmas --Simon Cursitor 13:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this page and any like it; WP:NOT a place to promote your gaming club. Paul 20:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 21:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Darkoneko 21:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: treat this just like any non-virtual club. --Robert Merkel 21:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. BYT 21:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 21:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Osmodiar 21:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Wikiacc (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because of the coverage in USA:TODAY and I showed up to vote because of this. Kappa 21:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. One alleged story in USA Today does not an encyclopedic topic make. This is just another example of Wikipedia's overly-enthusiastic coverage of not-very-verifiable internet junk. Friday (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Can we get a link to the USA Today story? That's probably sufficient for notability. Otherwise this looks like an NN/delete to me. And FWIW, I despise campaigns on AfDs for any side or any reason. That virtually ensures there will be votes made on emotion rather than the merits of the case. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
USA Today article, though since it was written in 2003, they charge to access it and it would probably violate their rights if I posted a digital image or the exact text. --Habap 22:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed re rights. How about the section of the article that mentions Sturmgrenadier? Is it a mention or a paragraph or something more? It may sound trivial, but it can help establish notability. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the article (someone sent it to me). It mentions Sturmgrenadier in passing. Not nearly as impressive as I thought.
Four years ago, Taylor and two friends started Sturmgrenadier (www.sghq.com), a group that plays cooperatively within online worlds. Now up to 800 members, the group has gotten together for mini-conventions in Las Vegas and Orlando. Some, Taylor included, are helping test Star Wars Galaxies. "We treat online games as our everyday hobby. You get entertainment, a sense of accomplishment and pride."
I still think it's a notable group, but wouldn't bank on that mention in the article so much.... --Habap 22:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Self-described? Huh? Zzzz says it's a vanity page, not us. --Habap 22:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your failure to recognize inanity makes this article no less meaningless. Soltak | Talk 00:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable.— Dunc|☺ 22:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Firstly, I will note that I don't think it's a good idea to do AfD campaigning from either side of the argument; it really does affect your ability to think in an unbiased fashion. This is a borderline case; it is relatively large and well-established, and it claims to be verifiable. However, I'm not convinced either that clans are suitable topics in an encyclopedia. enochlau (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously a feel-good page for enthusiasts. They already have a Web site; if they want to promote, they can do it there. J M Rice 22:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Have they done anything but game? Have they engaged in any charities like Child's Play? Have they won any tournaments- or anything at all? --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. i'm part of a national lottery syndicate with thousands of members. its been going since the 1990s and we've never won a major (100GBP+) prize. do we get a wikipedia entry? Niz 23:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone's been overdosing on the Christmas crackers; we're into Holiday Folly season. To be serious, though, for a minute: there are several reasons why this article does not belong in Wikipedia. Some are on stylistic grounds. Some are on promotional grounds. Some are on significance grounds. I'll try to go through all of them without breaking into my usual sine. First of all, the claim that they had this big article in USA to-day seemed dubious to me, so I checked it out. A case of googlum ad nauseum, the only references of its having been mentioned are in the same claim, repeated so many times with slight variants: 'do you want to be a part of a group that was recognised in USA To-day?'
By reading above, I found that the 'article' was a mere stub, if you will. It's given as an example. That does not reflect on the site's quality. Nor on the site's cultural impact. It just means that they used Sturmgrenadier as an example of a gaming syndicate. Like they might use Mr. Boer as an example of a farmer, or The Blue Café on Elwright Street as an example of a business. It does not classify Sturmgrenadier as remarkable. A proper article might.
Secondly, this Wikipedia article is highly one-sided and self-promotional. There is no counter-view. It is written with bright rose-coloured glasses, as you would expect. It is not encyclopædic to rhapsody about people coming to-gether on the internet. Promoting games syndicates should not be encylopædia activity. Wikipedia should be here to inform about the general consciousness, and about contributions to thought; a bunch of gamers on a site is not exactly general consciousness, nor is it a contribution to thought. Information on 'clans' on Wikipedia has been wiped out before. Although Wikipedia does not operate on a binding precedent basis, there is clear foreagreement that Wikipedia is not a promotions hall for sites such as these. The only reason that this has survived, compared to the other articles, is the slyer way in which this was written, and the fact that a whole support group, enlisted by one of the key writers of this article, props it up. I have to say that such campaigns debase the whole system of Wikipedia as a consensual zone. Anyhow, to return: there is not much original invention at all. It's all about playing games that they never even made in the first place. It provides no new knowledge; riding on the coat-tails of someone else's work is no original contribution to the world as we know it. I have nothing against people meeting up, and talking about games. That's cool by me. But you're having a vitsln if you think it merits a page. iinag 23:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well-written note, though I might make petty quibbles with some points. Something like this is far more useful than a simple Delete with no comment, as it explains why and helps form the basis of future policy.
Dead-on in regards to the USA Today article. I'd never seen it and assumed that it was an article about the group instead of (as shown above) just a mention of it (like Mr Boer the farmer). --Habap 14:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm part of SG but also an active wikipedia member. This has been attacked and VFD'd before and the vote closed. I agree there should be some sort of rule against fascetious, repeated, petty VFD's. Destinova1 00:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: With all due respect, out of the few edits to Wikipedia that you have made, there's only one-- an anti-monarchist merge request about the Queen-- that has not been about Sturmgrenadier. To say that your vote is that objective is pushing it, since you would hardly vote against something that you helped to create. Also, although I'd say that this cliquery to get past the system and save your self-promotion is rather petty, I can't see why a bunch of Wikipedians from a wide strand of backgrounds coming here to oppose nn self-promotion is 'fascetious [sic]'. If anything, it is business. iinag 00:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedians, with a 'wide strand of backgrounds' were also involved in the previous VfD which ended in a non-consensus. The original VfD was started by a disgruntled former member with a vendetta. Yes, very petty. I agree with another wikipedian above that nobody cares about Gaming Clan Drama (tm), so that should be looked past. The fact remains that these are ad hominem attacks, driven by facetious motives and jealousy. The neutrality of these votes should be considered as much as my own, as a member. Destinova1 21:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nom. Swamp Ig 00:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, let me respond to Destinova1 and others: the prior VFD (the mere fact that it was a VFD and not AFD lets you know it was at least a few months ago) was closed as a "no consensus", which means it didn't have a conclusion, let alone a forever binding one. And even if the consensus had been to keep, that would not be an eternal "get out of jail free" card against future deletion nominations any more than a deletion closure would forbid people from ever recreating the article (in a form that was not substantially identical). As such, the prior VFD's outcome doesn't mean diddly squat - or at least, you shouldn't let it. Anyway, as for the article/topic itself, props to iinag for the eloquence. Also, let me point out that in addition to a meaningless reference-in-passing in a USA Today article, it has currently "no ranking" at Alexa for sghq.com, and in the prior VFD, both Alexa rankings cited were lower than the ranking at which Alexa itself tells you the rankings are based on so few hits that actually trying to compare rankings is just guesswork. Finally, 800 may be large for an online gaming "clan", but 800 is hardly a large number as far as the total online gaming population... especially if it's spread among "several countries all over the globe". The Literate Engineer 00:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The USA Today entry didn't support the case for notability, unfortunately. I'm not thrilled with the possibility of a bad faith AfD, but in the absence of evidence I have to assume good faith. Leaving that and the campaigning aside, I see a run of the mill gaming site/group that doesn't have anything to distinguish itself from other such groups. It's not a reflection on the site or the people in it, but I think a site has to at or near the top of its genre to merit a Wikipedia article. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable --Jaranda wat's sup 00:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that I need even to vote is utterly disappointing. Whether it's a club you belong to or not, this sort of vanity garbage doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I certainly wouldn't be voting to keep my Grandma's bridge club, and I'm certainly not voting to keep this. Soltak | Talk 00:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Delete The article in my view needs more information to show readers why this particular gaming clan is notable. The article says "These events were reported in an article in USA Today on June 23, 2003." It would really help if the External Links section linked to that actual article, or if that sentence had a link TO the USA Today article, just linking to USA Today's article here doesn't establish notability. (assuming the article doesn't just mention the clan without saying much else... heck, I've been on local TV morning news shows several times and that doesn't make me, or the club I was promoting, especially notable, I don't think) Further the tempers seem to be running a bit high here on both sides... calling people schoolboys won't win votes, nor will lashing out at others presenting reasoning against (or for) retention... IMHO, remaining civil will convince some people on the fence (rightly or wrongly) to come down on one side or another, I suspect. ++Lar 01:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable Thesquire 02:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim to notability. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clubs generally aren't notable. One article in USA Today, especially without an external link, doesn't make this club any exception, and neither does all of the incivility that has been going on in this AfD. --Idont Havaname 03:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frag. This doesn't meet WP:WEB with ~800 members, and even very large clans are generally non-notable, unless they are particularly newsworthy or influential outside of the rarefied air of the games in which they exist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is non-notable and unencyclopedic. There is nothing remarkable to separate this gaming clan from any other, USAToday mention notwithstanding. Zunaid 07:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gaming clans need to be several orders of magnitude greater to qualify. JFW | T@lk 08:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1. not notable, 2. there is no german word "Sturmgrenadier", its just a made stupid word with no sense in it. There ist a de:Grenadier, but there is no "Sturmgrenadier". We watched too much de:Guido Knopp, didn´t we?!? Dickbauch 10:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all of the deletion arguments foregoing. Gaming clans are inherently non-notable, and need something else to raise them to notability. A three-line mention in an article about gaming in general does not notability make. Wake me up when USA Today writes an article focusing exclusively on this gaming clan, and then maybe we'll have a decent argument for notability. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 10:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all gaming clans please. AN 11:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; in fact, speedy delete under CSD A7 as an article about a club that does not assert its significance or importance. A mention in a newspaper article is far from enough. Postdlf 14:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My summary Comment: On the one hand, I'm disappointed that the article is considered unworthy. On the other hand, it's good to see that normal users who know nothing about it (the original VfD was due to "Gaming Club Drama" TM as noted early on in this process) sat down, read the article, checked Google, looked for information and considered whether it was worthy. That (removing my sometimes emotional nonsense) gives me faith in Wikipedia. I think the balance is that notability is not established. If at some time down the road, verifiable notability can be established, someone will probably write a new article. I'm just glad that I decided against posting any responses last night and slept on it. --Habap 14:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per idonthaveaname, though I don't like how I was made aware of this. There's a lot of passionate discussion here that should be taking place in the talk space for this article and not cluttering up the project page with all of this juvenile infighting. Zzzzz was in error by campaigning for votes on this article, but the end result is that many people took a hard look at this entry and found that it wasn't as notable as some thought. Ahimè.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 19:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Gaming clans are not notable. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please maybe not all clubs are notable but this is Yuckfoo 21:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clan-cruft. - FrancisTyers 21:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Slac speak up! 21:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. WP:POINT. Harro5 00:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It I completely understand what the game is all about, and it seems to be well-written. Just leave it and move on. Perhaps some of you should join an online game rather than spending your free time trying to have articles deleted from Wikipedia. It would certainly do you alot more good. Mahalia56 04:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Scott eiπ 07:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gamer guild vanity. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:19, Dec. 23, 2005
  • Delete - There is no need for the existence of caming clans in the wikipedia. --Herrick 13:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a personal web page. Endomion 13:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --NaconKantari 23:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Quarl 11:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. --Kilo-Lima 14:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hehe, where's Mel Ettis now? Delete, I've strongly campaigned for the deletion of this article for months now, but I backed off because Ettis was defending this article with a strong bias. Nice to see it got revived. All I can say is just because it's in USA Today does not mean it's notable. Also, due to the fact you have to pay to be in this group, this can be considered a Commercial Advertisement. --Tykell 21:07, 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 02:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Primal instinct[edit]

NN Antwerp band with one self-published album fails WP:MUSIC. Note that this is not the same Primal Instinct as the one on allmusic MNewnham 19:28, 20 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Four Kings[edit]

non-notable gaming clan Zzzzz 19:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 19:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Preost talk contribs 21:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 01:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and note that this is also the name of an upcoming tv show --Ajdz 03:48, 21 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. --Celestianpower háblame 16:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Team Cloud Nine[edit]

non-notable gaming clan Zzzzz 19:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 19:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. You can call me Al 19:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified that this team actually participates in top-level professional gaming competitions such as the World Cyber Games or the Cyberathlete Professional League. FCYTravis 20:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verification requested can be found here
    • Do you have a link to the results of that tournament? Not saying I don't believe you, but just a team list is not quite what I'm looking for... at which event did the team participate in? That can all be added to the article to expand it :) FCYTravis 09:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • does simply participation make it notable? surely it has to win something? Zzzzz 09:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Kansas City Royals haven't won anything in decades, but they're notable for participation in the MLB. If a clan competes in major professional electronic sports competitions such as the Cyberathlete Professional League, it's got a strong claim to notability, IMO. FCYTravis 09:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • looking at that article, it says the league is "open to all registrants".... this implies there is no entry barrier, unlike, say the MLB, where (i assume) you cant just gather your buddies and sign up on a website and say your an MLB team. so imho mere participation is too low a bar, they should have won something. in any case the evidence so far consists of a team list, which as you say by itself is not really sufficient. Zzzzz 09:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Googling on 'team cloud nine cpl' I got a few hits that indicate they're at least slightly notable within the e-sports community, but nothing that would really establish notability here. As others have said, some verifiable wins in some of the big e-sports tournaments added to this article would really make it a keeper, but without it the article looks like just another vanity page for a dime-a-dozen clan. You can call me Al 14:05, 22 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 redirected. - Mailer Diablo 02:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Milburn[edit]

  • Delete. Non-notable candidate in election. --GrantNeufeld 19:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merely being a candidate does not satisfy WP:BIO, unless other information can be added to the article to show that he is notable for other reasons. I just don't buy the argument that any credible candidate merits an article. Skeezix1000 19:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete came fifth out of 5 in the election with approximately 2,650 votes. No other achievements claimed. Capitalistroadster 22:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content has already been merged with Green Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. I'll compress the page to a redirect shortly. CJCurrie 23:33, 20 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 02:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alcatel modems[edit]

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. What little information is here should exist in the Alcatel article. Little to no chance for expandability. You can call me Al 19:37, 20 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 02:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

God's Eye[edit]

nn Melaen 19:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOR. PJM 20:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- JJay 20:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Preost talk contribs 21:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A mysterious galaxy? Perhaps something from a fantasy novel, but no context about that given given. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it really is God's Eye, He'll just watch us delete this sucker. Carlossuarez46 22:07, 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 02:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maza Online Gaming Community[edit]

non-notable gaming club Zzzzz 19:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 19:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB.Gateman1997 19:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Preost talk contribs 21:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This one is not eligible for a speedy, as it asserts notability. "one of the oldest Greek online gaming communities". The new criteria only allows a speedy if no assertion of notability is made. --Habap 20:28, 21 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 02:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poe's Law[edit]

Neologism. 48 hits on Google, half of which are unrelated (related to Edgar Allen, for example). Klaw ¡digame! 19:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing wrong with neologisms. Without them we'd still be conversing in Greek. Latin or Aramaic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.31.8 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 20 December 2005
  • No, of course there's nothing unright about quasilexical logomancy, particularly in our cybertrophic, auxilexic transomnitopia. Moreover, "Yakka foob mog. Grub pubblewunk zing watoom gazork. Chumble spuzz." DIS-CREATIFY! Anville 20:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not suitable for an encyclopedia entry. Edgar181
  • Delete. I still sometimes converse in Greek with my wife. Flyboy Will 22:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Quarl 11:47, 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 02:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hardstyle basics[edit]

A tutorial like this is simply not encyclopedic, and is unverifiable opinion. I suggest it is deleted. Barneyboo (Talk) 19:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


- Im against that. Im an electronic music producer and I found article like this very helpful. 21:39, 20 December 2005 —the preceding unsigned comment is by 80.188.34.43 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- In response to all who concider this not suitable for the encyclopedia. Here is the basic reasons for it to remain:

  • Historical value:

This may not seam relevant now today, but who's gonna write about it in 50 years time? The veteran producers who's reminding the old gold days as youths when they produced hardstyle music:

"If I can remember correctly we used some sort of artificial synthesizers, what's the letter combination again? Oh VST it was, to produce all sorts of synthetic noises..."

Who will write about it in 100 years time? The people who posess the historical knowledge, but who have no experience in producing the music itself.

  • For technological reasons:

We are living in a world where technology is new tomorrow at breakfast and will be obsolete tomorrow by midnight. The technology that is used to produce music of today truly deserves a place in the encyclopedia.

  • For future preservation:

So the historics of tomorrow have some sort of reference to lean back upon when they describe the music of the 21st century.

If there is anytime this should be written it is right here, right now. Today as the music is produced for the reasons stated above. It will be too late in 10 years time, let along in 50 years time. Most of the older producers will be dead by then. But if we preserve the knowledge today the elements that build up this style can be reused and reviewed by everybody in the future music to come.

--Jobro 22:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while yes, I could understand the value in preserving all sorts of information in some form, Wikipedia is not a collection of every piece of information in existence, and this article arguably does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Barneyboo (Talk) 23:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Comment: It doesn't belong here. However, the creator might look into Wikibooks and see if there is somewhere there where this information could be presented. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Quarl 11:48, 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. FireFox 22:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Riders Aq2 Clan[edit]

non-notable gaming club Zzzzz 19:46, 20 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 02:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flint Fury[edit]

nn Melaen 19:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. This is a semi-pro team. Why isn't that notable? Please give reasons when nominating-- JJay 20:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough to me. --MisterHand 20:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, semi-pro team. Kappa 23:07, 20 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 03:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White Trash Debutantes[edit]

nn, unreadable Melaen 19:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Have you checked this for copyvio? -- JJay 20:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Ach, mein augen Sceptre (Talk) 21:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 01:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for making my eyes hurt. Kareeser|Talk! 02:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for incredibly bad format. If someone cares to attempt a cleanup, I’ll reconsider. •DanMS 02:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Quarl 11:45, 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 03:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoticism and rhotacism[edit]

It would be more appropriate as a mention on one of the pages it mentions, or as a note in teh linguistics article Esprit15d 19:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree entirely. It's a bit frivolous to dedicate a whole article to a pair of mistaken words. iinag 20:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Preost talk contribs 21:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. They are commonly confused. 64.194.44.220 21:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not only because it's not an encyclopedia article, but because it's not even accurate. There is no word rhoticism. Rhotacism is as defined on the page; the phenomenon of r-coloring of vowels is called rhotacization, and the property that English accents have of being rhotic or nonrhotic is (if a noun is needed for this) rhoticity. --Angr (t·c) 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there's no word rhoticism, then why do we have a redirect for it. 64.194.44.220 21:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We often have prophylactic redirects for things that people erroneously think are the correct spellings of article titles, and would create duplicate articles for if the redirects were not there. We have this redirect because the article was created at a bad title. Uncle G 03:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, Angr, you're wrong. There is a word rhoticism. Check googol http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rhoticism&btnG=Google+Search 64.194.44.220 21:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are all sorts of words findable by Google searches that don't exist (to be more specific, that aren't established terms with agreed-upon meanings, which is what I meant by "there is no word rhoticism" above). I can find no evidence of an established term rhoticism in any dictionaries or linguistics books. It's either a misspelling of rhotacism or a misunderstanding of either rhotacization or rhoticity. --Angr (t·c) 21:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You aren't really helping your case by asking Angr to "Check googol". Uncle G 03:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Macrakis 21:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (it's a non-scientific shibboleth) --Pasquale 23:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article devoted to two words commonly confused is a waste unless there is something notable about the confusion. There is nothing notable here. To make matters worse, one of these is not a word at all but merely a misspelling. Are we about to have articles for every common misspelling? Jimp 00:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. But Wiktionary will happily address both usage conflations and mis-spellings that have become so widespread that they satisfy the criteria for being attested words. Uncle G 03:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no such subject for an encyclopaedia article, because there's no such word, and thus no such conflation, in the first place. Even if there were such a conflation, it would have to be the subject of significant discussion for it to warrant more than a section on usage in the appropriate Wiktionary article(s). Delete. Uncle G 03:00, 21 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 03:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Tallent[edit]

Nomination - non-notable. Subject of article does not meet criteria for listing under WP:BIO - and only claim to fame appears to be that he keeps an illustrated journal during his vacation. The subject of the article is described as an emerging photographer : a Middle School Social Studies teacher from Michigan who sometimes goes on vacation and makes new friends. Google lists 16 hits for "barry tallent" - none obviously art/photography related. Humansdorpie 19:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, nn-bio. I don't see any claim at all. PJM 20:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- JJay 21:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 01:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. --Quarl 11:43, 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 03:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Stag[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 speedy delete by FireFox (nn-bio). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 01:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Lesky[edit]

  • Delete Vanity article, no useful value. Metallikop 20:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You have tagged this as a speedy, which looks correct. Therefore, no need to list here. -- JJay 20:27, 20 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 and redirect to Za Ginipiggu. howcheng {chat} 07:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mermaid in a Manhole[edit]

Not notable. If they are notable, and I'm just uninformed, this should still be deleted as it is virtually empty. ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 20:18, 20 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 03:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Citigroup International Case Competition 2005 Directory[edit]

Wikipeida is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a (very incomplete) directory of teams/people who participated in an academic competition. W.marsh 20:23, 20 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. Mo0[talk] 11:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Historical Bridge Spanning the Interval of the Old Testament and the New Testament[edit]

Delete. Original research. Article adds no useful information to Wikipedia, badly named. Looks almost like it's someone's high middle school history paper outline. —Preost talk contribs 20:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep and Rename. Has potential as an interesting topic, needs to be expanded/renamed as well. --MisterHand 20:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparent original research. There is some scope for an encyclopaedic article on this, I guess, but not with this title. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MisterHand. -- JJay 21:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a start for a worthwhile article (but has to be renamed). Edgar181 21:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If it is renamed, it should be something to the effect of Intertestamental period, which is a much more standard naming convention for this Protestant interpretation of Biblical history. It would also need to be completely rewritten. For whatever consideration it may be worth, its sole editor is in the eighth grade. —Preost talk contribs 21:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NOR.--nixie 21:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the subject matter may be notable, neither the article's title nor content has any worth. There's nothing to move. Flyboy Will 22:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The subject is definitely worthy of an article but it needs a new and shorter name. I don’t particularly like Intertestamental period, per A.S. Damick above, but I can’t think of a better one at the moment. •DanMS 02:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename per ASDamick. Cut out almost everything but the introduction and make it a stub. -- JLaTondre 03:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Jaranda wat's sup 07:14, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mauled in motion[edit]

NN Gaming Clan MNewnham 20:37, 20 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 03:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vaxamine[edit]

The article reads like an advertisement and has just one contributor. When User:Kbh3rd requested sources, the original contributor blanked the page. Edgar181 20:47, 20 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. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Gadzala[edit]

Delete. Non-notable candidate in election. --GrantNeufeld 21:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The current consensus on unelected candidates permits a merged page for "X Party's candidates in Y election". This does create its own set of problems, but unless you're prepared to take on the job of proposing an alternate policy, established consensus stands as the final word whether you like it or not. Merge to Green Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Bearcat 23:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is this consensus defined. I've read the ongoing debate but my take from reading it, was that consensus had not been reached. It looked to me like the debate died before consensus was reached, and a vote is still pending. Is there another discussion that I've missed? Nfitz 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consensus doesn't require a vote; if the discussion dies prematurely, then in the lack of a clearly defined policy statement the results that have actually been applied here in practice stand as the consensus. And that consensus has consistently favoured the merged listpage solution — nobody, to date, has challenged that. Bearcat 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • But consensus has consistently not been met anytime that a major party candidate, and even some non-major party candidates, comes up for deletion. I'd say consensus was keep them ... and that's what I thought reading that article. Nfitz 00:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's just as valid as Grant Neufeld and Matthew McLauchlin. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Er, since you put both those on Afd well prior to this vote, I'm not sure I follow... -- JLaTondre 03:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per bearcat.--nixie 06:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of significance and verifiability. This is an encyclopedia, not a local news source. This talk about fairness and hypocricy is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and all that. Friday (talk) 20:56, 21 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 as previously deleted content. Mo0[talk] 11:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krify.com[edit]

Commercial vanity page Kingsleyj 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is this the same as Krify, which got speedied back in October? howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 01:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Now that I'm an admin, I can see the deleted edits of Krify and lo and behold, it's the same content, but more NPOV than before. howcheng {chat} 07:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a commercial promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.246.13.36 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 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 03:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frappis[edit]

Non-notable and, I suspect, a vanity article (only one editor to date, who may very well be the mentioned Josh Sandler). Delete unless someone can think of an article to merge with. --Scott Wilson 21:09, 20 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 merge/redirect. AfD is not the place for suggesting merges, moves, or redirects; this is strictly for proposing that an article should be deleted from the encyclopedia altogether. Other mechanisms cover the remaining functions. BD2412 T 21:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Umbros[edit]

Merged with Umbro article Paughsw 21:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it has been merged: Redirect to Umbro. Punkmorten 21:18, 20 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 03:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ClanXS[edit]

Article about a counterstrike clan. Seems to be editted mostly/only by members of the group, e.g User:XSSammy. Fails WP:VAIN as far as I can tell. W.marsh 21:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sceptre (Talk) 21:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 21:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 22:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ISNOT a personal webhost. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete small group, no longevity, no verifiable accomplishments. --Habap 18:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Quarl 11:42, 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 03:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Going to eat your dog[edit]

Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Scott5114 21:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 21:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to wiktionary if verifiable as true, otherwise delete. --אריאל יהודה 21:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Edgar181 21:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redundant, even stupid. Kareeser|Talk! 22:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. slang def, and I doubt truth & notability as well.Obina 10:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Quarl 11:41, 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 03:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Daniel (TV)[edit]

Nasty Hoax MNewnham 21:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Article was vandalized to make it look like a hoax- it isn't. See IMDb entry. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Series does not appear even to have been aired yet - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. POV language infers that this article is cut-and-pasted from a round-robin e-mail. Humansdorpie 22:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep the article needs to be cleaned up considerably, but this is a real show. I've seen promos for it. --MisterHand 22:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and clean-up. Legitimate show, debuting in only a few months. Officially announced so crystal ball does not apply. 23skidoo 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Verifiable information exists about this program. Capitalistroadster 00:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 00:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's obviously and extremely POV. Let's delete this junk and if someone wants to write a new NPOV piece we can keep that. I don't understand why we should keep sub-sub(sub)standard articles like this just because the subject is a proper encyclopedia subject. We all have better things to do than try to tease an acceptable article out of badly-written polemics. Madman 04:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup significantly as above. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete stolen from http://www.afa.net/petitions/issuedetail.asp?id=175 --67.149.77.77 21:12, 21 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 Kashmir. --Celestianpower háblame 16:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indian-held Kashmir[edit]

Delete. I originally tagged that this article needed to be copyedited (it sounds as if a non-native English speaker wrote it), but then I realized there are already well-developed articles of the same topic at Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir, and History of the Kashmir conflict. --Birdhombre 21:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct unless it wouldn't ever be searched that way... Kareeser|Talk! 22:31, 20 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 per Kappa! Seriously though, it's unverifiable per Uncle G. howcheng {chat} 07:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Catholic Church[edit]

Delete. Non-notable, micro-denomination. What links one can work out from an attempt at verifiability through Google mostly seem to be Wikipedia mirrors. If this church has made a splash, it doesn't seem anyone's talking about it. —Preost talk contribs 22:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While it is a relatively small church, it appears notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 22:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any chance of some evidence? Kappa 23:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Plus it seems to be a real denomination, and the article is npov as far as I can see Jcuk 23:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Being real doesn't make it notable. My bathroom is real. It doesn't get a Wikipedia article without some press or scholarly coverage. —Preost talk contribs 23:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How have you determined that it is real? The only evidence presented by the article is a web site. "Having a web site" does not equate to "real". Jamie Kane has a web site. The only evidence locatable elsewhere is Alexis Tancibok being described as being a bishop of the Grace Catholic Church, where evidently he himself is the source of that information. Alexis Tancibok's word by itself is insufficient. Uncle G 20:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of it being verified or having a large following.Gateman1997 00:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if this is true. However, it may be a hoax. Should be verified. -- JJay 00:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then please help in doing so. Uncle G 20:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, no time. But keep me informed of your progress. Thanks. -- JJay 21:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of being an established denomination. Hopefully someone will find something to change my mind. Kappa 02:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This purported denomination has no mention in Addis & Arnold's, no mention in the Catholic Encyclopaedia, and no detectable presence apart from a web site and incidental mention in coverage of the activities of Alexis Tancibok. I can find no evidence that anyone outside of its founder(s) has acknowledged its existence. The article itself cites no sources. Delete. Uncle G 20:36, 21 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 all articles. - Mailer Diablo 03:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Timothean Rite[edit]

Delete, along with Ecumenical Orthodox Catholic Communion, Society of Saint Timothy, and Titusian Rite. These articles are sub-articles pertaining to a non-notable, unverifiable, micro-denomination described by a main article which has already been deleted, and even underwent a deletion review which resulted in a confirmation of the deletion. All articles were created by one of the group's clergy (and thus essentially vanity articles). Note: all articles nominated link to this same discussion page. —Preost talk contribs 22:13, 20 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 03:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demarzo[edit]

Most likely a hoax, not even one result on google, britannica, etc. despite allegedly being "a notable figure in the Italian Renaissance". bogdan 22:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, I stumbled onto the article with a mis-spelling, and after a good amount of research can not find anything
—the preceding unsigned comment is by CuBiXcRaYfIsH (talk • contribs) 22:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Laughably offensive hoax. —Slicing (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 01:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy buh-bye --hydnjo talk 01:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In all likelihood a hoax. Google cannot find his well known painting "Portrait of a Chinaman and a Jew", so its existence is unlikely. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. Also note the redirect (Francisco Demarzo) that will need to be deleted. Proto t c 09:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN I think the Chinaman and a Jew line qualifies it to be moved to BJAODN :P SandBoxer 23:29, 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 due to this article being a duplicate of Binalot. Mo0[talk] 11:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binalot Express[edit]

Article has name of an very obscure company but astrays from the subject. Badly written and void of any encyclopedic value Mecanismo | Talk 22:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep possibly rename and/or expand. Interesting discussion of the use and derivation of binalot in the Philippines. -- JJay 22:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cast your vote after you investigate the subject and after you are in a position to base your oppinion on facts. Please read the AFD comment, Binalot Express and Binalot and then rethink your argument --Mecanismo | Talk 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you knew there was an identical article, why not just redirect? No need for AfD. -- JJay 23:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good show. Wish the nom had checked that. Changing my vote to Redirect. Thanks. -- JJay 23:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom checked that and the nom was aware of that. The nom isn't responsible for JJay casting votes without even reading the AFD or the AFD comment. Please start voting objectively and please stop your petty trollish persecutions on the AFD list. It is starting to be ridiculous --Mecanismo | Talk 12:39, 21 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. --Celestianpower háblame 16:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Binary Equipment Corporation[edit]

Article on obscure film trivia detail which author speculates is inspired in a real world event. Void of any encyclopedic value Mecanismo | Talk 22:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I would say merge to Takedown, but couldn't find a page on the film. This is interesting to have as a means of avoiding confusion with Digital Equipment Corporation. -- JJay 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can an article on a film trivia blurb serves as a means to avoid the confusion that doesn't exist? It doesn't make much sense, does it? --Mecanismo | Talk 23:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not worthy of any article.Gateman1997 00:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - film doesn't get a page, no page for fictional company in said film Josh Parris#: 01:00, 21 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. --Shanel 21:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wynona Riders[edit]

Does not meet the standards of notability set forward in WP:MUSIC ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 22:46, 20 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado creations, Tornado Creations[edit]

Promotional, doesn't seem to be notable (a private project of Andrew Swallow). Delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: added duplicate article Tornado Creations.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Team Brown[edit]

Neologism, unverifiable MNewnham 22:50, 20 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 NOMINATION WITHDRAWN. Mo0[talk] 11:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical makeup of the human body[edit]

Seems superfluous, I am convinced thaty this article addresses things already present in Wikipedia and there is no reason to keep it. The title does nothing for me. If you all decide to keep it, it needs to be cleaned up and merged to an article relating to human anatomy. Thanks. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My idea is now that the article can be kept, or should be redirected or merged, somethings need to be added. Don't delete on second thought. This is on the border. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth keeping, but something is missing here. The total human mass in this article comes to 60 kg and a bit, but the average human mass is between 70 and 80 kg, so something is missing somewhere. Clean it up and it's a go. Denni ☯ 02:19, 21 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 0mG delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DBDF[edit]

Spam, vanity. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Painful on eyes that. -- JJay 23:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 01:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as quickly as possible Glowimperial 02:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Forum vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • These guys are just jealous of our supreme 1337ness. (unsigned comment by User:24.62.47.234)
  • DBDF>Wikipedia (unsigned comment by User:24.62.43.25)
  • STFU idiots, why can't a fucking forum have a mention on a fucking wiki? Pull the cock out of your ass and relax, for fucks sake. ~~DILDO (unsigned comment by User:Black Grass)
  • Delete ASAP --Quarl 11:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete SandBoxer 23:26, 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 Speedy keep due to withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 00:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Halstead[edit]

Appears to be a hoax, albeit a well-done one. The webpage is real, but all the links go to a generic "under construction page". --MisterHand 22:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep -- I spoke too soon. Turns out this is a real guy. Sorry! --MisterHand 23:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry MisterHand as it explains on the AlphaOne article it is a new website and is still under construction. Apology aceepted.

  • Keep and expand. A Quick Google search shows articles from The Times, The Telegraph and the BBC see [47]. Capitalistroadster 00:19, 21 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. --Celestianpower háblame 16:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Clontz and Common Edition New Testament[edit]

Tagged for speedy as nn-bio, but authoring the Common Edition: New Testament is a claim to signficance. Not too many google hits, so no vote from me ATM. Kappa 22:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No real notability, one of countless authors of Bible versions. Harro5 05:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Autobiography, too. - Eagleamn 06:52, 21 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} 07:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Berko and Benson[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 23:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wikipedia (not reading it of course, but everything else). Anyways, thank you for trying to get that Berko and Benson page deleted. I am actually the Benson part of that "group", but we are nothing more than a couple buddies making noise. Not an actual legit band, and we have no business being in Wikipedia. Someone that I dont know put that up, and me not realizing what to do, tried deleting it but apparently I was doing it wrong and "vandalizing" the page. So thanks. And sorry for screwing it up. - Zach Benson Zlbenson 18:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hope this guy sticks around. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 20:10, 21 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. EVERYTHING film-related is on IMDB. howcheng {chat} 07:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Omicron Conspiracy[edit]

Nothing on Google, nothing on IMDB. -- Curps 23:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that since the film is still to be made, no details of it would be released to the general public, particularly due to the controversy surrounding it -- James Sack 00:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's your choice what you keep and what you don't. I have carefully avoided the issue of Notability in Wikipedia Fiction. Personally, I wouldn't rate this article as "Fancruft", and have carefully stayed away from that. I would also argue that due to issures raised recently about public spending in Britain, this is an article that contains importance and notability. Anyway, Fancruft is not a reason to simply to delete an article, unless it is "poorly written" or "POV" and I believe my article is balanced and written in understandable prose Earl Flinn 09:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the existence of this thing isn't even verified. The referenced website gives me a 404, and a Google search on that site for 'omicron' comes up with nothing. --Last Malthusian 11:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the website again - it works fine, and in the section on actors lists Adrian Bell, and mentions his work on "The Omicron Conspircy". 172.188.83.253 12:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Angles Theatre Website will be online shortly. Please visit us again soon." Even if it does come back up, I don't have high hopes that this will get past crystal ball status. --Last Malthusian 13:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't crystal ball status refer to future predictions? Whereas, this article isn't really about future predictions, but about the problems surrounding the creation of this film - I mean, the article is about the actual process or creatin the film as much as the film itself, I'd be inclined to argue Earl Flinn 15:10, 21 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} 07:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Robinson[edit]

Reads like an autobiography or a biography written by a close family fried, and although the guy has a neat hobby, most of the information in the article cannot be verified, and I think he fails to meet the biography criteria, delete--nixie 23:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep and cleanp. May be notable as president of the Federation. Need some Australian input. -- JJay 00:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletebeing the one time president of the caving federation is not notable enough for wikipaedia.--Porturology 02:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I tried to clean up the article at some point, and while it had a fairly sympathetic POV towards the subject, he is sufficiently notable to deserve an encyclopedia article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 02:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 21:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - don't all the recent problems the mistakes in biographies of living persons lift the bar for verfication - most of the deatil in this article cannot be verified.--nixie 22:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only is he not overly notable, but this entire article is completely unverifiable. Ambi 22:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Ambi's reasonings. Roisterer 02:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- unless references backing up article can be sourced. - Longhair 06:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Ambi. Sarah Ewart 10:03, 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 userfy to a subpage of User:Cbtguy. howcheng {chat} 07:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

10th General Medical Dispensary, Frankfurt, FRG[edit]

Article isn't nothing more than a declaration of intention to write an article on the subject, which notoriety is questionable to begin with. Mecanismo | Talk 23:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy to give editor time to write on subject. Isn't that what he is asking for? -- JJay 00:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOT a web host. Josh Parris#: 01:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia. I don't believe an encylopedia should double as a todo list. --Mecanismo | Talk 14:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy for the time, but I don't see how a particular dispensoary within a particular hospital could be notable. Did they invent penicilin, or just hand it out? Josh Parris#: 01:15, 21 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} 07:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Catholic Church[edit]

Delete. Non-notable, start-up, micro-denomination. Unique Google links are extremely few. —Preost talk contribs 23:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this micro denomination is smaller then many churches we delete. Gateman1997 00:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Josh Parris#: 01:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand article and rename to include "High Church" or "Anglo-Catholic Lutherans" in general. --Midnite Critic 01:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's already articles on the topics Midnite Critic mentions. Proto t c 11:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst this purported church may not have many adherents, it has been the subject of discussion by independent sources, such as this, this, this, and this. Whilst this church has not been formally accepted by the mainstream, its existence has certainly been acknowledged (enough for people to say "it exists, but we disagree with it", at the very least). Looking here, I note that this is not the first sect to have this name, either. Keep. Uncle G 21:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable 3rd party interest established by Uncle G. Kappa 23:23, 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} 07:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raine Vivian[edit]

As far as I can tell this band have released a few MP3s, do not meet WP:MUSIC requirements, delete.--nixie 23:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, speedily if possible - the name of the article applies to both the band and the founder of the same name, includes second person writing (indicating vanity) and a turns into a one-sentence ad for MP3 downloads by the founder (with web site for download). While one of these issues would be insufficient for a speedy, I suggest that all three together scream for it. B.Wind 17:59, 21 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 03:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Koded[edit]

Reads like spam. Google search seems to indicate that this company is not notable. --Spring Rubber 23:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe...did you check out the external link? I'm not either supporting it or condemning it, but just a thought.--ViolinGirl♪ 23:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at it, but it's hard to tell whether or not they actually have influence in what they do. Are they more than a small web-services business? Are they as influencial as the article claims them to be? I'm rather skeptical about that claim. --Spring Rubber 23:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...well, like I said, I'm not supporting or condemning them. I agree with you, SR, it is hard to tell whether they do have influence or not...I haven't ever heard of them before. Maybe that's just because I'm not from the UK. I'd like to see some other proof from someone other than RTI.--ViolinGirl♪ 01:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Koded are pioneers and do have influence in the industry. You can see by visiting the following link that Koded is listed amongst the best companies in the United Kingdom.

http://www.e-consultancy.com/publications/search-engine-marketing-buyers-guide/

User:RTI 00:11, 21 December 2005

  • Delete per guidelines for inclusion of companies (which I suggest the author reads before arguing for inclusion further). Very little verified except that this company exists. I'm unconvinced by the inclusion of this company in a list of profiles of "search engine marketing service providers", none of which I've ever heard of and none of which we have articles on (except this one). Since this article was created by its subject, it doesn't look likely that this one out of that list is particularly notable. --Last Malthusian 11:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...I don't have time to read through WP:CORP thoroughly at the moment, but from my 5 second speed-read of it, it looks like LM is right...--ViolinGirl♪ 22:10, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Droprename[edit]

NN webdesigner whose site is also NN and unknown to Alexa. Kusma (討論) 23:42, 20 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 03:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fathema Shahab Ruma[edit]

Vanity page, riddled with typos. The subject apparently works for a Bangladeshi TV network -- perhaps the network might be worth an article? Anirvan 23:44, 20 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_20&oldid=1081091877"