Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 5 December 7 >

Purge server cache

December 6

[edit]

Keep more information

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nn bio - Lucky 6.9 00:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Tunniclliffe

[edit]

Delete - absolutely not noteable. Colonel Tom 00:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Male and female relationships What the Bible really says about them. (religious veiwpoint.)

[edit]

Delete. I might be barking up the wrong tree here, but this seems a suitable candidate for deletion - this is a POV essay in the first person, not an encyclopedia article. Colonel Tom 00:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the text as a copyright violation; the former contents can be found here. - Mike Rosoft 20:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed. Very nonneutral POV and not encyclopedic. Kerowyn 00:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, this is the right tree.  :) I don't know if this is quite a speedy, but it sure is a delete. I've left polite word on the author's talk page. I don't want to bite the newbie on this one. Someone who takes this much time to write an article of this size is someone who can be of benefit to this site. - Lucky 6.9 00:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you there, Lucky 6.9. Cheers, Colonel Tom 00:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete everything a Wikipedia article should not have - NPOV, generalisations (just look at the title ffs), copyright violations, its length, aarrgh...everything! **swats with rolled up newspaper** XYaAsehShalomX 15:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, relevant info could easily be ultilized a better more expanded article concerning the bible; WP:POV-MegamanZero 0:25 7,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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 21:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mondi Fashion

[edit]

Tagged for speedy as a blatant ad. Once I removed the contact info, and well, blatant ads, it ought to come here rather than go directly under the axe. -Splashtalk 00:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I searched for them under separate terms, when I went to the combined link by Capitalistroadster I found an ad on Google to search for Mondi on eBay. I did, and returned 150 articles for sale. That favourably compares with the 250 for "Dooney and Burke". (Big brand, at least for my wife...) I dunno, but it still seems notable to me. Ifnord 04:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising, non-notable company. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I'm not sure how the article could be improved, but I've heard of Mondi and lack of Google hits for "Mondi Fashion" is probably less due to non-notability and more due to the fact that they just go by "MONDI". The "fashion" is needed to differentiate them from other businesses called Mondi; it's not part of their name. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 06:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a fair amount of language suggestive of notability (eg. mention of offices in two countries, talks of being "consistently ranked as one of the premium brand in German and European fashion", 38 year-old company), but nothing that really constitutes such a claim, and I note that the company doesn't have an article on de.wikipedia. One google hit I saw talked about winners of the Mondi fashion prize: if that is awarded by this company and has cachet, that would constitute a claim of notability for me. --- Charles Stewart 18:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript Nope: it's a prize awarded by the Mondi subsidiary of Anglo-American. This prize might be inflating the hit counts from other posters. --- Charles Stewart 18:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ocean Band

[edit]
Do I need to list for deletion the article's image separately? --Melaen 12:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If and when the article is deleted, you can list them for speedy deletion as orphaned. Stifle 15:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Butcher's Dogs

[edit]

They may be "said to be on the brink of becoming the next great thing" (by whom?) but since "the band is currently recording its first album" and isn't on AMG, has no media, etc. they fail WP:MUSIC's guidelines. --W.marsh 00:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buttonbash

[edit]

Forum-based free rom / emulation website. Alexa rank 340,595 [4], 2,714 forum members, 167 active, 500 hits on Google [5]. Fails WP:WEB proposal... more forum vanity (see original versions). --W.marsh 00:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Lees

[edit]

This looks like a vanity page Ms ArtGeek 21:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Ms_ArtGeek[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog characters who have died

[edit]

There's already a Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters, which points to articles on the characters, including what happened to them. Most of the entries are either robots (in which case their inclusion in such a list is questionable) or are marked as possibly still being alive or might be making appearances in future Sonic games. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right...but still NO! This article cleary gives out details, through Sonic Titles timeline. You can see/tell from "sonic R" characters that are dead, from past games. althouhg it needs more work, because it looks like a "Stub" to me. Sonic The Hedgehog Characters is also good, I like the way the contents is laid out, but There is a difference,. Sonic The Hedgehog characters that have died & Sonic The Hedgehog Charcaters, if this articles is much improve, it will be worth it to stay This article explains it all, but with less details, it makes this article look like cheap I don't know if it is a delete: Yes or No: I will say No...Waiting for others, for their thoughts >x<ino 01:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. We need an article on Gallo-Iberian languages, one on Emperor Muzong of Liao, one on J. William Stanton, and one on the Channel Fleet. But not one on all the characters that passed away in Sonic titles. Delete. Herostratus 22:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. There's no real need for a page like this -- it's actually a category, and one of dubious utility. --FreelanceWizard 09:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a category for Sonic the Hedgehog characters is fine, but this is bordering on fancruft. — JIP | Talk 10:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok if you want to delete it Fine! But the Sonic The Hedgehog characters needs more improvment >x<ino 15:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's not like it hurts anything by being here. You might say there's no reason to have it because the info is in the character articles, but there's no reason not to have it either. Here, the info is all brought together, and besides, other characters might die in future games. If you aren't interested in what it has to say, just don't read it, don't delete it and ruin it for others who are interested. I've said it before and I'll say it again, do deletionists want to read the entire encyclopedia? Yeltensic42.618 17:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they don't and who says they do? Just because an article doesn't "hurt anything" doesn't make it something that should be included on Wikipedia. You could argue the same thing for practically every article that goes through afd. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There's nothing preventing you from making the list elsewhere. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you can't argue that for evey article on afd. If it's a hoax, a chunk of garbled gibberish nonsense, a vanity page for some loser like me (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris bensko, not one of my finer moments), an attack page, an ad, or original research, then bring down the 16-ton weight. Otherwise, there's no real need to delete it. Yeltensic42.618 22:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, but they're not "hurting anything by being there". Which, by your logic, should prevent them from being deleted. --Apostrophe 19:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, they are. Attack pages are a form of trolling; original research is, for good reason, against Wikipedia policy; hoax articles, by definition, are full of lies; ads, vanity pages for losers like me, and garbled gibberish tarnish Wikipedia when people do random article searches and find it. This article is not a troll page; it is not original research, all the information is from verifiable sources; it is not a hoax; it is not an ad for the games, a string of garbled gibberish, or a vanity page about the contributor, nor does it tarnish Wikipedia in any other way. Yes, it covers information that can be found in other articles, but here it brings it all together. True, few people will be looking for it, but you'd be surprised at some of the things people want to find out. By its very nature, Wikipedia has plenty of room for minor or obscure topics not covered in the Britannica...topics like this. If you are not interested in the topic, just don't read the article. There may be others who want to see what it has to say. Yeltensic42.618 22:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, FreelanceWizard, and JIP. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 17:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insofar as: how can any fictional character "die" if they never truly lived? Seriously. I read DC Comics as a youth and one aspect was that the term dead was to be expressed in quotation marks. Jtmichcock 19:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no point of arguging with this fools, they act like they own wiki >x<ino 21:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as per Strong Bad) Oh, this is clearly the best possible use of Wikipedia resources! DELETED!! Ha ha ha!!!! — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to try and clean this up, as Xino likes to mess with formatting on AfDs of his articles, but I'm just going to leave it and say Delete.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 22:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Until Jim Carroll has a song about them, they are not people who died. Death is something that organisms experience. Bytes do not die. They return to the Source and rejuvenate the Matrix. If Sonic the Hedgehog could die really, then he'd have been dead by now. Do not merge. Do not redirect. Do not continue. Geogre 01:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Geogre (!!!) and as fancruft/gamecruft. MCB 08:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per reason for its content borders on the sheer edge of absurdity.-MegamanZero 0:25 7,December 2005 (UTC)
  • "DELETED!! Ha ha ha!!!! — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC) " LOL, i feel sorry for that fool that made the page " as Xino likes to mess with formatting on AfDs of his articles" what's AFD's...oh no...don't tell me, everysingle article i made, has been copyright or i broke the rules >x<ino 15:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ridiculous fancruft. Andrew Levine 19:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean FanCruft? >x<ino 19:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft means crappy blather articles written by hardcore fans of the subject with excessively detailed information (they also have names for sub-genres like gamecruft, bloggercruft, and even Simpsons-cruft). As this article is not especially crappily written and is not excessively detailed (it just has the simple info of which characters have died), it really isn't fancruft. Yeltensic42.618 00:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another word from interent...dammit! ok what ever

But is the "Crufty" similar to "Fan"

Anyway, even if it has crappy details...We are Wikipedians, we improve articles, correct and BOLD! >x<ino 02:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted per CSD A7. FCYTravis 01:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jhin mea

[edit]

Non-notable bio, speedy was deleted by anon YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 00:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tubarc, Self-Inking, Tubarc Action, Self-Recharging Marker

[edit]

also pointing here: Self-Recharging Pad, Reversible Masstubarc Flow Siphon, Irrigation On Demand, Erosive Filtering System, Unsaturated Siphon, Molecular Drainage, Masstubarc Biomass Engine, Tubarc Plug System, Tubarc Action

Prior AfD discussion under: Self-Recharging Pad -- Reversible Masstubarc Flow Siphon -- Irrigation On Demand -- Erosive Filtering System -- Unsaturated Siphon -- Molecular Drainage -- Masstubarc Biomass Engine -- Tubarc Plug System

Non-notable, original research and/or independently unverifiable. 36 displayed hits, some of which are other uses, and most are from Tubarc Technologies LLC and their patent filings. Part of a series of related articles[6]. Also possible self-promotion. Tubarc Action has been marked copyvio, but since the website cited just re-posted the text of a Tubarc patent, I'm not sure if it really is copyvio, but should be deleted as part of this series--only one hit for the term, the patent re-post site. I marked Self-Recharging Marker and Self-Inking as copyvios from http://www.tubarc.com but they should probably be deleted as more tubarc promotion unless someone can figure out something appropriate for the titles (which are improperly capitalized, anyway). Regforafd 01:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom dr.alf 01:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, could this ever be more than dicdef? I read the article, still have no clue what this stuff (lubricant?) is or does. Ifnord 04:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this per nom, and all the rest of Special:Contributions/200.158.46.64's related articles. (Yes, I've looked at all of them; they're all either blatant advertising spam or original research to support said spam.) —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-06 04:54:56Z
  • Delete as advertising/self promotion. I'm not in agreement with the practice of trying to get rid of ad/promotion material under the guise of copyright violation - this seems to be a misuse. CarbonCopy 20:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Misuse of the copyright violation process that is, to circumvent the AfD process. I still think the arcticles in question should go. CarbonCopy 21:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably some form of self promotion. Also, his appears to be much too specialized and obscure to be encylopedic. At the very least, this article would have to be expanded significantly to be of any use. As it is, it is not clear what this is and what it is used for. ManoaChild 21:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adding other articles to this AfD now, all have the same problem. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unsaturated Siphon

[edit]

Non-notable, original research and/or independently unverifiable. 10 displayed hits, connected to Tubarc Technologies LLC and their patent filings. Part of a series of related Tubarc articles[7]. Also possible self-promotion. Regforafd 01:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Also

Discussion consolidated under Tubarc CarbonCopy 20:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reversible Masstubarc Flow Siphon

[edit]

Non-notable, original research and/or independently unverifiable. 2 displayed hits, one a forum and one a re-post of a Tubarc Technologies LLC patent filing. Part of a series of related Tubarc articles[8]. Also possible self-promotion. Regforafd 01:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Also

Discussion consolidated under Tubarc CarbonCopy 20:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tubarc Plug System

[edit]

Non-notable, original research and/or independently unverifiable. Zero hits. Part of a series of related Tubarc articles[9]. Also possible self-promotion. Regforafd 01:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Also

Discussion consolidated under Tubarc CarbonCopy 21:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erosive Filtering System

[edit]

Non-notable, original research and/or independently unverifiable. Zero hits. Part of a series of related Tubarc articles[10]. Also possible self-promotion. Regforafd 01:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Also

Discussion consolidated under Tubarc CarbonCopy 21:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Recharging Pad

[edit]

Non-notable, original research and/or independently unverifiable. Zero hits. Part of a series of related Tubarc articles[11]. Also possible self-promotion. This is an article in the series that someone might be able to come up with a useful redirect target. Regforafd 01:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Also

Discussion consolidated under Tubarc CarbonCopy 21:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irrigation On Demand

[edit]

Non-notable, original research and/or independently unverifiable. 45 displayed hits. Part of a series of related Tubarc articles[12]. Also possible self-promotion. Regforafd 01:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Also

Discussion consolidated under Tubarc CarbonCopy 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Drainage

[edit]

Non-notable, original research and/or independently unverifiable. 4 displayed hits, two from Tubarc and re-post of a Tubarc Technologies LLC patent filing, two other uses. Part of a series of related Tubarc articles[13]. Also possible self-promotion. Regforafd 01:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Also

Discussion consolidated under Tubarc CarbonCopy 18:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Masstubarc Biomass Engine

[edit]

Non-notable, original research and/or independently unverifiable. Zero hits. Part of a series of related Tubarc articles[14]. Also possible self-promotion. Regforafd 01:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteTheRingess 23:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Also

Discussion consolidated under Tubarc CarbonCopy 18:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily userfied FCYTravis 03:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Six

[edit]

Self-written bio that borders on vanity. I'll WP:AGF but his band has three Google hits. FCYTravis 01:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like another example of either a sockpuppet account used to create the article or a clueless newbie. Check out the author's name. Delete but encourage the author to create a user page with a condensed version. - Lucky 6.9 02:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting since the usage of google gives a plethora of hits on "LEV SIX". I just did a search. You are talking about "pontius autopilate" when he is not known for that project, it was probably put in there in order to add detail. He recently distributed a single under that name that was played widely in the northeast on college and local radio stations. He is known for his solo work as, again, "LEV SIX". Go to google and type "lev six" and watch what happens. I have followed him for over 7 years. He may not be Britney Spears but you are totally wrong and totally inaccurate. Why is the fact that it has details that are not necessarily contained within mainstream media wrong? Please do research and edit what you see fit, but to delete him from recognition is completely wrong. He is a known figure amongst people who are in the know. Not everything in the world can be found in Oxford's library. If you knew anything about no wave or the field it refers to, there are countless magazines that are not filed away in the Library of Congress that have great repute amongst intellectuals, authors, and musicians. Please do the research and put aside your morality and religion before you jump on someone that has done a hell of a lot for DIY artists! PS it is funny that he mentioned vanity when the guy brags about "testing out of high school"....pffft. Get a clue. You have no integrity.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bwargh

[edit]

Neologism with ~1,000 google hits [15] (mostly forum postings), not even defined on Urban Dictionary, not used much at all and not formally defined anywhere. --W.marsh 01:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate wasPrevious speedy delete - Lucky 6.9 01:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fore n Aft

[edit]

Schoolcruft, unimportant school newspaper YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 01:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary goldberg

[edit]

Delete. Not noteable IMO, even if POV removed Colonel Tom 01:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 08:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Politics and Religion

[edit]

No notability claimed. For example, does this radio show actually air on any radio stations? dbenbenn | talk 01:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep They list a whole bunch of stations on their page: [16], it appears to reach markets in a dozen states so it's somewhat notable. Flyboy Will 07:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete radioshowcruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Advertising, essentially, and empty. It's a substub that says this is a particular radio show by (external link) an eschatological group; see links. Well, that looks like page rank boosting and advertising, while the informational content is zero. Since the article mentions three others in the campaign, I'm going to guess that each of those says that the figures/service produce "Politics and religion." Thus, it's a snake swallowing its tail, in information. Furthermore, this gets a very big lemma, a very popular one. No. Geogre 01:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - two sentence article says nothing except the names of the program's presenter, hosts, and engineer. B.Wind 04:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 a previously speedied article. Mo0[talk] 02:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Wogsland

[edit]

I speedied it, writer put it back up YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 01:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BurgerMate

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine Frostyservant 02:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC) (Delete as per nomination)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Levy

[edit]

Non-notable bio. No offense Daniele, but I don't think your bio is encyclopedia material. Not everyone gets an article here. Indeed, most people don't. Rhobite 02:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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. K1Bond007 19:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A.D.D

[edit]

Non-notable band; fails WP:MUSIC criteria to the extent that they are readily verifiable given the information in the article. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-06 02:10:28Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:00, Dec. 14, 2005

Ryan Horn

[edit]

Vanity biography. Only notable achievement is restarting The Cornell American, a fact already noted there. I don't consider heading a college club to be noteworthy (considering how trivial it is to do so here), but maybe I'm in the minority there. It's hard to believe that someone with fewer than 1000 Google hits is really "well known", but Google does not know all. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-06 02:21:42Z

Merging and redirecting would also be acceptable to me, at least until a more noteworthy Ryan Horn comes along. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-06 02:28:12Z
  • IMHO this is not a vanity biography. This is a well known campus politician.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JumpingGerbil (talk • contribs) 2005-12-05 20:26:42 creator of the article
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Death Kills

[edit]

Only notable achievement is winning a "best publicity" award. I wonder if this article was part of that? Delete as not notable. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-06 02:25:39Z

I'm still getting used to formatting articles - anything like that isnt deliberate, so just tell me and ill change it, but please dont delete the entry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallstoned (talk • contribs)

Actually the script might be being lisenced next year at some point, so it could go further than just the eone week it ran - its also probably doing the festival circuit next year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallstoned (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. Look, this isn't a formatting issue or anything like that. If it were, someone could just fix it. The problem is that this play isn't notable enough to be included in an encyclopedic compilation. It's not personal and no one is trying to "get" you or embarrass you, it's a question of Wikipedia policy. See WP:NOT, especially "Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine" and, as regards future notability, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, i totally get that, i just figured i'd argue my case. :D Anyway, its up to you guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallstoned (talk • contribs)

  • Comment: Thanks for being reasonable about it. We certainly do want you to keep contributing, but I have to agree with the others that a university play that hasn't spread any yet is at this point insufficiently notable for encyclopedic coverage. If it does get a higher profile or longer running production, by all means present an article on it. Until then, consider copying over the article into your user page. Geogre 01:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No probs - i'll do so when i get the chance, or figure out how... hehe. Worth a try, right? :D

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

The result of the debate was delete K1Bond007 22:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nýyrðasmiðja Málþvottahús

[edit]

Not noteworthy or encyclopedic; article added by website's creator himself. Schnee (cheeks clone) 02:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Black America (band)

[edit]

In the intrest of recongnising my own Biases, I must nominate this band. Being one of my favorite bands, I plan to update it. However, I first want to see if it will survive an AfD. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 02:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this band meets WP:MUSIC point 4: "Has been prominently featured in any major music media". MBA's Debut self-financed single sold out within weeks of release when John Peel was pushing the band on BBC Radio One. They are also now signed to a reasonably sized (for the UK) indy record label. The band's offical biography can be found here: [19]. That said, I am biased so I'll abstain. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 02:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No bio in allmusic.com, but this entry on Peel's website makes them easily notable enough for my taste. I appreciate your having checked before writing up a non-notable band, though! Bikeable 03:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for media attention. I'd suggest, JiFish, that you improve the article now, during the AfD process, so that the band's notability is apparent in the first sentence or two. I understand your reluctance to work on an article that might be deleted, but there's no harm in adding the essential details (like the fact that they've released albums and sinlges). -Meegs 03:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the evidence of notability established above. Never heard of them myself, but it says above they're signed to a prominent indie label, getting radio airtime from a world-famous presenter, and getting awards from Rolling Stone? This ain't no high-school band. — Haeleth Talk 14:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Idyllic Love Story of the Magic Kingdom

[edit]

Non-notable high school play exolon 02:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 21:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trent McMartin

[edit]

del vanity. mikka (t) 02:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please put more effort into your nominations. This is no more than a vote, and not a particularly good one at that. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
huh? You don't know what "vanity" means? mikka (t) 06:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"vanity" is fine for a vote. Nominators should be explaining why they think something's vanity rather than simply voting "del". See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see. Next time I'll be more verbose. I thought it is evident: the article presents no claims of notability. There are thousands of journalists, now hundreds of thouands of online journalists. His webpresence is barely noticeable. mikka (t) 03:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Violindie

[edit]

Purge neologism, only 84 google hits . Greg Asche (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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] 23:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Lawrence Robert Cassidy

[edit]

Not sure whether this person is real. Needs some deeper fact-checking. A lot of notable facts are mentioned, so that should make it easier. --  BRIAN0918  03:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable. A search for "William Cassidy" Buddhlism came up with this professor [20] but nothing confirming the article before us. It came up empty in Google Books which is interesting given that the subject of the article is supposedly an author [21]. A search for the full title namely "William Lawrence Robert Cassidy" didn't come up with anything [22] Capitalistroadster 03:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that Google Books has not yet indexed every book known to man. In fact, they've got quite a long ways to go. So I wouldn't rely too heavily on it yet. Peyna 03:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are looking for verifiable evidence that this person exists and is of some note. Google Books is an indicator given that he claims to be an author. So far no verifiable evidence has been presented or found that confirms the claims of the author. Google Scholar comes up with little as well [23]. Capitalistroadster 04:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand. I just wanted to make sure you weren't considering Google Books as all that reliable of a source, since they only have mostly public domain books, parts of a few libraries, and those they were able to get permission for. Peyna 14:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Think Tank Television

[edit]

NN according to WP:MUSIC Josh Parris#: 03:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speakers of the House

[edit]

NN according to WP:MUSIC Josh Parris#: 03:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Wall, Andrew Wall, and Aaron Apollos

[edit]
Jennifer Wall was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-24. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Wall.

After the ridiculous hoax article at "Jennifer Wall" was deleted, its author recreated it, only this time instead of a famed serial killer, Ms Wall is now an international swimming superstar. Feel free to check his references; they're fake. He's also created Andrew Wall and Aaron Apollos, who AfDers with long memories will recall featured prominently in the original Jennifer Wall article as well. For those not following the A-League: these two fellows are not A-League players. The user has been warned, but I think he's had his fun now and won't be back. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE - fixing faulty close of AFD discussion. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 08:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 shades of ignorance

[edit]

Band vanity. Not on AMG, no releases, no labels. Fails WP:MUSIC based on the evidence in the article and on their site. --W.marsh 03:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Throne of mortality

[edit]

Does not qualify as a notable group according to WP:MUSIC: could find no reference to them using google, article does not contain any links, and has no useful content. StealthFox 03:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4cc'z

[edit]

Rap band, no releases. Per their website "We're a new group so we're workin on our first album and it will probably be realesed on december 20" (warning: Their website messes with your browser's size, at least with my FireFox). They are not on AMG, etc. No evidence they pass WP:MUSIC's suggestions for what band notability is. --W.marsh 03:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Wrong Treatment

[edit]

Self-admittedly non-notable band. Denni ☯ 03:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6alabat

[edit]

Obvious advertising... "you can place an order through our website to your favorite restaurant". Wikipedia is not self promotion. --W.marsh 03:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Wastelands (band)

[edit]

Cover band "in the process of writing their own songs and creating a demo CD". Their website is hosted by a free, ad-supported provider. While I wish these kids the best of luck getting signed, until they do and get a little closer to meeting the requirements of WP:MUSIC, they don't really belong in an encyclopaedia. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was don't keep! Mailer Diablo sees no reason to have the article kept given the community consensus. You can email me at mailer.diablo@blah blah. - Mailer Diablo 02:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thetapiomegaphi

[edit]

I'm sure they're plenty benevolent, but they're also unverifiable, not one Google hit. [28] CanadianCaesar 03:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

13th Protocol

[edit]

Band with no label, 2 self-financed releases. The band they spun off from, Cold Fate, is not on AMG either. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. But in their defense, they do have a "highly technical bassist". --W.marsh 03:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Cobra 05:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Sex in the Champagne Room

[edit]

This song doesn't seem to be noteworthy in any way and has no real links to it - Power 04:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ] 00:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CapRock Communications

[edit]

Advertising copy, no citations. Durova 04:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jaranda wat's sup 01:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Metal

[edit]

I personally have never seen or heard of this 'subgenre' of metal ever before, in any publication, or from any person. I've been frequenting metal forums all across the internet for some time now and this article really doesn't seem to be a real term... Nevermind accurate. It may have been used in some publications by fans of alternative rock, but again, I've never seen it... And a genre of music created by fans of a different genre? This article definitely seems to be an attempt to change the definition of nu-metal to a metal subgenre without using the proper article... Possibly because they already tried? The best this page does to define the subgenre it's claiming to talk about is:

'As with most rock music genres, alternative metal has proved somewhat difficult to define. Some fans and musicians have firm ideas of genre and sub-genre, while others reject such notions as useless or limiting. Influence from many other genres is common in alternative metal.

The term is very loosely defined, but is usually used to describe artists playing a style of metal which is considered either unique or difficult to define.'

There are several problems with this definition, in my mind. First of all, the genre is called 'alternative metal', yet the author describes it as a rock music genre. I understand that metal came from rock music, but it has progressed in a very different direction and I don't see how 'alternative metal' can be a subgenre of rock (even though, with the bands listed, it is more accurate) while being called alternative metal. Would it not just be alternative rock?

Secondly, how on earth does that statement define a genre? All it says is it can't be defined. It seems that almost anything can be alternative metal, if you wanted. All it has to be is unique or difficult to define. Opeth has both melodic death and progressive metal elements... Does that make them alternative metal too? What about Despised Icon? They draw from death metal and hardcore/metalcore. Me hitting a washtub and screaming would be considered unique and difficult to define too. Does that make them all alternative metal now? A *lot* of bands in metal that have nothing in common with each other could easily be lumped together under these vague guidelines. This article, to me, seems to be using circular reasoning, using the bands to define the genre and then taking that genre and using it to define the bands, never really getting anywhere. I think because of this, this article is a serious candidate for deletion. If not deletion, this article needs to actually *define* a real subgenre of music (And decide which genre of music it belongs to. The author seems to want to claim it is a subgenre of metal, while calling it a subgenre of rock). Right now, it's wasted space no matter how you look at it. Ilyon 04:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I havent much to say, that everything Ilyon said is right. Most of the bands listed are also from varying forms of unrelated music, and have no connection to metal, or each other. This article is indeed wasted space, and seems to be more of an article made by someone who is trying to showcase their favourite bands, while borrowing from, and minorly rewording paragraphs from other articles. ~~Leyasu
This so called genre has no sources that support it. As case was made against it, anything according to its defination is Alternative Metal, and many of the bands listed have no connection to metal themselfs, and range from Alternative Rock to Nu Metal bands. This article comes across as a biased view of someone who wishes to create a genre to promote their favourite bands and therefore deserves to be deleted. ~~Leyasu
Cobra, could you please explain what the genre is? I just can't fathom what makes up a genre that could include such disparate bands and the article certainly doesn't do anything at all to show what makes up the genre. Ilyon 08:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I'm pulling scads of Google hits on this. There a lots of names for genres generated all the time... Black Metal (whatever that is) and so forth, and I don't want to get in the middle of a discussion over Alternative Metal vs. Nu Metal, but clearly this is referenced by thousands of sites. Herostratus 08:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'd agree with this as a genre except that simply getting google hits doesn't make it a genre. I typed up four random letters: Qati. Something that is obviously not a word. Now, here's the google hits: Results 1 - 10 of about 11,700 for Qati. Obviously Qati must be a word, with that many hits, right? Even better, I then used the middle row of my keyboard only and just went from one side to the other getting the letters: 'asdfghjkl'. Hits? Results 1 - 10 of about 70,600 for ASDFGHJKL. How about a search similar to the one you performed. 'Contrasting Metal', got 1,820,000 hits. Random Metal gets over 13 million. [33] I doubt 'contrasting metal' is a genre of music. You can find *anything* on a site like google and not all of those hits are going to actually link to anything about what they say in the description. My problem is still that there's no definition for this 'genre'. If you can pull up a site that defines this genre, it would be easier to argue for it to be kept. Ilyon 08:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with only using a website is that the genre isnt known well worldwide, has no defination as you previously said, and its major flar is that it borrows from other genres. It contradicts both Avant garde metal and nu metal. Rap Metal, also following the same problem as this article, has been nomintaed for merging into Nu Metal. This article, perhaps, would make for an equally good candidate for merging into Nu Metal if it doesnt warrent deletion. ~~Leyasu
  • Keep. Allmusic.com defines it as a genre and explains it [34].

Further, it gets 573,000 Google hits see [35]. 22 Google News hits including Billboard Magazine see [36] Google books results show that the term is widely used in rock music literature see [37]. Clear verifiable evidence for the notable term. Capitalistroadster 09:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looking at the All music site, I finally see something that actually references this as a genre of music. However... Read the article. It describes the 'scene' that the genre developed in and what it developed from... But it says absolutely nothing about what defines the genre. I couldn't even find anything suitable to quote as being vague. There just wasn't anything at all. If we keep this page, how are we to define it? It can't simply stay as it is. It's completely worthless from a encyclopedic view right now. I mean, what type of music is Alternative metal? The only definitions you can use is going by bands that are similar to those listed on the allmusic.com page. There's still no useable musical definition Ilyon 09:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Google books results show that the term is widely used in rock music literature thats good. But without being derogtory, thats ROCK music, not METAL. Ive worked in the metal community for years, and its not a known term at all. When it is used, it splits hairs over Nu Metal bands that people do and dont like. Allmusic.com says it is a genre, thats great. I can give you about 5 metal archival sites that will openly tell you it doesnt exist. And without an actuall defination, its nothing more than a pet term, that hardcore fans of Nu Metal use to denote their favourite bands. Which is seemingly exactly what this article does. Either it needs to be deleted or merged into Nu Metal, their being no three productive ways about it. ~~Leyasu
  • Speedy Keep as very obvious and commonly used term in widespread use. Whilst I know that there are today like 50,000 terms for styles of music, mainly because musicians are too afraid of being "boxed in" and want to be seen as "different" and "unique", the reality is that all of these ones exist, and we have to at least recognise the more common ones. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This isnt a common term IN the metal scene. This isnt even a genre of music. It has no defination, which by the RULES of Wikipedia, state that something cannot stay without a defination. Also, as a user previously mentioned, you can search anything almost on Google and find it. Lets search some made up genres, "Fried Metal" returns 1,590 results. Is it a new genre? No, i dont think so. "Savage Metal", it gets 720. "Scream Metal", gets a nice 4,160. Are any of these genres? No. They are all pet names for the favourite bands of people, to group bands of various genres together due to one very minor, and very undefining aspect to the bands music. This isnt a genre and doesnt warrant the article being kept. The best suggestion is to merge it with Nu Metal, and mention is as a name used sometimes for Nu Metal bands. Otherwise people are going to becontradicting several far more comprhensive, and defining genre articles. ~~Leyasu
  • Keep: Alternative metal is a legitimate genre, mainly used to describe bands that are more metal than rock, but more rock than metal (to put it simply, anyway). Basically an "alternative form of metal" like the title suggests. Tool and System of a Down are perfect examples. MrHate 11:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is a good example of why nominators should research before nominating. I've given the article external links to Music.com, Business Week, and The New York Times. Durova 14:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Per nominator feedback, I change my comment to: this is a good example of why nominators should be impartial. Wikipedia is a community. It is more productive to edit an article than to engage in long discussions on AfD. The Internet has plenty of room outside of Wikipedia for efforts to assert one's POV. Durova 00:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is asserting my POV, as you say. This article doesn't define anything. That's the entire point of an encyclopedia. How is this article useful if it doesn't? I have not found a genre definition for this anywhere. I looked this article over multiple times looking for a way to change it before nominating it for deletion. If the article can be kept as a useful Wikipedia page, I'd be happier than deleting it. However, it's been this way for some time and it doesn't seem to be about to change. It's as simple as that. Ilyon 01:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I personally find this comment insulting. Yes, I did look into it. Think about those articles you put up. The Business Week article is just an interview with a college student who's labelled an expert by the columnist because he even knows: "... The distinction between "black metal" and "death metal."" Hardly a huge accomplishment. Especially when the interviewee goes on to state that: "Black-metal bands, however, are really into satanism. There have been reports of them killing people, burning churches, and that sort of thing." Some Black Metal bands are into Satanism, definitely, but the only band I've ever heard of in regards to killing people or burning churches is Mayhem... And only one member... Varg Vikernes. It's hardly a genre-wide phenomenon. On top of that, the only mention of alternative metal in this article is one sentence: "Today, it's split between mainstream-friendly rap [metal] and alternative metal, and hard rock." This article isn't even worth putting up as an external link. The New York Times link isn't even an article. It's a movie titled Alternative Metal. Hardly informative. The Music.com article is the exact same article as the one on Allmusic.com, which I already talked about. I'll talk about it a little further now. Here's an excerpt from said article:
"At its outset, alternative metal was a style united by its nonconformist sensibility rather than any immediately classifiable sound. Heavy metal was at the core of the music, but the bands were too offbeat and their influences too eclectic to fit into the thrash underground, so their main audiences were mostly alternative fans who liked heavy guitar rock. However, after grunge helped make alternative metal more palatable to mass audiences, it became the most popular style of heavy metal in the '90s, particularly when more aggressive bands began standardizing its sound. That approach was a far cry from alternative metal's early days in the late '80s, when it represented the least categorizable heavy music around."
First of all, again, it doesn't define anything. The only thing resembling a 'definition' that I've seen is the band lists themselves. That's circular reasoning, as I already stated before. Secondly, is it just me, or is this history smacking incredibly of the history of nu-metal? I doubt I'm the only one noticing the similarities... Check the articles and compare them. Look at the bands list. I can see merging the articles (but since this one adds absolutely nothing to the other article, it's kind of pointless), or deleting this one. However, this article has absolutely no encyclopedic value. How can it be useful when it can't even define what it's trying to talk about. The article can't even give the correct genre.Ilyon 19:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User Ilyon has just eleborated on all points i was vaguely making. I hope these points, which are key reasonings in several articles on Wikipedia about deleting and merging pages are noted. Leyasu 19:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody please explain why this article should be kept when it contradicts the well known genre Nu Metal, and is essentially a pet name for it? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a site for there to be 101 pet names of things. (Leyasu 15:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

    • If you think that Nu Metal is a contested name for the genre then by all means edit the article. Offer reputable citations for that point of view. You may oppose this term but over 650,000 targeted Google hits and major periodicals disagree. Durova 16:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont oppose the term, i oppose it being used as something it isnt. As pet name for Nu Metal bands, it should therefore be merged into the Nu Metal catagory. Leyasu 17:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      • Let's see if I understand this: your argument seems to speak for a merge/redirect with the larger article at Nu Metal because the distinction between the terms is poorly defined? That would be a valid argument. I'll keep my vote as it is for now and supply a few links for other editors to evaluate. [38], [39], [40], [41]. It would seem that if the articles were merged then Nu Metal should become a part of Alternative Metal, since Alternative Metal is the older style. This would take some serious rewriting. Durova 17:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the two articles. Nu Metal is the far more known, and far more common name. Also, that article mostly says what it is. If Alternative Metal is then edited into that article, it would save a lot of rewriting and requests for a new Nu Metal article. Alternative Metal has still failed to be given a defination by anyone, as such, is just repeating what is commonly known as Nu Metal, and as such, this could be mainly solved simply by mentioning that Alternative Metal is another name for Nu Metal in the opening paragraph of the Nu Metal article, which is also nominated for having Rap Metal (which much like Alternative Metal) repeats what Nu Metal says in a disorganized, undescriptive manner. Leyasu 18:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. No, this is a very common term. While there is easy dispute as to whether the genre has anything to do with "true heavy metal", it is a legitimate definition and there is no reason to merge it with nu-metal or rap-metal or other asinine ideas brought up. Danteferno 22:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"While there is easy dispute as to whether the genre has anything to do with "true heavy metal", it is a legitimate definition and there is no reason to merge it with nu-metal or rap-metal or other asinine ideas brought up" This from someone who claims Gothic Doom isnt a genre because it has bands you wish where Gothic Metal in it. Also, i refernce people to this comment stream:
"Keep Another (continued) VFD case of those with no expertise on heavy metal - This is blatantly at me. Dante has an ongoing war of futition with me over the article Gothic Metal, and is reverting many changes, minor and major to articles because of this. He previously vandalised the Symphonic Metal page because it didnt suit his claims made on that discussion, and his whole vote is due to his flame war against me. Thus i ask his vote to be stricken. Also, i am trying to put a project together, using Wikipedia. I can also post an article listing many, many common and well known Metal Band archives, and non of them refer to genres like 'Circus Metal', 'Avantgarde Metal' or 'Alternative Metal'. Please leave a message on my talk page for comments about that article." Taken from: [This article. Leyasu 23:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please - give me a break. All concerned will see the revision history of the Symphonic Metal article and agree that my edits are not vandalism. Smears, smears, smears, Leyasu, you have a new (and more silly) one each week. Look at all the votes above - they don't seem to be in your favor - why is that? And why do you think this vast disagreement with your claims is still me vs. you? Really, give me a break. --Danteferno 00:45 8 December (UTC)
To point out the various smears Dante has made against me: Vandalism of random articles, Use of sock puppets, Delibartly inciting revert wars, i was in one which Dante was told not to start with me), Accusations of being a troll, Accusation of no expertise, Accusation of being a child, Accusation of racism. So far all these have proven to of been me NOT doing them. Also, Dant's contributions page should be checked to find he has done nothing but attack me for the last monght, not making any helpfull edits, and has then only responded to things when i have moved on with argument and moved into the whole, general issue. Also notice how he is directly talking to me in the board, and claiming that anything i say about him is smearing, yet its ok for him to make untrue accusations about me without it being smearing. (Edit) Also ive made my case in this argument, and it has been heard. I ask for Dante's vote to be striken as its an obvious vote against me due to his obvious personal dislike of me. If the article is voted to stay i suggest the merger, as do others. That is my vote, and i am free to make it any way i wish. If i am outvoted, fair enough, but with that comes the obligation of those who voted against me to amend the article into something worthwhile of its creation, lest it would be nominated for deletion, again. Leyasu 01:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Jibtech

[edit]

Slang dictdef. Durova 04:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 a non-notable bio. Mo0[talk] 04:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Cushing V

[edit]

NN bio, only 6 Google hits. Only claim to notability is that his wife works for a famous photographer. Durova 04:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as per CSD, nn-bio. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jaranda wat's sup 02:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Travesser

[edit]

Does leading a cult with 77 followers make someone notable? This man gets a few hundred Google hits. I scanned the first 100 and nearly all of them were bulletin board postings. Aside from his own organization's website and Wikipedia mirror sites, the world in general doesn't seem to be noticing. No press coverage, no books published. You be the judge. Durova 04:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Well, there has been at least a little bit of news coverage: [42]. For comparison purposes, a sampling of articles from List of new religious movements showed that those groups who membership numbers are cited in their articles generally have several hundred to several hundred thousand members, with most in the tens of thousands. The only one I could find with membership definitely under a couple of hundred was Heaven's Gate, which is obviously notable for other reasons. Of course, it's hard to say how many big a lot of the groups are when no numbers are cited in their articles. I'm not sure on this one, but perhaps we should consider renaming it Strong City (cult)? I know I couldn't get 77 people to believe I was the Son of God. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 07:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Strong City (cult) per AdelaMae as leader of religious cult with 77 members, which I think is significant enough. Cults tend to have a lot of impact and be notable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The more obscure the better - where else but Wikipedia will you find information on obscure topics?
  • Keep - The article is useful for research regarding the phenomena of people who claim to be Jesus Christ, more so than for the size or importance of his cult. Ignus 23:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's no reason for it to be removed; it seems like an unbiased recording of his life, and I look to Wikipedia for obscure information, of which this is a great example.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jaranda wat's sup 01:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Massholes

[edit]

Gee, an attack page against an entire state. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 08:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portal linux

[edit]

A nice, neutral article, but with no notability. The group doesn't even expect to release a beta this year. Delete until at the very least the product is available. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-06 04:42:23Z

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

The result of the debate was Delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Cannon fire

[edit]

The article has been moved to Wikibooks; the only link in Wikipedia to this page was on Cannon (disambiguation) and that link has been updated. Twp 04:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Nukem 3D (multiplayer)

[edit]

Per WP:NOT, this list is a set of tips for the Duke Nukem multiplayer mode. There's nothing here worth merging. I'm unsure about a transwiki. Durova 04:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nominator withdrew. Jaranda wat's sup 01:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cone

[edit]

I'm not sure what to make of this article. The Alaska Aces are a hockey team in Anchorage, not a basketball team in the Phillipines. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as silly vandalism. Why would a team from Alaska play in a Phillippines basketball competition in any case? Keep and expand given evidence from anonymous user. Capitalistroadster 05:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A quick Google search ("Tim Cone" Philippines) verifies the existence of the Philippines Basketball Association[45] and a team called the Alaska Aces and that Tim Cone is their coach. See Aces home page] for example.
  • Cleanup. There seems to be some confusion but there's definitely a Tim Cone in Philippine basketball. Manila Times, MSN. Durova 07:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article itself links to another wikipedia article that confirms his identity as the coach of the most successful basketball team in the professional basketball league of the phillipines. I think that it is important to keep this kind of thing, since we tend to have too many articles about USA and Europe and not enough about unrepresented countries like the phillippines. Coach of the most successful team is very notable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per anon user. As Zordrac notes, this article is one small part of combating systemic bias. ESkog | Talk 20:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I withdraw my nomination. I said I didn't know what to make of it.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 02:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Sentinel (NIC)/Past staff/2004-2005

[edit]
  • Generally non-notable. It's not clear, but the page is an offshoot of The Sentinel (NIC). It's not appropriate as a redirect since it violates the mainspace naming convention by using slashes. Interiot 04:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Sentinel (NIC) since the information is not included in main article. I think that it was likely intended to be a part of that article in the first place. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We don't list every single bit of staff for newspapers, especially student newspapers, because they change every semester or more frequently. I should know - I edit one. FCYTravis 11:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My original intent in creating this was to make past staff listings subpages. For example, a listing of the staff from 2003-2004 would be located at The Sentinel (NIC)/Past staff/2003-2004. If Wikipedia does not use subpages, my apologies. The reason I liked the idea of subpages instead of keeping everything on the main Sentinel page is that having so many names on one page would be cumbersome. By linking to the subpages, interested people can go the exact staff they want to reference. I realize that many who have no interest in the paper find this irrelevant and non-notable (for those who are, it is a different story), but it isn't as if Wikipedia is short on space. Why not include everything for the sake of completeness?

Additionally, I direct you to The Sentinel (MHS), where staff is listed. --Argy 20:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


MilliWinger

[edit]

Neo-neologism, Google has TWO relevant hits, one being Wikipedia itself and the other answers.com, which mirrors Wiki's article on Squick. Nezu Chiza 04:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 10:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salad Fingers theories

[edit]

Original research. Survived VFD as no-consensus. Delete. NSLE (讨论+extra CVU) 05:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Original research. ERcheck 06:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is way, way, way too much thought put into those arguably interesting cartoons; and it's original research anyway. If this is kept however, maybe I'll finally write my original research on Nietzschean Themes in Barney and Friends. Flyboy Will 08:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not a big fan of renominating articles that survived previous votes. This one has a lot of different contributors [46] and it is based on the real Salad Fingers and hence it can be presumed that the theories are based on that, and hence are not original research. I couldn't care less about Salad Fingers, but this has its merits. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a hard call, but I have to say Delete as original research. There has been a lot of work done on and thought put into this article, but Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Unless the editors can cite sources other than their personal interpretations of the work, I think this really needs to go onto a web site (not here) that's linked from the main Salad Fingers page. Perhaps a short summary could be merged back to that page from this one. --FreelanceWizard 10:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reluctantly as I enjoyed reading it (and discussing it on the talk page) and would love to see this elsewhere, but that doesn't change the fact that it's OR, even if it's collaborative OR. As for it being a renomination, I think the chance to renominate dubious articles like these are part of the reason why closing admins differentiate between 'keep' and 'no consensus'. --Last Malthusian 11:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, on the basis of being indecipherable to the casual viewer. --Agamemnon2 14:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Majorly condense and then merge into the main article. The whole thing could be condensed into a paragraph or two by taking out some of the more speculative parts, many of which are quite a stretch indeed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 22:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jonnyboy8807 (Anon vote - NSLE (讨论+extra CVU) 01:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. Patently original research. There's not a single source cited in the entire article. —preceding unsigned comment by Dpbsmith (talk • contribs) 20:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zordrac. --Billpg 15:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Martg76 19:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [47] <---- The article isn't original research, you will find most if not all the theories in this article in that link. The article's contents are collected and widely accepted views on the Salad Fingers universe. It holds some merit of acknowledgement in the flash community, various theories have been suggested, many debated and the most notable ones featured have featured in this article(with widest support). Remember - the theories have been subjected in a peer reviewed environment, if im not mistaken. If it is credible for Everything2 and Urbandictionary to be a citiful source i see no reason why an official forum of the creator isn't a credible place. Over the last months i have been trying to remove original research whilst maintaining this page, i will assume wikipedian faith and obviously i am biased but i know for certain it doesn't qualify as original research (but the sources should of been cited i accept that)
  • For theories:

state the key concepts; state the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", making clear which is which, and bearing in mind that extreme-minority theories or views need not be included. Requirements have been met --Raddicks 21:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nazim Kilic

[edit]

WP:BIO, likely WP:VAIN, claims WP:N, Google disagrees[48]; all edits by 209.218.124.83 12.74.210.189 05:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)(transcribed from Wikipedia:Articles for creation by Creidieki 05:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Beauxbatons. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beauxbaton Academy

[edit]

Procedural nomination for anon user:216.185.84.246 who wrote on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy "Would someone please delete Beauxbaton Academy? It is fictional. I am brand new, have no idea how to do this, and figure that this will get it done fairly quickly. Sorry to dump it in here-- please delete this entry when you fix Beauxbaton." I have no opinion (yet). Rossami (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A1 short article with little or no context and A7 non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 06:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Radcliffe

[edit]

NN vanity. He likes to skateboard. Durova 05:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean shannon

[edit]

Vanity bio. Apparently autobiography. ERcheck 06:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nn bio - Lucky 6.9 06:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Morse

[edit]

no assertion of notability Flapdragon 06:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 10:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3

[edit]

Nominating as recreated material previously deleted in late October (see the previous discussion. Specualtion on a planned but cancelled expansion for the Command and Conquer franchise, based on a mass-emailing by a soon-later fired Electronic Arts employee. Saberwyn - 06:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination, but I will also support a merge, either to an appropriate target or somewhere else to prevent recreation until this theoretical game moves out of crystal-ball-dom and into the light. Saberwyn - 06:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP we have articles like the Montauk Project and the Philadelphia Experiment that are subject to speculation because information about them is bleak. This page has two sources citing the game which prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that it was at least considered for production. The fact that information on this article also happens to be bleak is no reason to delete it. TomStar81 06:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two articles you have cited concern widespread urban legends surrounding two suspected U.S. military projects. These urban legends appear to have been somewhat heavily documented in widespread media, and appear to be on Wikipedia for just that, they are widespread, heavily documented urban legends.
By comparison, this article is about a real-time strategy game, and the two sources appear to cite the same email sent out by a member of the Electronic Arts. It has been a year since one of the articles used as a source was created, and as far as I know, no other word of Red Alert 3 has been made.
If EA announces tomorrow that this game is a reality, and is in production, I will happily withdraw my nomination for deletion. Until official word is given on this game, I believe that the article falls under the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball section of the What Wikipedia is not official policy. Saberwyn - 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Correct; not a crystal ball. Flyboy Will 08:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous votes/analysis as crystal ball-ness. Nothing confirmed to actually be happening. I think that Predator 3, which actually has a movie database listing and is definitely starting, is more valid than this one, and yet that one was being deleted. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as it appears to violate Criteria for Speedy Deletion G4 (no recreation of deleted material). I am getting terribly tired of people doing that. It shows very bad faith on their part. --FreelanceWizard 10:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and speedy if it is really substantially identical. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; obviously a game article still in progress, could use some wikifying, is all.-MegamanZero 0:25 7,December 2005 (UTC)
  • EXTRA STRONG KEEP I don't know why everyone is out the get this article. All the deletionism is obviously coming from people who have never played a damn Command & Conquer game. This game is always talked about through out the C&C community and is a very popular subject. Anyone looking for Wikipedia information about this game can get it here. This article CAN be improved, it can be cleaned up and expanded. Jareand 02:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The article says "It was once supposed to be the next game in the Command & Conquer series, but has since been cancelled and the staff assigned to the project realocated to work on other projects." If this is true, the game does not and will not exist. Furthermore, on a user talk page, you stated that the game doesn't exist and the belief in its existence was based on an unauthorized e-mail sent by a now terminated employee (reference). I don't believe it's beneficial to Wikipedia to keep articles about cancelled games whose very existence in the first place is arguably high level rumour at best. I would argue that any information about this rumoured game could be easily merged into the main Command & Conquer article. If you really feel the article must be kept, I would argue it needs considerable expansion, which I'm not convinced can occur, given that all the information about the supposed game comes from, as far as I can tell, a single e-mail and rumourmongering by fans. As to why people are "out to get this article," since it was deleted once before with strong consensus, I think people would rather not see it come back. --FreelanceWizard 04:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The game has been announced, and there was never an announcement it was cancelled. In any case, it would make sense to keep the page regardless of it's release. RA3 has captured the attention of many gamers in the same way as Command & Conquer: Tiberian Twilight.--Slavik81 14:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The game was considered for production and making a reference to this would not be Wikipedia acting as a "Crystal Ball" Mrbowtie 20:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gossip happens all the time; we don't need articles on every instance of it. --Apostrophe 04:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the game was officially announced by newsletter and there has been no official word of its cancellation. It isn't gossip! The Fish 20:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does that mean that every piece of vapourware on the planet now merits an article? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. No! To bring back my earlier point, this is popular among the C&C community (for a quite a while, not just since the E-mail last December). This isn't just some crackpot Wikipedian making crap up. Searching for Red Alert 3 in a search engine will get you a lot of results from well known C&C fansites (most which even have their own RA3 sections) such as here. Anyone looking for Red Alert 3 information would be able to and should be able to get the straight facts here. As for my reply on Mr. Slavik's talkpage, I meant that it has been cancelled for the time being, not indefinetly. EALA has promised to continue (and finish) the C&C universe sooner or later. Jareand 17:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I endorse Saberwyn's reasoning in full. Also, Jareand, your point about "this is popular among the C&C community", well, so what? The point of an encyclopedia isn't to cater to fans' desire for details, it's to provide non-fans with the minimum of big-picture information they need to understand what's going on when they talk to a fan. Were there verifiable, reliable information about this non-game, which there appears not to be, it would still be no more than C&C trivia meriting at most a sentence in the main C&C article, not an article of its own. The Literate Engineer 02:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point of an encyclopdia is to provide facts on various topics that may be of interest to the public; therefore since we can provide non-fans with the minimum of big-picture information they need to understand what's going on when they talk to a fan isn't it our responsibility to do so? Furthermore, the incesent attacks on this article all fail to take into account the fact that sources are being provided for this information. Its not like were making this up as we go along, there are valid sources to back up everything stated in the article. And again I point out that some of the articles maintained on this site are based nearly entirely on rumors and speculation. On top of that The Literate Engineer must not have read the article otherwise he would have noted the external links which do serve as sources for the presented material. If and when any of you can provide a valid reason for deleting this article I will change my vote; until then do us all a favor and keep your opinions to yourself. TomStar81 05:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sources for speculation about vaporware, so what? The most this could deserve would be a single bullet point in Command & Conquer under the "Red Alert series" section, "Games in the series" subsection. Nothing more until (unless) it becomes a real game. When they show it at E3 or a box hits store shelves, then it can have an article. The Literate Engineer 20:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Move information to the page that's about the Red Alert series, have this page redirect to there. Move it back here later when it is officially announced. Atari2600tim 11:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge. Too much information about the circumstances, including about the employee being fired (which really has no real value to the topic at hand). Since the game is not even been announced officially, I would recommend to merge a little bit to the Command and Conquer Series thread. Just mention that it was in the works but no offical word as of yet.Tidus4Yuna
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 failed to find the content funny enough for BJAODN. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sherman

[edit]

Seems to be a joke. Lkesteloot 06:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

PHP vs ColdFusion

[edit]
The Wikibook Programming:PHP has a page on the topic of: hello world

del. Original research: chaotic comparison of two progr languages. mikka (t) 06:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Girafa

[edit]

Advertisement for Web software. FreplySpang (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Article rewritten; nominaiton no longer applicable. mikka (t) 01:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Humanistic medicine

[edit]

I apologize for the nomination. I didn't pay attention to the date of creation. The article didn't have time to mature. mikka (t) 01:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Heartbreak

[edit]

A non-notable porn star (NSFW!) whose only claim to..ahem.."fame" is that she posted pictures of herself nude during pregnancy. Not the first or anything, she just did it... Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn. Too weird. Getting off-subject, the servers aren't letting any anons create new pages. I just signed off, tried to edit and got a notice saying it was locked out. No ownder we've been getting bombarded by first-time users with such bizarre edits! - Lucky 6.9 07:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't see how taking pictures of herself pregnant is anything new or unusual. Didn't Demi Moore do that? And also Elle MacPherson? Its been done to death. Not remotely new, if that is her stake for fame. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After reading the comments by other users it appears that there is not a desire for this kind of article. Request speedy deletion on the grounds that the original author, being the only person to have edited the page, asks for its removal. I sincerely apologise for this misaction I have apparently taken in trying to improve the encyclopedia. I simply modeled my article out of others which appear under the same category. I still fail to understand how this article differs from others of the same nature - Next Door Nikki's inclusion, for example - and if someone can point me at an appropriate article to read up further on these issuses then I would appreciate it.AlexG2490 14:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How on Earth does "developing a category of authors of pornography" translate into "writing articles about pornographic models"?

      Wikipedia isn't a directory of people. It's an encyclopaedia. We have Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Heads of state, actors, politicians, musicians, and whatnot qualify for articles here because (simply) people other than they themselves go to the effort of publishing non-trivial works about them. Such people are the subjects of independent, third-party, magazine "in depth" articles, news coverage, biographies, books, documentaries, and so forth. On the other hand, for Holly Heartbreak there is, basically, nothing at all. This isn't surprising. She works in an industry where information about the models themselves is deliberately kept secret, and most blurbs and biographies are works of fiction.

      The article cites no sources, and no reliable sources of actual biographical information about this person can be found (in amongst thousands of Googlebombs, advertisements, and "come-on" pages telling us things such as that she is "spunky and more than you can handle"). This article is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 01:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- nonnotable web porn star. We'll start negotiations when she gets in Penthouse and/or makes the news for doing something stupid in public like Melissa Harrington aka Melissa Midwest. Haikupoet 05:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 five times in 2 hrs, 26 min. (Four times by Shreshth91, one time by FCYTravis, see log). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BORED

[edit]

Non-notable student organization; has only existed for a month. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-06 07:39:18Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 Mallard. — JIP | Talk 19:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rape flight

[edit]

Redundant, should not be a separate article. Delete all material and Redirect to Mallard. No need for merge because (1) info on rape flight is already in Mallard (including, yes, homosexual necrophilia in ducks), (2) info in "Rape flight" article is wrong anyway, I think (despite name, rape flight does not occur when flying), (3) overly informal and speculative. N.B.: article of same name deleted Oct 31 by admin ABCD. Maybe this makes it a speedy? I'm too n00b to know, or to find earlier discussion. Herostratus 07:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is a tough one for me. It's a real term, and an interesting term, and could perceivably be sufficiently interesting to warrant an article in its own right. It is clear that the term could be greatly expanded beyond the sub stub that exists within the mallard article, and indeed in mallard could be a link saying "Main article: rape flight". There is certainly enough information about this phenomenon, which is unique to the mallard ducks that it could fill an entire article. I suppose it is a bit like the practice of praying mantises, where the female bits and eats the head off the male during mating. It is sufficiently notable and interesting to warrant its own article. After all, while I personally couldn't care less about mallard ducks, I could be interested in learning about rape flight. I am sure that others feel the same. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the speedy question, an article is able to be nominated for speedy deletion if the content is basically the same as it was when deleted. As all other articles were deleted for being nonsense, whilst this one is an obvious fair attempt at creating a legitimate article, it does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information in Mallard isn't a substub - that normally refers to a one- or two-sentence article, not a two-paragraph section with citations. And there's no point keeping the present article, which - while probably a good-faith attempt to write an article - is simply wrong, and does not describe the phenomenon in question. In the circumstances, the correct thing to do is to redirect this to Mallard for now: people interested in rape flight as a phenomenon in itself will thus find the section discussing it there, and if, in the future, someone who knows a lot about the subject wishes to expand it to the point that it requires an article of its own - well, then they can de-merge it, can't they? — Haeleth Talk 15:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collection Example

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-06 07:51:49Z

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

Ie.Merge

[edit]

Not sure if there's a speedy for this, but it seems quite non-notable, or at the very least, it has practically no useful content or sources. I've got the urge to "merge," but I'm going to have to go with a Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - 6 keep 4 delete, therefore kept. Tomertalk 07:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avant garde metal

[edit]

This supposed genre isnt a recoginsed form of metal at all. It also conflicts with many of the other articles on metal genres. This article says things that can be read in varying articles, including Symphonic Metal, Black Metal and Progressive Metal. The bands listed are also a mish mash of other bands from other genres, much like other articles pertaining to metal that have been recently deleted. A search on google returned no coherent results as to why the article should be kept, and in years of working in the metal music scene, i have never heard of this genre outside of Wikipedia. This sounds, much alike Alternative Metal and Tech Metal, to be a made up genre by someone trying to group together, and promote, their favourite bands. ~~Leyasu Have you ever visited www.avantgarde-metal.com? If you've been a metal fan for years and have never encountered such a term, maybe you need to open your horizon a bit more, or maybe you're simply not a fan of the more avant-garde metal bands. In any case, why are you writing this here?!?! Stick to your guns and let us enjoy our weird music.

  • Keep. 9790 Google hits, all of which seem to point to the music genre. So, someone is supposed to see the term, come to Wikipedia for an explantion and find... nothing? That it doesn't exist, as far is Wikipedia is concerned? Look, I know that there are all thense names... Goth Metal, Black Metal, Thrash Metal, Nu Metal, Noise Metal, Heavy Metal, Death Metal, Doom Metal, Progressive Metal, Grindcore, and God knows what else. I don't have the expertise or interest to chose between them, and there MUST be a better way to work this out than deleting whole articles. I appreciate the nominator's interest and passion on the subject. I'm wondering, would the nominator perhaps consider putting together a project to sort through this? Herostratus 04:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another (continued) VFD case of those with no expertise on heavy metal - This is blatantly at me. Dante has an ongoing war of futition with me over the article Gothic Metal, and is reverting many changes, minor and major to articles because of this. He previously vandalised the Symphonic Metal page because it didnt suit his claims made on that discussion, and his whole vote is due to his flame war against me. Thus i ask his vote to be stricken. Also, i am trying to put a project together, using Wikipedia. I can also post an article listing many, many common and well known Metal Band archives, and non of them refer to genres like 'Circus Metal', 'Avantgarde Metal' or 'Alternative Metal'. Please leave a message on my talk page for comments about that article. Leyasu 19:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you Metal Archives is one site, that is accepted by only some people. Main problem i pick up with this, is what it says. It says, that anything that isnt black metal, is automatically Avantgarde metal. The second problem is, all of the bands listed, bar exception of maybe 3, are listed on other articles already. The last problem with this article, is that it seems anything can be Avantgarde metal, if they do even the smallest, slightest thing that a band before them hasnt. If this article is kept, it needs to define what the genre is a whole lot better. It says Avantgarde Metal uses things that other bands havent done before, thats fine. Such as what? Where did it come from? How do you distinguish an Avantgarde band from a Progressive band that uses a Xylophone? If this article is kept, someone needs to seriously edit it and make it a lot more definative, a lot less confusing and vague, and make sure it doesnt contradict most other articles in the process. This isnt me being bitchy or spitefull, this is me simply trying to make people act on keeping articles and improving them, not just jumping onto 'Keep' whenever the article is nominated for deletion, yet not be willing to improve it so it doesnt keep getting nominated. Leyasu 21:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
you make a good point Leyasu, I think the article does a decent job of trying to seperate progressive metal from avantgarde metal, but there are still problems with it, would I, or someone else, be allowed to just re-work this page when it's in this pending deletion status? I would definitely be willing to do that then, because I think it's a worthwhile page and I'm willing to work if it means keeping it. To be fair though, other sites, like http://www.metalstorm.ee for instance, also have a group of bands for the genre. Karpsmom 1:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


As Wikipedia states, you can edit, or merge a page all you want. However, if the article is deleted, your editations will be lost. I think thats what it says =x. If you intend to work the page, do so, this may alter the vote of me and other people, if the article is then to make more sense. Leyasu 07:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   Delete-Ive never heard of it i looked it up, if it is a genre its verry small with only a few bands, like hate metal (other than obviously metal that contains hate lyrics)
I fail to see how not knowing of something is cause to delete it. Anybody who knows about avantgarde metal knows about the many bands in the genre.
Its not known because its a Pet Name thats why. Its not an accepted genre of metal. Its a name given to any band that does something new. I will kindly point out All Gothic Metal, All Symphonic Metal, All Power Metal, All Black Metal, etc etc, was called Avantgarde Metal, when bands first created genres. This isnt a genre, its a pet name for any band that does something new or different, that a band before them hasnt done. Leyasu 07:20, 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 (1k, 4d, 1 merge). The comments in support of deletion were instrumental to this decision. Mindmatrix 18:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Left Stalinism

[edit]

Article relates to a concept which has no independent existance outside wikipedia. It wrongly labels the "official communist movement" as Stalinist (which is not a NPOV description) and only identifies one group as belonging to this proposed tendency, CPGB(PCC). To label CPGB(PCC), a group which I otherwise have very limited sympathy for, as "left stalinist" is of course little else than simple smearing. Also it should be noted that the term "revionist" is highly POV in a Marxist context. --Soman 08:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But Left Communism is something completly different. No part of the text material in the Left Stalinism fits in the Left Communism article. --Soman 10:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? I thought that Stalinism was an interpretation of Communism. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Left Communism as a political term is not the same as the leftwing within the communist movement. It refers to a specific tendency represented by a specific set of organizations and individuals (KAPD, Bordiga, ICC, etc.). --Soman 09:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do not merge - is completely different to left communism. The term is obscure, generally considered POV and scarcely used. However, the CPGB(PCC) do use the term to describe their origins in the New Communist Party: "As individuals, we came from 'left Stalinism'. 'The Leninist' was not left-Stalinist, however. That's what we said to you, just to be clear." [52]
  • Keep, appears on Google. Could use some citations to published works. Gazpacho 08:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of the hits on google are from wikipedia. Perhaps it should be merged into Stalinism or Left Opposition. --Descendall 11:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, but a major part of the hits are of the type "xxx the Left. Stalinist ...", "pro-left, Stalist ...", etc.. When the term is used as a concept it is only by Trotskyists using it as a pejorative. --Soman 13:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarification: When I said "a lot of the hits on google are from wikipedia," I meant that most of the google hits that come up that are actually about Left Communism are just pages that have copied wikipedia's entry word for word. There is very little independent use of the word. If it is true that it is just some secretarian pejoritive, and I assume that you're probably correct, then delete. --Descendall 19:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to exist. -- JJay 02:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COADFT

[edit]

This is part original research of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, a book by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and part summary of what happens. Should be deleted per WP:NOR and also because a much better article exists at Chronicle of a Death Foretold. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete (3k/7d). Mindmatrix 20:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Wong

[edit]

Biography that does not meet the criteria of WP:BIO. —Brim 09:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Autum Age Vampire

[edit]

NN song by a group that doesn't have an article and probably isn't encyclopedic. Durova 09:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The PLAGUE

[edit]

An article on an apparently non-notable student publication which consists entirely of what looks like original research. Gamaliel 09:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history it appears I inadvertantly added the AfD notice to an older version of the article, which eliminated some of your changes. I apologize for that mistake, but that's hardly deleting the entire article, and anything that was removed can be easily retrieved from the history. Gamaliel 05:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was BJAODN and DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flat felix

[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable band. Possible BJAODN attempts at the bottom. They claim to have made at least one public performance. w00t!... I mean...Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jaranda wat's sup 21:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton 95

[edit]

A usenet joke/hoax - probably not notable enough for inclusion Rd232 talk 10:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; it's an admitted hoax on its own page, and while I'd normally say mark it as part of Category:Hoaxes and be done with it, it just perpetuates the hoax without explaining it. Google turns about about 50ish relevant links, and Google Groups comes up with a few hundred from Usenet. I don't really think this is notable, but even if it were, I doubt anyone would turn up to clean up the article and put it on the level of other articles about hoaxes. Sadly, I think this one's got to go. --FreelanceWizard 10:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was a Hoax- In 1995. The first line of the article admits that it's not real. The problem with source material is that it's a part of Internet History (And trolling, admittedly), from 1995 ;) Frankly, I'm surprised ANY webpages mentioning it are still running. Considering the number of different groups that discussed it shows that it wasn't strictly an in-joke on one usnet group. comp.os.msdos.misc,alt.folklore.computers,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.system,rec.games.mud.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose,comp.lang.c,alt.sports.hockey.nhl.wash-capitals,alt.winsock I don't agree that deletion is the right choice in this case. E1ven 14:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Even if it is notable, that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't work like other hoax pages that describe the hoax, its history, its perpetuators, and the like. The article at the moment is quite non-encyclopedic. If someone were to step up and agree to clean it up to bring it to the level of quality of the articles in Category:Hoaxes, I'd say keep it, sure -- but I somehow don't think anyone's going to do that, given how little eyeballing the page has gotten so far. Will anyone step forth and agree to save this article? --FreelanceWizard 19:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Fair. The article was badly written. I did a re-write; It's not much better, but I think it's good enough. Agreed? --E1ven 19:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed. I think it should be put on cleanup or requests for expansion now so it can get some further love, but I think it passes VfD muster for the time being. I've changed my vote above. I'm curious why someone put unreferenced on it, though... the external links are the sources, are they not? *boggles* I'm still not entirely convinced about its notability, but this article passes my personal "researcher of something one level removed" test, so I'm fine with it staying around. --FreelanceWizard 22:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable hoax (and the article acknowledges that it was). 23skidoo 22:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 22:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable meme in its time. Haikupoet 06:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I plead guilty. I originally marked the article for speedy deletion, being under an impression that the article was a (self-admitted) hoax. Now it is clear that it is an article about, a fairly notable hoax, so keep. - Mike Rosoft 15:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aileen Paron

[edit]

Was nominated for a speedy as a non-notable bio but someone removed it so we'll do it this way. Nothing on the allmusic guide, nothing on google doing a normal search or restricting to her full name. Article does nto provide fullfil WP:Music dr.alf 10:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgon's Head Lodge

[edit]

Too sekrit?? Unverifiable? --Aoratos 10:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Happy April the first to you as well. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

[edit]
George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local politician. Claims he was "elected president" of some micronation called the United States (whose article is currently up for deletion here). Only 8,420,000 Ghits. Man appears to be more of a comedian than a politician anyways. Fails WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse (chat site)

[edit]
  • Delete = I wrote this article a few weeks ago as part of my history of talkers, but recent debates have determined that we should probably merge them all in to one. While this started off as a stub, I have been unable to source any information to make this anything beyond a sub stub. I have also determined, after discussion with others, that being the first ever talker with an 18+ age description is not suitably notable for its own article. Since I couldn't find a place for it in talker and didn't reference it in any of the other articles, I don't see how I can justify it. Sorry for taking up server space with this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can request something that you created be speedily deleted by adding {{db|creator requests deletion}} at the top, as long aas no one else has edited it. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

circus metal

[edit]

This page is much alike the Avant garde metal page. This page however, is completely POV and coining a term. Circus metal, is not a genre of metal known at all, except seemingly as a pet name on yahoo fan site. Also, why would this need a seperate article if its part of the supposed Avant garde metal genre? (which upon reading, lays claim to all the traits of progrssive metal, black metal and gothic metal, claiming to be all three exclusivly). There is no reason for this article, and like several other supposed metal genre articles on Wikipedia, comes across as pure POV, and Neoglism. A fan trying to promote a coined term and a list of their favourite bands. Leyasu 11:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If i didnt work in metal, and knew this was a genre, i wouldnt of put it up for deletion. As is, this is a made up genre to group a bunch of bands otherwise not confined to anyone genre. With small, and on defining similarites. Leyasu 18:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you have expertise, but I'd be happier to see a consensus from a group of people who have expertise (AfD participants can do research, but are not always experts in the subject). I suggested a Wikiproject to you (and others) on your talk page. Absent that, I'm leery. Herostratus 03:54, 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 Speedy delete (as non-notable) --Nlu 22:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ng Chin Bond

[edit]

The article does not meet the Criteria for inclusion of biographies and seems to be in a series Hong Kong Secondary Students Union vanity pages dr.alf 11:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. RobertG's initial impulse turned out to be correct. As per this edit, the original author of the article Billbones (talk · contribs) and 195.194.74.215 (talk · contribs) appear to be one and the same. 195.194.74.215 placed a banner at the top of the article pointing out that "this page is satire" to the "humor-impaired". I have therefore speedily deleted the article for being an admitted joke article. Uncle G 15:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwhack

[edit]

Neologism, non-notable, self-referential. But for the fact that it violates WP:BEANS it should anyway probably be in Wikipedia: namespace. My impulse was to speedy delete, but on balance I decided it perhaps required consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 11:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 17:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Palms Out Sounds and Haldan Blecher

[edit]

Not only no claim to notability, it actually claims to be not notable. Google is unimpressive. I feel for the underdog, but I recomend delete, and wish that there was a CSD for this. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 17:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Dooley

[edit]

It's the spirit but not the letter of CSD, non-notable bio and almost-empty article. Stifle 11:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: delete. (userfied to remove from AfD space, user can request speedy deletion when he's finished copying the content to whereever he wants it.) Tomertalk 00:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LDAP authentication in Linux

[edit]

I was not aware of wikibooks. I wanted a place to store my notes about stuff that I learn. I thought wikipedia is the place for it. But as you ppl have suggested, I have moved all my stuff to wikibooks. I will put my notes there. Thank You

Regards

--Swapnil durgade 08:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This would be better placed on wikibooks. Currently does not cite sources, does not provide context, and does not have an encyclopedic tone. This is not an example of {{sofixit}}, however, as there is not potential for this to become an encyclopedic article. brenneman(t)(c) 11:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was: no consensus (and not much interest): 2/1/0. Tomertalk 00:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not Quite Velvet

[edit]

Slightly better than the usual crop of non-notable bands, but doesn't make the grade. Stifle 11:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. Pages can be merged and redirected as desired, of course. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 22:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remastered Tracks Rockman Zero 2

[edit]

Non-notable album from a non-notable band Stifle 20:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Merger of this article to Mega Man Zero 2 is not justifiable, as there is another article out there dedicated to the RTRZ CDs. Merger to the RTRZ article is more justified, however.
As it contains no drama tracks unlike Remastered Tracks Rockman Zero 1, Remastered Tracks Rockman Zero 3: Telos and Remastered Tracks Rockman Zero 4: Physis, perhaps it shouldn't be given its own article. However, for someone like me, it would be useful to have a list of tracks from these CDs available. Wolf ODonnell 13:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a easy fix- I suggest we merge this article with all the other remastered track articles, and make a page called Megaman Zero Remastered tracks. Simply a line-by-line retufution of all the releases in one article. Plus this page is in need of some serious wikifying...I gladly volenteer to bring it up to standard, with, of course some assistance form my partner-in-crime Wolf ODonnell.-MegamanZero
  • Okay, I've wikified the page. We just need to merge it now.-MegamanZero 10:45 8,December 2005 (UTC)

No! There's already a Remastered Rockman Zero Tracks page! Wolf ODonnell 10:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then what should we do then...?-MegamanZero 16:49 8,December 2005 (UTC)

Put the info in the RTRZ CDs article. Either that or leave it where it is and ignore the pleas for the info's deletion. Wolf ODonnell 21:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. But the article is too large to merge, I say we leave it like it is; I've wikified it, so its up to standard now anyway.-MegamanZero 014 8,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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Berwick

[edit]

In my opinion this guy is just another businessman and not a suficiently notable one to need an article. The page is an orphan and the company he founded doesn't have a Wikipedia article. The story about the boating accident hardly seems to have caused a media sensation apart from a quick mention in local papers - a Google search returned 2 pages of links, of which this one was the only place the incident was still mentioned. There's so many businessmen and so many people who sink their boat that it needs more than that to merit an article. Spondoolicks 12:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to delete. Capitalistroadster 17:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 17:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Lights

[edit]

Non-notable website. Stifle 16:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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?) 02:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maligner

[edit]

Appears to be non-notable website. No Alexa rank, does not meet WP:WEB. Delete. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 17:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mortimer in Schiller´s Mary Stuart

[edit]

Appears to be original research or an essay. Stifle 14:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is an essay that I wrote myself. So why do you want it to be deleted ? Jfryson

The plot summary is appropriate, but interpretation or criticism of an artistic work should only be done by others and summarized by us. We'd violate our WP:NOR - "no original research" policy. Also, this should be merged back into Schiller’s Drama Mary Stuart. (And that article should be moved to a better title, like "Mary Stuart (Schiller)". -Willmcw 22:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I merged the two sites now and change the name. I hope it is OK like that. You can now delete this page. The new page is Mary Stuart (Schiller). Jfryson

For future reference, please don't make "cut and paste" page changes. Since there was little eidting history it isn't as bad, but it messes things up. You should use the "move" function instead. There's still a Schiller’s Drama Mary Stuart and a Mortimer in Schiller´s Mary Stuart that we need to deal with. -Willmcw 21:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goregasm

[edit]

Could not find anything on the net about this. Page not encyclopediac at all. Manik Raina 13:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete BD2412 T 17:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

PlayNetwork

[edit]

Does not meet WP:CORP. Small unlinked-to stub that was the only edit of the anon who created it. pfctdayelise 13:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cryptic (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Silvestri

[edit]

Not notable. Google yields nothing impressive, the website mentioned as his creation has terrible alexa in its various incarnations. I recomend a gentle deletion, let's not WP:BITE. - brenneman(t)(c) 13:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rowlett

[edit]

Article has been awaiting clarification re WP:NOR for over a year, and none has been forthcoming. Lack of verifiability has been documented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell J. Rowlett, and to repeat what I said there I can't find any evidence of this being in use outside the creator's immediate circle. The vast majority of Google hits are Wiki mirrors. We are either the major source for disseminating a piece of original research, or possibly assisting in the perpetration of a hoax. Neither looks good. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the week-plus that we've had Rowlett and similar articles, not one reference or piece of evidence that his numbering method has been submitted to a refereed journal. Until that happens, the numbering system must be considered non-notable or dubious, and since his so-called notariety is based on his numbering system, this article should be deleted as nn. I repeat: is there any evidence of peer review, discussion by the academic community, or acceptance by anybody not connected to Rowlett? B.Wind 05:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My love virus

[edit]

I propose this deletion due to lack of evidence to prove this subjects existence.

Google Search for "my love" virus

Secunia Virus Search for "My love"

Sparky 03:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

River Bottom Nightmares

[edit]

A new non-notable band. +sj + 13:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 17:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Off the roster

[edit]

Standard article about a band that shows no reason to believe they meet the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. --Allen3 talk 13:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 articles. - Mailer Diablo 03:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Speed Indian, Ten speed indian

[edit]

Standard local band article. Recorded a demo before breaking up, but no indications of having signed a recording contract or meeting any of the other criteria at WP:MUSIC. --Allen3 talk 13:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Universalization of the World Religions

[edit]

Appears to be original research/religious instruction. If the term itself is used by the Hare Krishna movement, then this could be redirected to International Society for Krishna Consciousness, but as Google reports precisely 0 hits for "universalization of the world religions", I'm guessing it's not - hence this should probably be deleted. — Haeleth Talk 14:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 01:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moonrocks

[edit]

Dicdef of neologism +sj + 14:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ninja

[edit]

I'd call this a non-notable webcomic, except the article doesn't actually say how this comic can be acquired, so it may merely be an even-less-notable paper comic. Applicable policy is WP:V - it's impossible to verify this information from the article given. Note 0 Google hits for <"the ninja" "matt dunay">. — Haeleth Talk 14:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable. -- Saikiri~ 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable, non-notable comiccruft. Stifle 15:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:V Andrew Levine 19:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable and no information in article to suggest notability or give help with verification. ++Lar 19:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete This comic exists, it is just currently not in print for the general public. It is still partially in production according to the creator(who I happen to know). The creator has told me that the comic needs a little more production time before more facts can be posted about it, so I have been told by him to explain that this page is not a fraud, and that it will be expanded in due time. I would also like to add that search engine will not net you much information about "The Ninja" as very few people know about it. The reason that a Wikipedia page was created for it was to begin a limited release of facts about the comic; sort of like a preview, in a sense. Therefore, this page should not be deleted as it will soon host more information than is currently on it. Thank you.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jaranda wat's sup 21:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

École Mondiale World School

[edit]

Written by disgruntled student. School may be notable, but no content. AFD for now. +sj + 14:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S.P.G.

[edit]

Vanity music-bio. +sj + 14:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus as understood by influential leaders

[edit]

What defines "influential"? Or a "leader" for that matter.(Leader of a nation or a prayer group?) This is an unmaintainable list, unlikely ever to escape WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. karmafist 14:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've never heard of most of those people...XYaAsehShalomX 15:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - but this list should be renamed as : Jesus as understood by influential people; because the word "leader" is bit too strong. JoJan 15:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the very title is POV - "understood" and "influential"? It can only be a list of questionable assertions. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too diffuse and POV. Makes no attempt to define influence or leadership, spans two millennia. If one applies Wikipedia guidelines of notability then every author of a book about Jesus that sold 5000 copies would qualify. Certainly there is room in Wikipedia for lists about Jesus. This isn't one of them, nor can it be. Most of the people here, I suspect, are already on related and better named lists. Durova 15:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Keep (and Move). This is an extremely useful list. It is a great source for the research question "Where on Wikipedia can I find out what important thinkers had to say about Jesus", and guide a user to the articles, where she can find out more about where to find these people's writings on Jesus. This seems (1) likely to be a quite common research need for college students etc., and (2) hella lot more worthwhile than research questions like "Where can I found out the names of all the monsters in the Dragonball Z movies", which type of info Wikipedia has aplenty.
XYaAsehShalomX, it looks like most of these people were reaonsably significant thinkers. They all have Wikipedia articles, anyway.
KillerChihuahua, the title is offputting, and a bad title. So I recommend a Move to something like List of Wikipedia biographies of people who wrote significantly about Jesus or whatever. If the title was changed would that affect your vote?
Sheesh there is really a current going against all lists here, on the grounds that categorizing anyone as "important", "influential", or whatever is inherently POV. I really think that's getting overworked a bit. Reasonable people can generally agree about most of the entries in a list like that; the rest is details. The person using the list for research can decide if a given entry is not important, too. (Also, in this list, the person used a pretty solid criteria: people who have Wikipedia articles.) Somebody did some serious work here; it looks to be pretty fairly constructed. Why throw away someone's good, hard work??? Herostratus 18:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a category for Jesus, Religious perspectives on Jesus, Jewish view of Jesus, Christian views of Jesus, Cultural and historical background of Jesus, and many other fine articles on the subject. A list that amounts to an undifferentiated dumping ground for material already well presented elsewhere is a hindrance to scholarship, not an aid. Durova 19:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a good point. I'm not sure I agree, though, because different people use different internal mechanism for finding information. It's like, if you're writing a hardware manual, and you reference Printer Failure under Printer, because that makes sense to you, but some people might look under Failure or Error, even if that's not how you think. But after looking up the lists and categories you pointed out, I see your point, and I'll remove the "Strong" from my keep, thanks for the info. Herostratus
I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking if this list is part of an Alpha Course? Doesn't look anything like that to me. Herostratus
OK, I wasn't aware of List of Christian theologians. But that list doens'nt include Jefferson, Mikhail Bulgakov. etc.; it only includes professional theologians, so to speak. Herostratus
Well, (1) It's a list, not an article, so it doesn't need to explain what they thought; again, if renamed, the issue of "understood" won't come up 'cause that won't be in the name (2)I think everone on the list wrote about Jesus (of Nazareth) and had something useful and important or at least interesting to say, rather than just having heard of Jesus (of Nazareth). (3) as for the possible confusion, if the renamer thinks it necessary, they can use specify "Jesus of Nazareth" to avoid confusion with Jesus Alou etc. Herostratus
  • Renamed and Cleaned up. I think there's a glimmer of hope in it, if it would be changed to "interpretations of the life and teachings of Jesus by various leaders" or something of the sort, and quality would be improved greatly. As it stands now, it is not an acceptable article for reasons others have outlined. Trilemma 22:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tonywalton and others, useless listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 22:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. There are several issues with this article. The first is that there is no real information in it apart from a list of several items (some are leaders, some are authors, and two are books). While the topic does seem interesting, the article fails to explore it or even define it. Given the 2000 years of Christian history, a complete listing of what leaders thought about Jesus would be mind-numbingly long, it would be nice as an essay or paper, but sems far too broad for an encyclopedia article. DeathThoreau 04:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but part of the list could be used The Quest for the Historical Jesus (which is a theological subject of its own) and should be expanded there. I moved the list to the talk page there for this purpose. Irmgard 07:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless list that makes no attempt to really define what it is trying to do. Andrew Levine 19:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Linkcruft. It's just a list to a bunch of people; if it actually sad what their various opinions of Jesus was, it'd be useful. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 10:55, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 16:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel communications

[edit]

advertisement by the company


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sauli Poukkanen

[edit]

Student filmmaker, not notable in Finland. Only google results are wikipedia mirrors and a film site where anyone can send short films they have made. It was listed for a speedy three months ago but rejected since it makes a claim for notability, so it's listed here. - Bobet 15:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needle dick

[edit]

A "panicle" appears to be a part of cactus anatomy, not a type of cactus. If such a thing exists, and this really is another name for it, it could be a useful redirect, but I couldn't find any evidence of either in searching the web. Demi T/C 15:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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] 00:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Droogs (gang)

[edit]

Hoax, BJAODN it. BadSeed 15:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Wow. Took you guys long enough. I was really starting to wonder. That's all,
               -Britva

P.S. It's too bad i didn't get around to making that Dacron-X article sooner.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HavenMuck

[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 14:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AEI Web Design

[edit]

Delete. Article reads like an advertisement. Google search showed no references in first several pages to the company, except from the company's own website.-- Syrthiss 16:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why delete? We are in the process of trying to eliminate the the "advertisement" sounding reading from the article as well to comply with Wikipedia's rules. In fact we have already rewritten much of our original article in an attempt to provide for information about the company AEI and not necessarily its services. Cobalt2020 16:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, now that is at least a more helpful response beyond the, "this article sounds like an ad" comments. In response to your question, No, at this point in time, AEI Web Design does not have any online, third-party reviews that we are aware of. We do have radio commercials running on FM stations in Georgia and we have sat down with Adroit Publications in the past and been interviewed by them about our services. In light of this though and after having read the Wikipedia guidelines for what noteable companies (are), we agree that we do not meet them fully and understand if the motion to delete our article is upheld. Cobalt2020 16:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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] 00:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Submit new article

[edit]

This article called "Submit New Article" is a pretty much an exact copy of the article Mitsubishi Ki-20 and has a title that is in no way related to its content, I beleive it a mistake left over from when the article on the Mitsubishi Ki-20 was created. Nikostar 16:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Article deleted --Nikostar 17:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aboral

[edit]

I was in the process of transwiki-ing this, but its complete content is already in Wiktionary. Stifle 16:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Group International

[edit]

Advertisement of non-notable company according to WP:CORP. The creator of this company article (User:Rgill) has also written the article Software Selection adding links to it all over the place. --S.K. 16:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropophilic, Aqueous phase, and Achromatic

[edit]

Three pages that I transwikid to Wiktionary; they must be sent here for the AFD process. Stifle 16:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of harry

[edit]

Non-notable band. Gaining interest != releasing albums. Stifle 16:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Undergroundscene.co.uk

[edit]

Only a weak delete vote; article is well-written but site appears non-notable. Stifle 17:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define 'non-notable'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellacopter (talk • contribs) Ifnord 17:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So why do articles like this exist? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Confidential — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellacopter (talk • contribs) Ifnord 17:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sub7 (band)

[edit]

Possibly the best example yet of why we need a speedy category for bands. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Girafa

[edit]

Advertisement. Alexa rank of Girafa.com is around 100,000. Looks mostly like an excuse for someone to post a referral link. FreplySpang (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Lindsay

[edit]

Text wiped Tsamuk 17:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World Interest Club

[edit]

School club. 'nuff said. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Under Pressure Rebooted

[edit]

A film made by a group of students in their last year at high school. No mention of public release. Assume it has not received one. Therefore non-notable. Sorry. -- RHaworth 17:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This film is quite popular in parts of New Zealand and has been seen overseas as well. It wasn't released as a normal film so its more of a underground sort of film. Janken 22:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B5405 road

[edit]

The B5405 road is a 5 km road linking two Staffordshire villages - see it here on Google Maps. It may be useful for the locals to travel from one village to the other, but in the grander scheme of traffic engineering it isn't. B roads are collector roads that funnel traffic into larger arterials. Neither does it have any historic or cultural significance to speak of.

It was nominated here once, back in August, when there was no consensus to delete. See the discussion here. Meanwhile one contributor has added some more local directions, but Wikipedia still isn't a map in words.

Delete this per the consensus at Wikipedia:Consensus/B_roads_in_the_United_Kingdom. Pilatus 17:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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] 00:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Ewell - Image Gallery

[edit]

This page doesn't really seem to fit any sort of standard. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is not an image gallery page, and it certainly isn't "throw a bunch of random text into the submission box" page. So based on that, Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 17:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Tough call, but I'm going to call it in favor of "merge and redirect". I've merged its contents with 7 Up and turned 7 Up Plus into a redirect. (Most of the information was actually already in the 7 Up article.) Tomertalk 01:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

7 Up Plus

[edit]
  • Delete Even though this article may technically be accurate, it gives no sources. Plus, is it going to be easy to maintain. In a 5 years will the information still be accurate? For instance, 7 Up may eventually sell the line, or discontinue it altogether. If in 5 years the information is inaccurate, will anybody be willing to edit it?TheRingess 04:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unsure of the validity of this argument. If someone's willing to maintain the page by mentioning various flavours as they come out, etc., they won't have to work nearly as hard to do so if the product itself is discontinued. Also, although source information is important, it's not so critical if the article in question is rather non-controversial and about a commonly-available product. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the risk of sounding argumentative, when I read Wikipedias guidelines about providing references, I didn't see any caveats about criticality. The article does contain information about the ingredients, without providing a source, which suggests that its more a commercial than a genuine encyclopedia article. I also doubt that anyone is going to want to waste time updating this article as new flavors come out. Is anyone really going to volunteer to maintain this article?TheRingess 06:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not really understanding your point about its ingredients. Most of the soft drink articles mention the sweetener used, caffeine content, etc. Although the carbs content probably comes off of the product itself (I wrote the original article, by the way) the apple juice content is distinctive among mainstream North American sodas. This article seems fairly standard for a second-tier product stub. On the other hand, about references: I'm not saying the article couldn't be improved by references, but, as an estimate, I'd say at least 95% of the articles on Wikipedia do not have listed references. When the statements in an article are not controversial and easily verifyable, references should not neccesarily be required, and by no means should a lack of them warrant an article's deletion. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jaranda wat's sup 21:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AutoTrader.com

[edit]

It seems to me that this article is nothing but a commercial DeleteTheRingess 19:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia spear

[edit]

Lacks substance. I am also unable to find any relevant references on Google. Snorgenhorpher 17:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia's Pizza Kitchen

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Musika Reika

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is weird. The article was written by a named user. Then it was blanked by a second (anon) user who claimed to be DJ Milla and who also added the disputed tag (said the show never was aired). Then it was nominated for AfD in its blanked state by a third (also anon) user who is probably also the second user. Herostratus 06:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The anon user was in fact DJ Milla. She is my partner. If you check the IP addresses I use, you will see my most common one is 24.123.116.99 (where Milla was using .97 and .102). Milla and Dementia Radio had a major disagreement over her show's lack of comedy content and she wants all references to her show deleted. EmiOfBrie 01:01, 7 December 2005 (CST)
Oh hi Emi. Right, I just wanted to verify all that. Someone could have have been claiming to be her or something. I'm sure it will be deleted soon as non-notable. Herostratus

Delete. Herostratus 22:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is DJ Milla (I'm not registered but check my IP)...please delete. One note: The show did air twice, but as I said when I blanked the page, it will never air again.

  • Delete. The Wikimedia Help Desk received an e-mail from Amelia M. Samples similar to the content of the page.It said: This article was placed in reference to a shoutcast that I had set up. The show has been cancelled and this article was posted containing material that I didn't approve. The show no longer exists, will not exist in the future, please mark this page for deletion." Due to delays in the help desk, I didn't get to the e-mail until just now. Given that the show had a limited audience for its two shows and has now ended, there is no need for the article Well done to DJ Milla and Emi/Amelia for their honesty. Capitalistroadster 07:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Network 21

[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. Johnleemk | Talk 16:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On The Story

[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 (deleted by Mailer diablo). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Throne of mortality

[edit]

Does not qualify as a notable group according to WP:MUSIC: could find no reference to them using google, article does not contain any links, and has no useful content. StealthFox 03:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wipeout ride

[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. Johnleemk | Talk 16:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ziphyl Gerard

[edit]

This article is an POV article of a nn-musician who has never released an album and has only two mp3 singles in circulation --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Puttx

[edit]

Non-notable personal project of User:Zootreeves (yet, best of luck with it, but I don't think you should be attempting promotion in Wikipedia); User:Zootreeves's only edits are in relation to this; User:Zootreeves also inserting linkspam about it into Google AdWords article -- Blorg 17:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if i am replyng in the right place... Yes it is a personal project, but I have not self promoted it. It is a metasearch engine, so therfore why can it not go in the metasearch category? If I was a user looking for information on metasearch engines I would find the information cantained on the puttx page udeful..


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 judgment of this admin as patent nonsense) --Nlu 22:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is wikipedia anti-authoritarian

[edit]

The article is both not neutral and original research, and irredemably so. Positive or negative, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for opinion pieces. Uncle G 18:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is an original essay (unless the author can cite independent sources); besides Wikipedia is not a democracy - See : Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indigenous people of the Americas

[edit]

Redundant, this is what categories are for. Unmaintainable list. Violates WP:NOT. Needs to be Deleted. Gateman1997 18:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If accurate and not duplicated: add to it! User: focusoninfinity

  • Comment: Your opinion of what we need or don't need is not relevant. At present, you are aware of the previous nom and the result of Keep. Your nom should be immediately withdrawn on procedural grounds. Otherwise, I assume this nom was made in bad faith from the beginning. -- JJay 19:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has changed in two weeks to justify this nom. Nothing. -- JJay 22:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, that is your opinion, however the fact that serveral lists of people by race have been deleted since that AFD counters your opinion.Gateman1997 22:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you bothered to follow VfD, you would know that some were deleted before this list was voted Keep. Some lists have been kept repeatedly. Some are deleted. The fact that certain lists may or may not have been deleted in the last two weeks changes nothing- particularly regarding wikipedia policy. There have been no material changes to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents. No precedents have been set. What you are saying is nonsense. Your nom is out of order. -- JJay 22:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment: In fact, this nom is pure bad faith. You have not disclosed that you created List of Caucasian Americans on Nov 29 to make a point. Furthermore, you have stated above that you were not aware of the previous nom for the Native American list. In fact, you talk directly about it here User_talk:Calton#List_of_Caucasian_Americans. You have not only violated procedure, you are not being honest or transparent with any of the voters on this AfD. -- JJay 23:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The fact I created List of Caucasian Americans is irrelevant and it was not created to make a point as it was a legit article based on preceedent set by the AFD on List of African Americans, however that preceedent has now been superceeded in my opinion by the deletion of the Caucasian list. And I don't see what that link has to do with List of Native Americans or this List of Indigenous people of the Americas as it was neither mentioned in that discussion you link to nor even implied.Gateman1997 23:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And as for my list being a collection of indiscriminate information... consensus is on my side when you consider we keep lists of African Americans, Native Americans--- signed by you two weeks ago from that link. -- JJay 00:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your point? Consensus has obviously changed if now we're deleting racial lists.Gateman1997 00:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My point- honesty...oh, btw, should I warn you when I vote for something? just want to save you the trouble of having to check my contribs. -- JJay 00:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't flatter yourself, you're not the only one whose Contribs to AFD I've perused today.Gateman1997 00:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice that you find a way to occupy your time. -- JJay 07:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list can never be accurate. Ethnicities are not yes/no things. You cannot say this person is an Indigenous person because somewhere down the line they had a relative who was Indigenous person. My great-grandfather emigrated to Canada from the Ukraine. Does that make me Ukrainian? If so, then I'm also Scottish, French and Irish. This list would be fine if it was about culture or religion (things people choose to take part in and can be referenced - or do we not need proof for the labelling we do?) but ethnicities are too blurry of a concept. --maclean25 00:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Shades of Indian Removal and assimilation! This list takes up little space, gives people an introduction to some noted people of Indian ancestry. I don't understand the claim that it's unmaintainable. That's up to people who care about it. As for questions of "authenticity", if you're unsure, ask an Indian. This isn't just about *ethnicity*, it's also about *culture*. And some history that some folks may find uncomfortable. Twang 02:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't about culture. I'd be ok with culture-oriented lists, such as 'List of Aboriginal Artists' or 'List of Native American writers'. But this list is only about ethnicity. It gives the wrong impression to readers: that somebody is either an 'Indigenous person' or not. --maclean25 06:07, 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 speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 00:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Garage Mahal

[edit]

advertisement


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Perez Jr

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a memorial --TimPope 19:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Keep! Offers good info and does a nice job of explaining some very controvertial details.

I don't know if I am adding this correctly, but please keep the page. I didn't know what his was. I overheard this term and looked it up. Again, this page should not be deleted.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jaranda wat's sup 02:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Six Sigma

[edit]
  • Speedy Keep Useful find - no reason for deletion. --Etrigan 0027, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't look at me, I just put this notice on the page. DJ Clayworth 19:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B1249 road

[edit]

The B1249 is a minor road from Willerby to Skipsea – see where it is on Google Maps. (Willerby is near the top of the page, in the middle, the road then runs South and then turns East in Driffield.)

The article was nominated for deletion once back in August here, when there was no consensus to delete; someone else accidentally put is up for deletion a few days later and quickly withdrew the nomination. The article hasn't grown much since, and there is not much to say about this road except that it is a minor road linking two Yorkshire villages.

Editors who are not from Britain might read the article on B roads. In Britain, B-roads are collector roads that funnel traffic into larger arteries; unlike A-roads they are quite unimportant in the grander scheme of traffic infrastructure and the numbering is used for bookkeeping and local reference.

Delete per the consensus discussion at Wikipedia:Consensus/B_roads_in_the_United_Kingdom. Pilatus 19:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A3

That_was_random

[edit]

article lists a webpage, without saying much of substance about it. webpage no longer exists, so even if there had been anything encyclopedic value, it certainly is too late now.

(blatant self-promotion by website owner, I suppose)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Tomertalk 01:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:MapleStory/CharacterBuildGuides

[edit]

page was mainly build on the talk page, and its all merged into the wikibooks:MapleStory book now Prod-You 19:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OPS2

[edit]

Non-notable magazine. Stifle 19:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fomine NetSend

[edit]

Non-notable program Stifle 19:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homebrew (band)

[edit]

Non-notable band. Stifle 19:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Perkel

[edit]

This was put up for speedy deletion A7. Unfortunately, A7 only applies when there is no claim of significance, and this article does make that claim. I therefore bring it to AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality for background --RoySmith 20:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Even if he is notable, he's not very notable. So adding his bio only adds a tiny amount to Wikipedia's value as a reference tool.
  2. Keeping this article means that it will have to be NPOV.
  3. This will likely enrage the subject, causing him to resume his spamming and vandalism.
  4. This will force the diversion of resources to preventing that -- resources that could be be spent creating and improving useful articles.
  5. Therefore, retaining this article is likely to result in a net loss to Wikipedia's value as a research tool. And that's the bottom line, I think.
Yes the diversion of resources and general headache is bearable, but why? Who needs it?. I just made this identical comment on the AfD for Erik Beckjord (who is urging his forum readers to vandalize Wikipedia). It adds up, and how, exactly, does this help to build an encylopedia? Wikipedia is not a suicide pact. Herostratus 16:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim of notability: losing candidates in elections are not notable in and of themselves, and this guy does not seem to have gained any notoriety as a result of his failure to win. And inventing religions only makes you notable if they actually catch on. — Haeleth Talk 21:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am surprised that there wouldn't be am entry for Mr. Perkel. I was even more surprised to discover that there was no entry for the Church Of Reality. I religious discussions I've been in lately, the CoR always comes up as part of the discussion. I got to this deletion page after a failed attmpet to get more information on the Church of Reality. It is the most common sense 'religion' I've ever come across, and deserves a place in the Wikipedia world. Norbo 20:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. He runs a business and a few websites; the guides that the article states he published were published on his website, never in print; he appreared in a chat show once, and running for Congress or being the first sysadmin for the EFF hasn't gained him any notoriety. I mean, if it had this vanity article would have said so. Pilatus 22:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in print? Hmmmm .... Click here for today's artcle in the news. I've been in print hundreds of times. But - I guess anyone can make up anything they want. --Marcperkel 22:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So who has published your guides? That's what Pilatus said (that your published guides were only "published" on your website), not that your name has never appeared in print. But I guess anyone can ignore someone's point when it suits them. --TheMidnighters 06:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sherool (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Managing the Software Process

[edit]

There is nothing substantial to the article, it consists of nothing but a single line. At most it should be listed as a reference somewhere.TheRingess 20:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; kept. Johnleemk | Talk 16:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Valley View Christian Church, Dallas, Texas

[edit]

To me, this looks like just another evangelical church. No assertion has been made that it or its pastor is prominent in any church movement. The church's website states that it can accomodate 1500 people for worship, which is not unusual, considering that the congregation is in suburban Dallas. Pilatus 20:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How so? That's a pretty overarching document. SchmuckyTheCat 23:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It fails point 1.7 of WP:NOT in my opinion. It also lacks verfied outside sources. Gateman1997 23:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not a FAQ, not a list, not a travel guide, not a memorial, not a news report, not genealogical, not directory/phonebook entry, not promotional, and not an instruction manual. The lack of sources is a call for expansion and verification, not deletion.
I have added a reference from Slate for verification. Any media search on the name of the church plus "Miers" will provide significant details to expand the article and verify sources. SchmuckyTheCat 00:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It still smacks of a phone book entry and being granted an article by a tenuous at best connection to Miers. My vote stands.Gateman1997 01:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is evil, you have however, articulated a position. Thanks for doing so. SchmuckyTheCat 01:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (criterion G4: recreation of deleted material) by ChrisO. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bwn0x

[edit]

IRC club; does not appear to be notable. Google search for bwn0x reports 24400 hits, however they seem to be massively duplicated with only 49 unique ones found. (To compare, Altavista finds 773 hits, Yahoo 776.) Delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • bwn0x is definetly noteable, those hits are links to bwn0x team accomplishments, and when did notablility come to be defined as by the amount of google hits your able to conjour? Ask any of the few hundred thousand members of gamesurge, everyone has heard of bwn0x in our community
  • From the article: "Recently, the bwn0x wikipedia article has been deleted by wikipedia admin FYCTravis." And looking at the history, what do I find but that this is indeed the case - not just once, but twice! Doesn't that make this a speedy delete? — Haeleth Talk 21:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (now tagged) and protect per Haeleth. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily deleted. -- ChrisO 21:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not find a speedy deletion quite appropriate, since there was never a VfD vote. If an article is recreated after speedy deletion, it is not automatically a speedy candidate for being a re-creation. (It may well be one for the original reason for deletion, but it might also have been deleted in error.) I am not going to start an undeletion request, but I will vote for undeletion should somebody else do it. - Mike Rosoft 22:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am apalled as to how you admins can justify taking down an icon of IRC and professional computer gamers? bwn0x is more than a club, it is a word (a noun, verb and adjective), an ideal. Simply put, it's a lifestyle, one that Wikipedia administrators are too afraid exists. You are denying the essence of Wiki. I'm thoroughly disappointed.

Its sad you have deleted one of the greatest peices ever written--Bellz 23:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Saver

[edit]

Keep or merge Arthur should keep i mean listen on arthur there are so many character have there own page and cat saver and piano tamer are noted should have own pages.Maoririder 19:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Lucky help.[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete (1k,4d). I ignored four keep votes because they appear to be either from sockpuppets, trolls, or using similar vote-pumping strategies. Mindmatrix 00:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The lepracy

[edit]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Non-notable band, no google hits, no allmusic hits.-- Syrthiss 20:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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] 00:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Osztreicher

[edit]

Delete as "nn-bio". Since one user keeps removing the "db" tag, I have added the "afd" tag to again invite him for discussion.--Oberwolfach 20:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The page has been Speedily deleted by User:Ugen64 as "patent nonsense - imdb and google have no results" - SoM 13:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paramount Go Christmas!

[edit]

Apparent hoax. No evidence this movie exists or is in planning stages. One of a succession of patent nonsense articles this user posted in fast succession, however this one doesn't appear to qualify for speedy in case anyone can actually substantiate it. 23skidoo 20:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quepasa

[edit]

"This a very pov article, makes lots of claims, cites no references other than the web page of the company and quite possibly might be copyrighted material. In short, article reads like an advertisement for the company.TheRingess 20:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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] 06:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biological evolution (disambiguation)

[edit]

The article is a WP:FORK of evolution from a perspective of creationists. Completely unecessary disambig page. "Biological evolution" already redirects to Evolution; anyone looking for anything else is not looking for it under this name. Creating this page and then adding links to articles which have nothing to do with Biological evolution is absurd. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per consensus. I'm starting to sense a "trend" here. ;-) Uncle Ed 03:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge to MuggleNet. bainer (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson Spartz

[edit]

Subject of article is webmaster of MuggleNet. Although MuggleNet is notable enough, the webmaster is not, particularly since all the information on the page is from the Mugglenet website. The article has numerous photographs that are copyrighted and whose use is questionable, at best. Jtmichcock 20:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Updated vote: Delete per nom or weak merge. Even when a website is notable that doesn't make everything associated with it (webmasters, servers, forum members, etc.) notable too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: vote updated to include merge option after considering Mgm's points on my talk page. The problem with covering webmasters is that, with only the rarest of exceptions, all information about them comes from themselves and their websites rrather than books, academic sources, or mainstream publications. Since this particular webmaster interviewed Rowling, I guess a certain amount of verifiable information exists. I trust that only the truly verifiable (and non-trivial) information will be merged when the time comes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposition to the top two entires. The website is globally noted by distinct fandoms that show interest in its main topic (Harry Potter). So it is entirely just to make the webmaster notible for this achievement and the popularity it has gained. Darlyn Perez 22:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Even if the website of this individual is noteworthy in some respects, this information seems better suited as a sub-section of the MuggleNet article. It just does not seem relevent to have an article on a webmaster, and on their site also. Why not combine the two? There are obviously numerous successful webmasters out there, it seems irrelevent to have an individual article devoted to each one as well as their website especially for a fansite.
Please discount this anon vote. They have not provided a reason. - Mgm|(talk) 11:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amodus.org

[edit]

This appears to be an advertisement. Xoloz 21:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Blizzard. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blizard

[edit]

Orphan surname disambiguation page with one link, which doesn't exist --Quarl 21:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anakin Korr

[edit]

Almost marked this as speedy, but I suppose some of it might be merge-able to some part of the Star Wars Universe. Not enough context for me to figure out, but I'm only a Trekker! Xoloz 21:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Confidential

[edit]

Non-notable website; Alexa ranking 105,000 and falling, only 20 sites linking in, Google for the name finds mostly other uses. A haven for exactly the kind of bands which keep AfD busy, no doubt in thirty years time we'll also have AfDs for each month's cover "star"... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Traffic Rank for rockconfidential.com: 105,542 (down 31,477)
  • Speed: Slow (76% of sites are faster), Avg Load Time: 3.0 Seconds (what's this?)
  • Other sites that link to this site: 20
  • Online Since: 26-May-2002


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Gateman1997 00:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davis High School German 4 Class 2005-2006

[edit]

Schoolcruft only one step above "Third desk from the left". Possibly speedyable as an attack page. For the sake of form, I'll say I'm nominating this because it falls foul of WP:V (no references for either of the combinations of names I tried on Google, on the off-chance that this was a reference to a notable work of fiction). — Haeleth Talk 21:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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] 00:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Front War

[edit]

This is a non-notable "internet event" in the history of a non-notable forum. Xoloz 21:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Cook

[edit]

Delete, or move to user page. Please let me know if I'm wrong, but this doesn't seem noteable enough for an article - as the creator has the same name, should this instead be moved to their user page? Colonel Tom 21:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCDe✉ 23:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forum 168

[edit]

Verges on nonsense, but probably non-encyclopedic in any case. Delete. Catamorphism 21:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It "verges" on nonsense for you because you are most likely not a member of neowin and have not spent time watching the inner-workings of the forum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.230.180 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is something referenced by many in a group as the Forum 168. How could that not be worthy of a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.76.9.61 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Merge and delete are not compatible votes. - Mgm|(talk) 10:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per MGM, if someone really, really, really wants to tell the same joke again, they can do it where it belongs, but the content is not important for the understanding of Neowin, so there is no actual need to merge, and it's unsearchable, so no need to redirect. Geogre 17:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete K1Bond007 22:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Live Code (2009 film)

[edit]

Apparent hoax. No Google hits. No IMDb listing. A release date 4 years from now. Need I say more? (Amazingly this article was created back in October and no one caught it.) 23skidoo 21:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 hablamé 21:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Dogs

[edit]

Apparent hoax. No Google hits, no IMDb listing, 2009 release date. Created back in September - isn't anyone checking these things? 23skidoo 21:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Masstubarc

[edit]

Yet another Tubarc article: see the spate of them nominated for deletion earlier today, beginning with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tubarc itself. Vanity and self-promotion (author is User:Tubarc). The only Google hits for "masstubarc" are for text identical to this; it seems to be from a patent application, so I don't know what its copyright status is. — Haeleth Talk 21:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bartholomew Joseph Caro

[edit]

Proud Princeton student-athlete-journalist who just barely manages to assert notability. Still a vanity page, however. Xoloz 21:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EClubs.co.uk

[edit]

Networking site with an Alexa ranking of 4,063,385. Quote: With our current 7 registered users and over 24 Clubs in our database your almost guaranteed to gain something from your stay with us here at eClubs. Also vanity. Punkmorten 21:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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] 00:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Sukhorukov

[edit]

Consisting of a quote only, this entry is non-encyclopedic. Also vanity, written by Leonidsukhorukov (talk · contribs). Speediable? Punkmorten 21:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 hablamé 21:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manipoli

[edit]

Self-admitted neologism. No Google results for "manipoli musical instrument." howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 hablamé 21:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Weisbuch

[edit]

He claims to be an alderman-elect, otherwise this is an A7. Very badly written, non-notable, possibly only meant as linkspam. Xoloz 22:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 RuneScape. --Celestianpower hablamé 21:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew_Gower

[edit]

Contains absolutely no information that isn't already available in the RuneScape and Jagex articles. Furthermore it is frequently vandalised with potentially liablous comments. Runefire 22:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 01:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NITLE

[edit]

The article contains a lot of material that seems to have been directly copied and pasted from the website or copied and modified only slightly. No other reference is cited except the webpage. A few editors have done some minor cleanup. The article was started in 2004, and with the exception of the few minor cleanups, no major work has been done. So it seems that perhaps in the future, there will be no attempts to check to make sure the facts in the article are still accurateTheRingess 22:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 hablamé 21:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prenupster

[edit]

Non-existent website; the domain exists, but it leads to an AOL user homepage which contains nothing but a mockup of a website with "COMING SOON" written across it. The only mention (not link, mention) of prenupster.com that Google can find is a single forum post from May, where the site's owner claims to be "in the process" of launching the site. Needless to say, WP:WEB does not suggest that this be kept. — Haeleth Talk 22:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 hablamé 21:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Western Exploration Organization

[edit]

Although I find their claim to have recently discovered three islands with "beautiful scenery" rather charming, this looks like a hoax to me. No mention of the company (or its discoveries) on google. Nominator votes delete. Bikeable 22:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi Graciette

[edit]

notability Melaen 22:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 hablamé 21:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Russia (1900)

[edit]

A clever essay, but an essay all the same, and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:No Original Research. Chick Bowen 22:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 hablamé 21:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boingdragon

[edit]

Non-notable website, link likely added as advertising. Xoloz 22:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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] 00:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Cock

[edit]

All in all, it's just another non-notable band stub in the wall. Deltabeignet 22:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 01:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orcon

[edit]

"This is a very pov article. The only source is the companies website. It seems like the only editors have not done anything to make it more encyclopedic.TheRingess 22:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Jacoby-Hawkins

[edit]

This appears to be a new usage of the word "successful". Per http://www.answers.com/topic/results-of-the-canadian-federal-election-2004-ontario his success consisted of coming fourth out of four candidates with 3288 votes; by comparison the winner gained some 21,000. This may be promotion for the upcoming 2006 election at which the gentleman is again a candidate. I'm sure WP wishes him well, but WP:ISNOT a soapbox. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, should the author accuse me of bias against their candidate, as a resident of London, England, I'm most unlikely to be voting in an Ontario election. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the party is notable and has its own article. This gent's slightly less notable than the co-leader of the Official Monster Raving Loonies, a cat called Mandu (d. 2002). Tonywalton  | Talk 23:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 for nn-bio. Enochlau 11:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grenville Allen

[edit]

Vanity page Bill 22:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 17:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Jackson Family

[edit]

Highly, highly unneccessary, and full of biased language (a certain "f"-word applies here...no, not the censorable one). Each member of the musical Jackson family from Gary, Indiana already has their own article (that's Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson, Tito Jackson, Jermaine Jackson, Jackie Jackson, Marlon Jackson, Randy Jackson, Rebbie Jackson, LaToya Jackson, and even Joseph Jackson and Katherine Jackson...and Hayvenhurst as well! On top of all of this, there is also a Category:Jackson family. There is no need for this long amalgamation of the information from all twelve of those articles. --FuriousFreddy 22:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 hablamé 21:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vertrauen

[edit]

Obscure, possibly vanity, orphan Mecanismo 22:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 17:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Greek Empire

[edit]

Repeating what was posted by David Gerard, the original proponent of deletion for this page:"Somewhere between advocacy and advertising. No independent verifiability." This page has so far failed to prove that this is an actual, existing concept , or that it has any backing in either Greece or Serbia.The only time something relevant to this idea has surfaced was as a part of diplomatic maneuvering of Yugoslavia's Milosevic administration(as indicated in links #2 and #3).Both that administration and the state entity that it represented do not exist anymore.

The references used in an attempt to prove that this is an existing concept are, in order of presentation: 1:Quotes from people universally considered as radicals, without any references at all as to their veracity. 2:An internet poll (inherently unreliable)without any relevant data(source,oraganiser,polled population,duration,methodology).This poll could have easily be created by everyone with basic knowledge of MSpaint. 3:Vague references to famous people and " various organizations", again without a single reference or at least a name. 4:References to the Neobyzantine movement, which actually contradict the concept of a union between the two states.The second quote provided outlines a very vague concept of an "Orthodox Union" that does not relate at all to the matter discussed in this page.("magine one country - from Adriatic sea to Korea, and from Sinai desert to the North Sea.. With millions of churches all over.. With prosperity, wealth and peace,.. Faith strong as rocks in everyone") 5:Links to pages "in support of the union" which are nothing but mostly empty personal sites (site #1),news repositories (site #2), and an 8 thread forum where people argue about whether the opposing poster is gay or not.(site #3).

Furthermore, I would like to point out the repeated use of sockpuppetry and vote renaming used in the previous vote by users "Serbohellas", "Maninjar" and "Slav" and the anon 68.148.93.27.It is obvious that there are people who want this page in wikipedia, ignoring the community's consensus.If the previous vote had adequately screened its voters, this article would have been deleted. Jsone 22:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added reasoning for Deletion.Exactly like this article's first AfD, this one has also been swamped with "keep" votes by one edit users who registered after the poll began.Now, we're supposed to assume good faith in wikipedia, so i'm not going to cry "sockpuppets"(again).However, I would urge the closing admin to exercise caution when counting this poll's votes.--Jsone 02:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It seems to me that user Jsone wants to see this article deleted so badly, that he fails to see the fact that it actually possess many accurate details. While perhaps SOME revision may be necessary, this article should DEFINATELY remain! Crvena zvezda 23:51, 12 December (UTC)

CommentWhether or not some of the information in this page is accurate or not(which we cannot know), there has not been any proof that this is an existing and notable movement.As I said in my nomination, a couple of private statements (which some people try to elevate to the status of an official proposal, even though it never reached this stage) by former national leaders are not a movement, or notable.No proof has so far surfaced that this exists as a political idea today outside a couple of pages in geocities.--Jsone 02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "A couple of private statements by former national leaders are not a movement, or notable." Quite the contrary! Both times this was more than a mere "private statement". As Critias put it, they were events that received news coverage around the world. It also sparked a wave of nationalism from a number of radical groups and leaders, most notabley being obviously Karadzic. The reason that this issue is somewhat vaguely remembered is because of the other more prominent political events that happened throuhgout the Balkans during this time.Crvena zvezda 6:24, 13 December (UTC)

  • Keep. I think deleting is somewhat premature Bobafett1234 3:27 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Note on the above This is the user's first and only edit in Wikipedia.[[60]]--Jsone 13:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I can assure you that the concept presented in this article is not an unheard-of, radical opinion. While it may be in its infancy, the idea of a Serbo-Greek Union is gaining popularity in Krusevac, Belgrade, and even Kragujevac. I know this because I have worked in Serbia and have heard conversations and discussions about this very topic. Deleting this article would undermine one of Wikipedia's crucial virtues - that is, direct relation to emerging public opinion at a far greater rate than any other encylopedia.Slacvo_Milos 10:35 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Note on the aboveThis is this user's first and only edit in wikipedia.[[61]]--Jsone 13:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revision perhaps, but deletion is going too far (In my opinion). I actually found the page very usefull for a resent school essay. Honestly, I don't believe it should be deleted...keep 66.222.220.176 6:44, 6 December (GMT)

Note on the above:The vote above is anonymous and thus considered to be "in bad faith" according to Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators--Jsone 11:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Close call, but if the POV problems can be addressed and the advocacy removed, this might be worth saving. Tag for cleanup with hard deadline and delete if the deadline is missed. On second thought, it is unlikely that it can be rewritten without the advocacy; therefore, delete. B.Wind 06:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons listed above.Submitter.--Jsone 10:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, if only becauae it should have been deleted the first time. I count 9 deletes and 3 legit keeps, 2 of them "weak keeps", and one of them contingent on it being a real movement (which it seems there is some doubt about). And to the anon above, Wikipedia is a good educational tool, but it's not really an ideal source for true research. Nor is any encyclopedia, really. -R. fiend 20:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV, original research, weird formatting, etc. The article is just a mess, with no hope of reaching NPOV status without massive pruning and then heavy oversight watching for anon editors trying to restore it. BlankVerse 21:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! Oh wonderful! This again! I've put in LITERALLY YEARS of work into this page, and this is how I get repayed!? THANK YOU WIKIPEDIA! You people disgust me. If this is how the system works, then I have no interest in participating in such a scandal...I had hoped that factually ACCURATE information would have had its place here....I guess I was wrong. Do what you want, I give up. There, you must be thrilled.

P.S. I SAW THAT YOU REMOVED TWO KEEPS FOR THIS VOTE. "created accounts simply to vote?!?!?!?" You are SICK....I'm not even going to both to revert it. I have more pride than that. I certainly won't stoop to your level. Dont bother responding because I'm leaving for good.--Serbohellas

Strong Keep -- I find it somewhat suspicious that certain individuals are trying to delete this article for a second time and personally attribute these attempts to an ideological antipathy to the idea of a Greek-Serbian confederation rather than a genuine concern regarding whether or not the movement for some sort of Greek-Serb political union actually exists. However, that's another issue entirely and not one I have any inclination to raise so I'll give the benefit of the doubt.
Concerning the issue of a Greek-Serbian movement towards political union, this is a historical event and, regardless of whether one opposes or agrees with it, for that reason alone it deserves a historical account. It is irrelevant to consider whether or not this is an "existing concept" or whether it currently has "any backing in either Greece or Serbia" (as one individual argued). Rather, one should consider if an effort to advance a Greek-Serbian confederation ever existed. After all, this entry exists to detail and chronicle the history of a Serbian-Greek Confederation rather than act as a dossier of current Greek-Serbian political organizations that espouse the idea. (In any case, that is my understanding.)
In my opinion, there is sufficient evidence to prove that there have been attempts to advance some sort of Greek-Serbian political union. The fact that the president of Yugoslavia called for such a confederation in 1992 (an event that received news coverage around the world) speaks for itself. Although one individual implies that the state entity (i.e. Yugoslavia) that proposed this does not exist anymore, the fact of the matter is that by 1992 Yugoslavia had long since become a Serbian-dominated state. Moreover, by 1992 the non-Serbian republics of Yugoslavia had all declared independence from the country. The fact that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia officially changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro in 2003 doesn't mean that the former was not Serbian in its later years; if anything, it only strengthens this view. Also, the fact that the Radovan Karadzic, the former president of the Republic of Srpska, also supported this idea in 1994 is further evidence that support for a Greek-Serbian confederation existed in the '90s. Although one individual argues that Milosevic and Karadzic were "radicals", I don't understand what this has to do with anything (even if we accept this premise as true). The political philosophies of some of the proponents of the Greek-Serbian confederation don't diminish the historical reality of the movement in any way. (However, for historical purposes, they should be noted.)
Aside from Serbian officials supporting a confederation with Greece, it should also be noted that Slav-Macedonian intellectuals and politicians also supported a confederation. In 2001, "Eleftherotypia" (a well-known Left-wing Greek newspaper) covered the issue of Slav-Macedonian support for a confederation. For example, former president Gligorov is quoted as saying, "This [idea] begun when Yugoslavia was beginning to fall apart, when intellectuals and politicians gathered in order to examine the perspectives that we had for our country. Our common position was that a confederation with Greece was the best solution". And Ante Popovski, regarded as the greatest novelist of his country, stated that he was "supporting the idea of a confederation with Greece" in an interview in the French newspaper "Liberasion" in 2001.
All of this said, I agree that the Serbian-Greek Confederation article does need revision. All of the "Neobyzantine" content should be removed as this has nothing to do with the historical chronicle of the movement for confederation. Once this is done, the issue of advocacy should be moot (at least for the most part). Any residual advocacy should be removed during a revision of the article. There should also be a greater effort to detail various historical aspects of movement of the Serbian-Greek confederation and less coverage regarding contemporary views of the proposed confederation. Finally, the article should be re-directed to "Serbian-Greek Confederation" instead of "Serbian-Greek Empire". Critias 11:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC) (User's first edit NSLE (T+C+CVU) 11:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Strong Keep -- It should be noted that this account was only created so that this vote wouldn't be regarded as being "in bad faith". Normally I have contributed to the article as user 66.222.199.62.

The user Jsone has given his reasons for the second deletion of this article, and I hope to contest them. He was noted as saying: "Quotes from people universally considered as radicals, without any references at all as to their veracity." The fact that they were radicals in no way makes the suggestion that they were also liars. There are actual news sources (found in External Links) that verify what they stated as being true. I have little trouble finding more sites that plainly prove this; however, the information provided is nowhere as detailed as that which was presented in the links provided.

He then said: "An internet poll (inherently unreliable)without any relevant data(source,oraganiser,polled population,duration,methodology).This poll could have easily be created by everyone with basic knowledge of MSpaint".

First of all this couldn't be further from the truth. There is a link to the poll in question that can be found at:http://members2.boardhost.com/serbia-hellas/msg/2126.top (which was included in the "links section"). A quick visit to the site automatically takes cares of source (obviously the site), organizer (the administrator), and methodology(which could have been acquired by plain use of logic). In regards to population, the article specifically states " The poll targeted 316 people (as of October 29, 2005), who were generally of Serbian and Greek descent". This can be backed up by an analysis of the site traffic. As to it being "inherently unreliable", it is CLEARLY stated that the results may be in subject to error. The poll only existed to give a general outlook as to the opinion of the subject at hand.


"References to the Neobyzantine movement, which actually contradict the concept of a union between the two states."

This is not true, considering that a Orthodox Union would in fact encourage the confederation between these nations. Where it does diverge from the original topic is that such a union would go beyond this and unite even more nations, that is why I also believe that it has no place here. If there are people who feel really strongly about it then perhaps it should have its own page. As of currently, I see no reason for this to be done.

"Links to pages "in support of the union" which are nothing but mostly empty personal sites (site #1),news repositories (site #2), and an 8 thread forum where people argue about whether the opposing poster is gay or not.(site #3)."

If news repositories cannot be considered as factually accurate sources then what can? Had this poster been more careful, he would certainly have noticed that this source was stored as an "External Link", and not, as he claims, a site in support of this union. As all proper news sources it held an unbiased POV that can be verified by a simple visit to the page in question.

The other websites(which Jsone oh so colourfully described) were placed in the section "Pro-Union" websites simply because of the fact that they WERE such!

I will now talk about why and how the article should be revised. Firstly all reference to the “neobyzantine” should be removed. I have somewhat already explained why I think so and don't see that any further explanation is neccessary. In addition, I ALSO believe that the article should be redirected to a more fitting title. Citias chose the designation "Serbian Greek Confederation", which I for one find highly suitable. More background information should also be included. So in conclusion, unrelated information should be removed, and already existing facts should be expanded upon. To be honest, I thought all of these revisions were necessary even back when I wrote what I did, however, I had assumed that it was already discussed and approved by the general community. I would certainly be willing to clean it up and expand on the main points. Dumanov 6:47 AM, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Note on the above This is the user's first and only (meaningful, meaning outside his homepage) edit in Wikipedia.[[62]]Furthermore, I would like to comment that the "news repository" i was referring to was this link [63], that contains a number of articles on how greece and serbia have been friendly towards each other in history(frienship does not equal willing to unite)The other two articles presented in "external links" only refer to the two statements by Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic, which I have adressed in the nomination. --Jsone 13:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the above I believe that I made myself very clear in stating "It should be noted that this account was only created so that this vote wouldn't be regarded as being "in bad faith". Normally I have contributed to the article as user 66.222.199.62. " So you can see that it was NOT my first edit, merely my first edit by use of THIS title (Dumanov). Secondly, while I do apoligies for assuming that the articles user Jsone had in mind were the following:

(Which BY THEMSELVES prove that THIS IDEA has existed for, at the very least, the past decade.), I do wish to put to question his justification in claiming that the link in question does not promote unity between the nations. If one actually bothers to open the link, one will notice the :SERBIAN GREEK BROTHERHOOD TITLE, and perhaps if thats not enough, the following quote: "Promoting Greek-Serb friendship, brotherhood, and unity". If you should STILL find that to be ambigous in meaning, then a quick view of the gallery, which contains the exact same map of a joint Serbia and Greece as this featured article does, should be enough to put this issue to rest.Once again, The section that this link belonged to was titled Pro-Union Sites because of the fact that it is one. Dumanov 3:20 AM 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - this exists as political concept and should be kept as article. --CrniBombarder!!! | [[User talk:CrniBombarder!!!|†]] 21:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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] 06:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D-Lu

[edit]

Apparently a hoax connected to Droogs (gang). Couldn't google anything connected to it. Kusma (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hmm. Very interesting. The very fact that you put time into googling this seems to relate an apparent un-willingness to get laid by any of you.

So have fun, and remember, the Droogs might be out to get you.

-Britva



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

The result of the debate was Speedily Delete. Enochlau 22:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Gannon

[edit]

Feels like vanity, but asserts notability a bit more than usual, so I didn't feel it's quite CSD. Still, delete. --Nlu 22:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 21:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Youth Conference (Hong Kong)

[edit]

Questionable notability itself; created as part of the Hong Kong Secondary Students Union creation spurt. Medium weak delete, or, if HKSSU survives an AfD that I'm going to add, merge. --Nlu 23:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are plenty of conferences I went to while in high school which were all notable to the attending students, but hardly encyclopedic. dr.alf 05:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Secondary Students Union

[edit]

Asserts notability and might be notable, but self-promotional language makes me doubt notability. Spammy personal pages have all been speedied (by myself). Immature actions by members during the AfD process of the individual pages also makes me doubt notability of this organization. Very, very weak keep. --Nlu 23:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • So let me get this straight... you nominated this for AFD but voted to keep it? Am I missing something here? Oh and by the way, Delete as non-notable cruft unless someone can find some verifiable sources beyond a chinese website for this group.Gateman1997 23:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete organization of 150 teenagers is not notable.--Jiang 00:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or cut down to size. The article spends vastly more time talking about the group itself than it does about what notable things the group has done or participated in, making me doubt there is much to be said. The series of resume-spam articles that this article spawned also make me suspect this article was created more for self-promotion than to assert notability. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-07 02:02:39Z
  • After a parade of now-deleted articles of Hong Kong high school students, we're now considering their club. Based on the article, it's just as (non)notable as their members for en.wikipedia.org. Delete B.Wind 06:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've left a comment with one wikipedian who seems to be heavily involved with the club. They claim to be active in Hong Kong politics and I've asked that they provide proof of this in the article (imo staging a few protests is not enough to be "active", protesting is the point of unions). Unless they can provide proof of how they have affected/changed policy or such, then I will vote to delete as well. dr.alf 07:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I did receive a message from dr.alf, and I'm not sure if she/he was referring to me for saying "who seems to be heavily involved". I myself has never been involved in the union, and know none of its members. What I know about them was from the media. — Instantnood 16:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no clue those immature comments were from members of this organisation. The organisation is notable in the way that it was the first in Hong Kong that were created by secondary students, and was able to organise a relative large number of students to take part in the protests. They were covered by the media for their action. It's uncommon here for secondary students to turn out and speak up. — Instantnood 16:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak but Keep if it passes verifiability. SchmuckyTheCat 17:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only thing you Wikipedians have to do is to cut down the size. I don't agree with Jiang who said the union have 150 members only, how about the organization-member (student conuncils)?

User:TonySapphire 23:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No matter how Wikipedia discriminate students this article is not about a student or a baker!!!! HKSSU 09:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, doesn't seem to be notable really. Stifle 10:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A rather notable student organisation since the 1 July Parade. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 13:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable student organization involving in many high-profile political demonstrations. You can't test for notability through Google; many Chinese newspaper web sites now requires payment to read articles and/or expires very quickly.—Gniw (Wing) 18:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Considering the article has not been changed to show why the union is notable beyond it simply being a union, I think that it does not meet the notability requirements. I know that certain people have said that it has been involved in "high profile political demonstrations" and such, but the article does not show this. From what is in the article now, it only says that they organised one successful protest, and how successful (in changing policy or such) it was is unclear. dr.alf 05:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why don't you do some research yourself, instead of saying that I have not edited the article (without even giving me time to go home first)? It takes hours just to do minor copyediting on this article, and I am supposed to be on Wikileave. With many references on Google having already expired or changed into paid content, perhaps you can help me find some non-expired English references. (Hint: HKSSU's site contain some valid references which are not even on Google, not even if I search in Google's Chinese site. Talk about "Google test" for notability; the "Google test" is invalid as a test for notability.)—Gniw (Wing) 08:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you tried the Chinese name, man? I think it's notable enough. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 08:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that's what I did in the last few hours. Many newspaper articles have either expired or turned into paid content. Google's cache helps, but isn't useful for multi-page articles. I think it's notable enough too, but unfortunately this is the English Wikipedia, some people think that if it cannot be found on the Web in the English language then it is automatically non-notable.—Gniw (Wing)
  • Keep. It is a good org. -- User:RockLi 17:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipdia is not for nonsense. (I'm from Hong Kong) --minghong 04:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep and redirect, respectively. Johnleemk | Talk 17:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CropSyst, Cropsyst

[edit]

Obscure, not notable, orphan, possible vanity Mecanismo 23:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 21:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

DefOut Records

[edit]

Non-notable label with 0 google hits. feydey 23:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ] 01:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Billy McEwan

[edit]

Orphan article, extracted from a newspiece of a footbal transfer Mecanismo 23:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:41, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Pube Muppet

[edit]

Discovered during the clean-up process after closing Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Clock Crew. I can find little evidence that this meets the recommended criteria for webcomics. Rossami (talk) 04:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without independently verifiable evidence anyone cares - David Gerard 17:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wikipedia is aiming to have the most complete encyclopedia there is. How can this be accomplished when relevant articles are deleted? ~Spark05

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 21:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Rags (comics)

[edit]

A character from a comics not to be found anywhere, WP or google, this article gives no notice of notability and the wikilinks are just to other not related famous comics articles. feydey 23:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 21:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oldnewsbaby

[edit]

NN web site. Alexa ranking of > 1,250,000 and only 9 unique links in according to Google. Fails WP:WEB. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete (discounting anon and new account votes, all legitimate votes by established contributors are to delete). BD2412 T 03:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Boy Sanga

[edit]

Seems like a Hoax article, aside from a couple of hits on a forum username Google comes up with zip and all the images on the page appear hand drawn, while even the most stubby article about a video game tend to overflow with screenshots. Asuming this "game" even exist it's remarkably unremarkable. Delete --Sherool (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did a Yahoo Search and I found a link that, although poor, could be used to link to the website. When searching for "The Sanga Team" I discovered one of the images on a geocities page which, with a little modification of the URL could be used to find a proper webpage. I also found the forum hits referred to and found a link to said webpage. RoryKillhorn
Comment: The geocities page referred to is here. On it, there is an MS Windows executable called The Sanga Team Origins Game. -Meegs 21:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that articles like this are a thing that should be allowed to help wikipedia to broaden its reputation and that to delete articles like this, personalised touches that wikipedia should be allowed to cover. I don't believe that this article should be removed, if it is, wikipedia will certainly, for me, feel a slightly more alien environment.-Tom Calpin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.8 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 2005 December 7
  • After being told to check out the site by a friend I downloaded the actual game from 'The Sanga Team' website (which means the "game" does exist). Although of a bedroom-programmed standard the game and its story had quirky appeal and shows definite potential! After seeing that this page is to be removed, I am initially disappointed by the fact that a small bedroom programmer is being cut from what are infinite pages of knowledge (wikipedia). I also argue the fact that this doesn't exist and suggest that if this is the only reason for its deletion the original poster should check the newly added link (to the games website) and re-think his/her position... Roybott
  • As an enthusiast of comic book heroes, I am slightly upset by this decision. I have ascertained the existence of said site, and can confirm it is by no means a 'hoax'. This suggestion is preposterous and I would issue an immediate apology if I were as wrong as the initial complainer. Richard Lowe, Sweden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.237.47.2 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 2005 December 7
  • The whole "boy sanga" is no hoax. i have both viewed the website and played the game, to be able to say this "follow link at bottom". If it is out there, then it has the right to be on Wikipedia, which is the whole idea. Deleting it because it is not on Google is a poor reason. its not causing harm, leave "the boy sanga" where he is for all to see. - Craig Mahoney UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.237.47.3 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2005 December 7
  • no its not a hoax, ive played the boy sanga n its an awesome game i could even describe the levels and charachters if you want. the cheesy voice overs make you cringe abit but its no reason to delete this otherwise perfect game site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.217.225 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 2005 December 7
  • VIVA LA BOY SANGA!Having played the game and heard about it's in depth mythology from one of the creators itself.For an individual to go to the extent I know the creators have gone to,giving up their own time to create such a labour of love. I believe it would be an insult to them to delete this wikopedia entry.As previously mentioned, just because it isn't found in a google search doesn't mean it doesn't exsist. Try typing my name, Alex G. Wilkinson. You found me yet?...Didn't think so. Just beacuse it's not there doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Alex Wilkinson. Hull — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.237.47.3 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 2005 December 7
    • Ok, it's real, sorry about that (this is why you are supposed to include verifiable sources in articles), but is it notable? The site in question is scertainly not notable (124 hits last I checked acording to it's counter). So this is based on a indie comic? How many issues where published, where, by who, and that kind of things would be usefull, rather than making the article about this obscure game. We don't need more info on the characters, we need more info on why this deserve an article in the first place. Note that Wikipedia is not here to advertise "up and coming" stuff (see WP:NOT). --Sherool (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - On a University network, people share an IP address as they are all routed through the same firewall etc. and some people are of different nationality in the halls RoryKillhorn
  • The Downloads section is Copyright 2002 so it looks like its been around for a while. RoryKillhorn
  • The Boy Sanga is not "up and coming" its already here many people have just not realised it yet, and as for information regarding the team, this is from the mind of a dedicated man who’s many priorities otherwise leave him little time to update the site as it is believed to be needed. The team are well known amongst my own friends, they however already know much about the team and have played the game, due to their laziness see no reason to go on the website, how do we know this is not true of others. Furthermore the game information keeping this site provides inspiration and enthusiasm to all Indie programmers who can see the great fun to be had of creating their own games.Goonroy 16:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jaranda wat's sup 02:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Essence magazine

[edit]

This is a very short article, with one reference, the magazine's webpage. No support for the 1 or 2 claims is provided. Either expand or deleteTheRingess 23:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 00:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sheetshare

[edit]

Advertising of newly-created web site. Delete. — RJH 23:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. BD2412 T 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Swiss poets

[edit]

"This article was started in October, has had no activity since except when an editor added the cleanup tag. The list has only 1 link, to an article that is a stub (created by the same anonymous user). It seems that no one is willing to expand this list, so I vote to DeleteTheRingess 23:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can add some names. I'll try to make stubs for some of the rl soon. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it and the stub so a new editor can start from scratch and put the whole thing together. (NOTE: if it's kept, I'd strongly recommend someone writing a preamble and not simply have a cold list) B.Wind 07:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 00:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

James Morton

[edit]

NN bio. I get 60 unique Google hits searching for "James Morton Osgoode Hall". howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mooney (blogger)

[edit]

This AfD arises from this RfC. There was an edit war on the Paul Mooney page between editors writing about the comedian Paul Mooney, and an anon who claims to be Paul Mooney (blogger). The two pages were disambiguated, and this page has {importance} and {cleanup} tags. I have removed a SPEEDY tag once, to ensure the page could come here to AfD. No vote myself at this point: I'm bringing this here to help resolve the RfC. AndyJones 21:33, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_6&oldid=1234126921"