Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 26 November 28 >

Purge server cache

November 27[edit]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My guardian angel[edit]

Non-notable, new band StoatBringer 00:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - meets no WP:MUSIC criteria. -Satori (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per Satori D-Rock 01:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google for names gets nothing. Bensaccount 02:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom NSLE (讨论+extra) 04:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom IanManka 14:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 16:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find anything on google, through to the 10th page that matched the band. Zordrac 09:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these should be speediable. Stifle 21:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only 3 songs... non-notable --Neigel von Teighen 21:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. HGB 01:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --RoySmith 16:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Bare Facts[edit]

Non-notable school magazine StoatBringer 00:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as CSD A1. Titoxd(?!?) 00:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the highschool page. Bensaccount 02:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not CSD A1 because it has context. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the highschool actually has a page, because I have been unable to locate it. Peyna 05:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete schools alone are bad enough Renata3 06:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --StuffOfInterest 13:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom.
    • Previous unsigned comment by me, IanManka. 14:50, 27 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 wasSpeedy deleted as vandalism and elaborate hoax by Lucky 6.9

Jake Carpenter School of Beauty[edit]

Joke page. Maybe there is/was a school by this name (as the author indicates, it seems to be listed in Classmates.com), but there is no verifiable information on it that I can find. HollyAm 00:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete this joke/hoax. -- Perfecto Canada 00:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nonexistent. Bensaccount 02:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This is the worst possible type of user, namely someone who knows his way around a wiki and whose only edits have been disruptive, especially with something as elaborate as this. Article is going away as is the user. - Lucky 6.9 03:09, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary hosting[edit]

Term coined by author to insert his spam link in January 2005. Now it's a spam spot like Free domain name. -- Perfecto Canada 00:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Please remove the backlink in E-mail as well. -- Perfecto Canada 00:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject unclear. Bensaccount 02:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NSLE (讨论+extra) 04:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Uncke Herb 06:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The topic is minor to the point of unviability and, as the nominator says, it's a page rank boost housing at present. We ought to judge it on the basis of the importance of the subject, I suppose, rather than any present misbehavior, and I don't think this is a substantial topic. Geogre 13:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 16:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable neologism for obvious and widespread concept (before and after this was "coined") Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pre nom. Mark K. Bilbo 20:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. HGB 01:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WGHS[edit]

A school party cannot be considered encyclopedic. José San Martin 00:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the FCC has never heard of it. Gazpacho 01:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject unclear. Bensaccount 02:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NSLE (讨论+extra) 04:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sort of about a radio station and sort of about a party, but altogether about a micropower station that hosted a particular party for kids. Unencyclopedic content, as this would be known and useful only to children in a particular place and at a particular time in the past. Geogre 13:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and User:Geogre IanManka 14:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fratcruft Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:56, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Sabado Gigante[edit]

Advertising for a music festival in the Bay Area. Delete. Andrew_pmk | Talk 00:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Advertising. Bensaccount 02:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete adv NSLE (讨论+extra) 04:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with strong regret there is no speedy category for this thing. Turnstep 04:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or speedy delete: It looks like it might be the sort of "blatant copyvio" that can qualify for speedy, as the author put the source right up there at the top and then did a cut and paste. At any rate, it's just a party. Get out there with posters and staplers, folks, and don't use Wikipedia to advertise globally for your local shindig. (Isn't there a Univision show Sabado Gigante that is sometimes called Super Sabado Gigante? Perhaps a redirect there?) Geogre 13:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising, non-encyclopedic content; And to answer User:Geogre, there is a Univision show Sabado Gigante, but I don't think this is affiliated with Univision or the show. The organizers might have named is such so that it could gain recognition. IanManka 14:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. HGB 01:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cando-American[edit]

Appears to be a made-up word, 69 hits in Google. Delete. Stifle 00:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Made up. Bensaccount 02:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Andrew_pmk | Talk 03:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete made up, unv. NSLE (讨论+extra) 04:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or speedy delete as protologism: Do not transwiki. If the word has wide usage, this would still be a dictdef and subject to deletion. Geogre 13:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. IanManka 14:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since all the smart ones are moving the other way (ducks) :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Made-up indeed. I think a better term would be American-Canuck. Ha ha ha, I kid. Croat Canuck 05:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even the 69 Google hits seem mainly to be misspelled references to "Can-Do American", i.e. the iconic assertive American male who "can do" in the sense of "knows how to get things done". The only references I can find to this phrase meaning anything remotely connected to Canada are in French, and even there it's a mostly unattested word referring to the Canada-US border itself, not an ethnic label for people who've crossed it. Unquestionably a delete. Bearcat 10:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. HGB 01:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 count opinions as roughly 10 delete, 3 merge, and 3 keep/rename. I took a quick look at Shadow the Hedgehog (video game), and it looks like a least some of this material is already there, and the rest looks like trivia that's not worth the effort to merge. --RoySmith 13:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow the Hedgehog (video game features)[edit]

Pure how-to fork. This is a fork of Shadow the Hedgehog (video game), and is entirely overspecific how-to advice and weapon/items lists. This is definitely GameFAQs materal, not Wikipedia material. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Pure GameFAQS material. --Apostrophe 00:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. "Shadow the Hedgehog video game features." Bensaccount 02:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict>:@. have to retype>:@

I have taken the data about jumping, action button, players ect
I have left only useful information, only about the game's features, like vehciles, weapons and moves. Because it's about the games features, that is why this article has been made

>x<ino 02:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or otherwise redirect to main article. NSLE (讨论+extra) 04:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Game has been released and there are other sources for this material available. Alex 04:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete - If there's any extractable nuggets of information (which I can't find, myself) they should be merged into the main article, otherwise deleted. Barneyboo 04:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


? wats' wrong with you fools

i already stated the right info

if you got a problem go tell SEGA!:P >x<ino 04:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you fools got issues havn't you!?

how come when i did this, it wasn't asked to be deleted, now it has been about 4 weeks now, and you fools want it deleted?

>x<ino 17:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are a trove of endless jokes. I suggest you stop while you're ahead. A simple answer to your inquiry is that it takes time for people to notice things. --Apostrophe 20:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oh sh@t dejavor! >x<ino 00:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Care to speak the language that this encyclopedia is based on? Weak grammar is one thing; making up entirely nonsense words to fit the situation is quite other beast. --Apostrophe 02:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what are you talking about!? i just had a dejavour

some one should do an article on it:P

>x<ino 03:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It looks like a good article to me. There are already articles about all the features he's described. So if we are describing moves from Shadow the Hedgehog, then surely we can describe how to use them? The guy seems to be speaking leet which is influencing votes unfairly, IMO. Zordrac 09:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not GameFAQs (again), and it is not a place for how-to guides (explicitly). The merge/redirect is the only hope of preserving the content whatsoever, and I'm against that for the very reasons cited by the "keep" voters: our articles are not how-to, either, and merging a how-to section to an existing article is a way of confusing the new users, who will see that and think that it's a great idea to write articles with how to achieve cheat codes, etc. That's not encyclopedic and not Wikipedian. Geogre 10:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like i said before, i have removed the moves, and surely left the section about weapons used & Vehicles >x<ino 14:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oh please...others that voted "delete" don't even know what the article is about

just voting/spamming so it can be delete

If you want it deleted, state why it should >x<ino 03:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Dalbury. Stifle 21:16, 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 keep.  Grue  09:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soup is Good Food[edit]

Delete article about one song, not notable as per WP:MUSIC. Alternatively merge into the/an article on the whole album. Keep per Dpbsmith. Stifle 00:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC), updated 21:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, recorded song by notable band, alternatively merge into an article on the whole album. Kappa 03:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, not notable enough on its own to merit an article; anything salvageable should be on the album page. Peyna 05:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per Peyna Janet13 05:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per Janet13 who is merging per Peyna. Quentin Pierce 06:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Personally, I think this is far, far, far, far more famous as a slogan for Campbell's Soup than as any song by any band. Redirect to Campbells Soup or Campbell Soup or Campbell's Soup (wherever it is). Geogre 13:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into main article about album; salvage any information not already stated in the album article, place in new section; do the same for other articles that relate to album (song list has red and blue links) IanManka 14:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in current form as a disambiguation page. After Dpbsmith's edit, it looks good as it is. IanManka 16:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to main article and redirect. More than half the bytes downloaded to display this page are Wiki furniture, the "article" itself runs to a whopping one sentence, and there is no demonstration of significance. A perfect merge candidate. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:00, 27 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. Enochlau 03:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EVIL (Organization)[edit]

Not notable. Apostrophe 00:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it's so important, someone will post this properly. JHMM13 03:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. NSLE (讨论+extra) 04:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxy, nn in any case Renata3 06:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It may be from Sponge Bob, but is not notable enoguh for an article. Superm401 | Talk 07:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fan cruft? IanManka 15:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense, frankly. Without looking up the links it's not even obvious whether this is fact or fiction. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the best evil organization is Montgomery Burns' League of Evil. And also because I think this page has no relevance to anybody except the writer of this page. Croat Canuck 05:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to EVIL (Spongebob Squarepants) - all 3 of the people in the organisation are links, and its veried. I don't see how we have a choice here. Zordrac 09:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 00:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into main Spongebob Squarepants article.--Chuckhoffmann 08:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 03:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Corbin[edit]

doesnt look like this one passes WP;MUSIC. BL kiss the lizard 00:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - band does not meet WP:MUSIC... one more album release or a national tour, and the band could qualify, but I still don't think an article on the lead singer would be necessary. -Satori (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. NSLE (讨论+extra) 04:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Please, folks, offer a rationale for your votes and not acronymns. In this case, the musician is not famous/notable for anything except his work with the band; therefore, there should be no article on him until he, as a person, is a name mentioned as often as his band's. This would be far in the future, as the band is, at this point, not an appropriate topic, either. Geogre 13:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Geogre, is it acceptable if I just write, "per User:Geogre," as you oftentimes give ample explanation of why it should be deleted, and I heartily agree with you.
    • Previously unsigned comment by IanManka. 15:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:  :-) Sure. I don't have a problem with a referential "vote," so long as the reference is clear, but I can understand the frustration some people feel with "nn nor" in a nomination or virtually bare nominations and "per nom" in the rationale. Although I vote "delete" most of the time (because most nominated articles deserve to be here), I do think of the new users who need to find out what's happening to their work. Geogre 15:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre, as usual. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre. Stifle 00:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. HGB 01:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 03:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Jung[edit]

theres a difference between being notable and being related to someone notable. BL kiss the lizard 00:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If this survives, I wish I were related to someone notable, too. -- Perfecto Canada 01:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, IMDB says her scenes in the film were deleted. -- Perfecto Canada 14:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to clear things up: Her cameo was cut from the movie. She (or rather the character based on her) still appears in the movie. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable bio. Stifle 01:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a speedy, but still a delete. --RoySmith 02:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NSLE (讨论+extra) 04:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Normally, I'd recommend redirecting the unfamous relative to the famous one, but I don't think that the famous one is really very famous by himself, that an article on him ought to redirect, too. Geogre 13:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - information in said article seems to already appear in George Jung's article. IanManka 15:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre and IanManka Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. HGB 01:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 03:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashura the Hedgehog[edit]

Minor glitch. Not notable. Apostrophe 00:54, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Postal Dude[edit]

Contains no information that is not already available on the Postal² article. This video game character doesn't even have a name given and is not particularly prominent. In my opinion, it fails to clear the notability barrier. Firebug 01:20, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Tullos[edit]

Vanity page for a Louisiana Tech grad student who's started a business. Delete. Calton | Talk 01:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Benefit of doubt: Keep: The person has some history of contribution to the community via running competitions for students and explaining things on the DIY Network. I originally was going to call for deletion, but after searching I decided to give it the benefit of doubt and wikify the page and neutralize the point of view. What I wonder is that if his wife wrote the article, she supposedly has a Masters degree in technical writing and a Bachelors in English. Hu 01:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of those things you mention, no matter how many wikilinks you add, comes close to satisfying WP:BIO. And how do you know about his wife? --Calton | Talk 03:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is claiming wiki links is the reason. As to the other question, I did a quick search and this was one of the first links to show up: [1] which surprised me given the lack of quality of writing, but who knows who wrote the article. I don't have much interest either way, other than idle curiosity. Hu 07:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is claiming wiki links is the reason. Nor did I say that: I'm referring to the use of wikilinks to, as the old saying goes, "put lipstick on a pig". --Calton | Talk 01:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A7. NSLE (讨论+extra) 04:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep also 1. Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more 2.Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. His competition is always in the news show and papers. (unsigned comment by 208.180.144.30 05:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hu; especially since the changes. It's at least worth allowing it to develop for awhile.Peyna 05:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawing my vote due to the issue I mention below. Peyna 15:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not sufficiently notable to get his own page. Competitions for students are a dime a dozen. Maybe in a few years, he should get his own page (if his companies take off or if he gets his own show, etc), but not right now. Janet13 06:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resurect when becomes really notable Renata3 06:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he meets the qualifications shown above - google search validates - lots of media from robots and business 1google 1google 2google 3google 4Keep it or stub it. (unsigned comment by 208.180.194.86 02:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Looking for "Nick Tullos" + robotics gives only 31 hits. Some of the other searches are too generic (for example, video conference recorder). Janet13 08:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google nick tullos or nicholas tullos 1
      • Yeah but. That returns 89 hits. I get 13,300 myself over here and I betcha never heard of me. Mark K. Bilbo 21:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everything combined makes him notable enough. Superm401 | Talk 08:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as Renata says it can always be resurrected. I don't see much room for expansion in the sort term. Dlyons493 Talk 09:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's hard to tell from the history, but 68.185.236.166, who is also the creator of Nick Tullos changed 208.180.144.30's vote to Keep and changed some other things regarding that user's comments. Either the page creator is trying to change votes, or they are one and the same and therefore the vote should have negligible weight. Peyna 15:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a fine call, could go either way, but the activities of apparent sockpuppets make me think this is really vanity. Yes, I am shallow. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the presence of socks is usually a dead giveaway that the subject is not notable enough. Capitalistroadster 18:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sounds like a great guy, but since the companies and publications listed aren't notable, none of the claims in the article are notable. --A D Monroe III 19:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Sockpuppets indicate vanity Bwithh 20:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn and probably vanity. Mark K. Bilbo 21:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems to be swinging to "Delete", which I don't have much problem with. I note with amusement though, that every page about some minor fictional character in any obscure video game made that appeals to 12 year olds is kept while a technologist, organizer and presenter is deleted. C'est la vie :) Hu 23:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If enough people are willing to support the endeavor, I'll go find them and start putting them up for deletion. It just seemed like it would be a very uphill battle. Also, technologist, organizer, and presenter is a set of terms that could be used to describe tens of thousands of people (for example, many graduate students, professors, postdocs, etc) :) Janet13 00:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hu, I share your apparent puzzlement. If Janet13 wants to start nominating gamecruft, I will be right in there voting delete. As far as I'm concerned the encyclopaedic content of most of these games is that they are a game played on $console, released in $year and selling $sales copies. Ditto most fiction articles. But I am well aware that this is against if not consensus then at least trend, which appears to be creeping trivialism. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - not quite notable enough. Perhaps when Tullos achieves more prominence his article will be restored but until then it's delete. Oh, and Hu, I share your pain. Reyk 23:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, should have been speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for changing votes if nothing else. It's non-noteable and vanity anyway. HackJandy 06:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think that the presence of sock puppets should make any difference to your voting habits. After all, are you likely to vote keep or delete just because everyone else has? If he used sock puppets, then correct the problems. People who voted delete purely because someone who had voted keep had used sock puppets is childish. The page should be judged on its own merits. And who is to say that the guy created his own page? Zordrac 09:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see anything to make him hotable enough. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. MCB 07:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 03:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhino Charge[edit]

Non-notable band, homepage on myspace. Delete. Wish we could speedy these. Stifle 01:25, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aluin Levitation[edit]

Previously speedied for copyvio, this re-created version still in my opinion fails to meet notability standards. This magic trick has not even been released yet. Firebug 01:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unverifiable, hoax. NSLE (讨论+extra) 04:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Report of a rumor of a single magic trick. Needless to say, the subject is too granular, and the eager anticipation over the trick is notable only for magicians of a particular type, and the article discusses something in the future, which is unknowable. Geogre 13:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim to notability. --A D Monroe III 19:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons already given. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A D Monroe III. Stifle 21:26, 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 KEEP and rename to Mission Hockey. Owen× ☎ 03:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Hockey Skates[edit]

This article is in violation of WP:VAIN (commercial). D-Rock 01:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, 2,430 google hits, it's a review, not a commercial. AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 03:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's borderline. Weak keep, cleanup and especially un-POV. NSLE (讨论+extra) 04:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, would take a lot of work to make it worth keeping; at the moment it's nothing more than glorification of the company and their product. Peyna 06:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Was originally going to vote to weak delete but the number of google hits made me go rewrite and NPOV a lot of it. It's a stub, but it's probably worth expanding. Janet13 06:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Mission Hockey and expand to include the company beyond its skates. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 07:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good suggestion. I like it. D-Rock 08:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Does Mission Hockey meet WP:CORP? -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per Le Scoopertemp. Good idea. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename as said above. I've heard of them myself and played in games where they have been used. Croat Canuck 05:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peyna. Stifle 00:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Mission Hockey meets WP:CORP, Move per User:Scoops, else Delete. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:23, 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. Owen× ☎ 03:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jadmin[edit]

A piece of software, use unstated, for AOL administrators and staff members only. -- RHaworth 01:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pretty much just advertising, as RHaworth says, no use stated. not written in the tone of a Wikipedia article.--Alhutch 05:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Renata3 06:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedaic Dlyons493 Talk 09:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, advertising, non-notable, substantially unverifiable. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. Almost all articles written in first-person voice should be nominated to AfD. — JIP | Talk 18:39, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike brodlieb[edit]

Delete. Probable hoax. The article says he is a rock musician and a nuclear negotiator with Iran. I don’t think so. AllMusic never heard of him. Google search for brodlieb and iran turns up 40 hits, none of which seem to be this person. •DanMS 01:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It’s a shame that a number of good Wikipedia editors have to waste their time on nonsense like this. This article is absurd on the face of it, yet there is a claim to notability, so we have to take this seriously and spend time going through the motions of checking out the subject’s credentials and voting on it. There must be a better way. •DanMS 01:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible speedy as silly vandalism. A Google search for "Mike Brodlieb" Iran comes up with no Google hits see [2]. Apart from that, he is the leadsinger of a band with no Allmusic article a MySpace page and no Wikipedia article so he doesn't meet WP:NMG either. Capitalistroadster 04:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vandalism: Also note the Geogre's Law failure. Jokes this obvious are the equivalent of a dog lifting his leg on the wall, IMO, and we should welcome them no more than the wall does. Geogre 13:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense, vanity and failing that per WP:NMG. The Usual Suspects (Capitalistroadster and Geogre) are, as ever, on the money. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the guy couldn't even take the time to capitalize the guy's last name. Croat Canuck 05:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vandalism.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 22:23, 28 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 REDIRECT to Pinot Gris. Owen× ☎ 03:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gris[edit]

Forum sub-trivia, not worth a redirect to GameFAQs. I've redirected to Pinot Gris a few times, but a number of anons seem to disagree with that. Joyous | Talk 01:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete too much of a bother. It does mean Gray in spanish though, but that doesn't matter, it serves no true purpose. Delete it. Quentin Pierce 01:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pinot Gris. I'd be happy to lock the redirect if necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure I agree with conspire's redirect idea. --RoySmith 02:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Lock. Completely worthless. •DanMS 02:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Useless trivia. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect the name: Goofs pulling each others' fingers. Reading that made me nauseated, and I can't imagine why, with so much fun to be had at GameFAQs, they'd want to come to Wikipedia to explain their jokes. Geogre 13:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless trivia and protect per Geogre. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While a redirect to Pinot Gris is relatively harmless, I don't know how helpful it is, especially since gris is no more than the French word for grey. I have never heard anyone refer to a pinot gris as simply a gris. Jacqui★ 18:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable forumcruft. If I made a word up too, would it get an article? — JIP | Talk 18:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I cleaned up all of the nonsense. I'd say the GameFAQs forums are too large for this to be considered vanity. --Nintendorulez [[User_talk:Nintendorulez|(talk)]] 19:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pinot Gris and lock. Which reminds me, I have a bottle at home I ought to crack open. --Calton | Talk 01:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per AMiB et al.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 22:24, 28 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. Owen× ☎ 03:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Analog tape dispenser[edit]

Was tagged as a speedy but for being non notable, so not a candidate. 12 Google hits does confirm that suspicion, though. I abstain. CanadianCaesar 02:00, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lorek Fan Club[edit]

Delete. I have no idea what in the h— this is all about. The fan club’s website says that they admire the guy (Mike Lorek) because he “can perform amazing feats such as making a Chinese man’s face out his stomach by squeezing the fat together with his fingers.” I wish this were a speedy but I can’t come with the basis. If someone else can, please do. •DanMS 02:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a speedy unless we have an A9 speedy delete for articles on organisations where there are no claims of notability made about that organisation. This would qualify. Capitalistroadster 02:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bandcruft without the band. --RoySmith 02:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity demonstration of authors' severely limited social lives. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have a fan club but it doesn't have a Wikipedia article unless this link is blue. Stifle 00:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there may be a number of people with too much time on their hands, but that doesn't make them notalbe. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable vanity and amazing puppetfest below. MCB 07:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's interesting but not suprising that you chose to simply write this off as vanity and a, "puppetfest", rather then actually stating some valid issues with the entry. I'm actually suprised this wasn't accused of a, "puppetfest", sooner but you can't ignore some of the points being made about the entry, and the pointing out that some of the the comments against the entry weren't made, "in good faith". Policies are in place for a reason and this should be taken seriously.Ognit Ice 18:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC) No edits from this user prior to November 30 2005[reply]

Keep Growing up as a poor Jewish child in downtown Philadelphia, I hope that this entry is not deleted. This entry has made me come to realize that the Mike Lorek Fan Club is probably one of the best and most noteworthy clubs in The United States. I feel it should stay on here to help other people discover this wonderful organization that tries to help so many underprivileged Jewish children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.172.57 (talk • contribs)

Keep What kind of hypocrite would come on here and say someone has too much time on there hands for creating an article when there on here criticizing it? It's ludicrous to say that someone has a limited social life when 1)You don't know them and 2)Your ONLINE bashing someone. Take a look in the mirror before you criticize someone. Does it make you feel better about yourself for bashing a legitimate organization that has its own .com and domain name? This organization has built a strong reputation over the years and has been nothing but benficial to its community. If you think it makes you some kind of a hero to come on here and try and clean up what you deem crap, it doesn't. If you want to "clean up" the internet, theres plenty of pointless weblogs and pornography sites you can waste your time picking on. To quote Bob Dylan, "don’t criticize what you can’t understand." This page does not break any of the rules, and atleast there not hypocritically criticizing people for using, "The Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit".IcePro88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.30.84 (talk • contribs)

Keep I suppose I should take time out of my busy social life to support a fine local establishment that is under the unfair criticism of some misinformed blokes that should do a little research before they start casting judgments. This local establishment has helped our community time and again. For instance, they hold an annual car show that is always entertaining and brings the community together. Who cares if they decide to poke fun at their mascot's bizarre talents and have a little humour to lighten things up? They're a great bunch of guys who are a local asset and if that's not "notable" enough to be part of this database, I don't know what is... maybe whoever reviews this stuff should concentrate on some of the more questionable entries and let this genuine cause alone?ChrisMyth--207.255.30.84 03:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC) Second vote from this IP address.[reply]

KeepI don't really know what to say to convince those that want this page deleted that it should not be deleted, BUT this organization is actively involved in the community and deserves to be recognized on Wikipedia. Steph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.33.64 (talk • contribs)


Keep To know that such a great organization is under fire like this really shows me what this world is coming to. We allow pornography on the internet but the Mike Lorek Fan Club should be banned from all knowledge databases? This is a sad and shameful thing to see. I personally know that the Mike Lorek Fan Club takes care of those around them and tries to bring POSITIVE influences to the area with annual car shows in Sidman, PA, participating in annual events such as the Easter Seals Softball Tournament held in Roxbury, and assisting in the Le Dance Academy's Yearly performance in Windber, PA. They support the local Forest Hills football team by making an appearance at the community Pep Rally and going to the games. They support the local diners with their weekly "Wing Nite" night held all over the area. How could anyone wish for such an organization to be removed from recognition on Wikipedia? This organization is a breath of fresh air to the community, local- and internet-wise and anyone who wants to see this database removed obviously prefers gloom and downtroddenness over positive and upbeat knowledge and activities!

RDViper96 --147.160.181.8 20:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Why are you people always trying to take away the freedom of speech in this country and the freedom of assembly? The MLFC is a perfectly legitimate organization determined to place emphasis on our fundamental freedoms while not subjecting anyone to forms of degradation nor using any forms of elicit discrimination. The group is a highly respectable organization in the community of Johnstown, and it is determined to florish and help create a utopian society. Without groups like the MLFC, our society will reach a cataclysmic low in morale and become socially impotent. Would you like to cause the demise of society? If so, then vote yes to delete this. If no, then God bless. [3] {{Eric Yax|207.255.30.84}}

Keep I don't understand what all the fuss is about? It sounds like this fanclub is a legimitate regional organization working towards a positive goal. I also believe that the process of deletion is being handeled innappropatly. The policy of vanity articles states:

The user who created the article is most often a new, or newer user. If there is nothing particularly offensive about the page, please be kind to the newbie. Suggestion: before beginning any deletion procedures on a vanity article, it is sometimes found that by simply politely informing the creator of the article that this appears to be a vanity article, and by pointing him or her to this page first, that the author him or her self will sometimes easily agree to the deletion him or herself, thus saving much waste of time and energy on the parts of all concerned parties.During any debates regarding vanity article that are listed at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author (often presumed to be the same person) and the author's motives. These may border on personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from future contributions. Remember to please always assume good faith.

Usually, vanity articles are not recreated after being deleted. It is believed that the majority of vanity article creators forget about their vanity articles and do not revisit at all; this is evident in that they rarely defend the article during the deletion debate.

All I found were imflamatory comments directed at the members of this orginization and critizing their personal lives. I strongly believe that these comments cannot simply be taken "in good faith." This organization has a legitimate reason to be on the wikipedia. Don't judge them by your own standards. --128.118.51.117 16:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the Vice-President of the Mike Lorek Fan Club (MLFC), I am sickened that people want to take the MLFC out of Wikipedia. Obviously, we are in the end times. The people of this world that want to take away the good (MLFC) and relish in darkness are trying to get their way. The MLFC has been not only a spark of light in the Johnstown, PA community, but it has been a true inferno. We are like Bat Man, we help out when you least expect it. We don't need thank you's or cash donations---we just like to see people smile. If we were able to put a smile on one Jewish kid's face, then I know that we've done our job! We don't discriminate against any gender, race or creed----we are out to help the people of this great world. We have raised money to help people find homes, jobs, food and clothing by the money that we raised w/ the softball tournament that we were in over the summer of 2005. We are not a bunch of immature people that are out to have a good time. We are a UNIT that is out to make the world smile, one face at a time. ---Harrison vote — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.183.156.248 (talk • contribs)

LEAVE IT BE As president of this fan club I want to say that this great support for our club shows me and should show everyone else how much it truly means to us all. Even if we were to get deleted from this page it would be Wikipedia's great loss and not ours. We know we have true fan club that's a real tangable thing and not some made up waste of an entry like maybe the Kuchera Fan Club would be. If Wikipedia won't accept us maybe Webster's will. This is the United States of American and we belong in here for all the world to discover and enjoy!!! Send us your weirdos, your crazies, your poor, your sick, your has beens, your never was's, your unpopular wastes because there is a little Mike Lorek Fan Club in all of us.....::::leaving the room humming the Star-Spangled Banner:::::: -President Hutsky

Memorable Quote from Animal House D-Day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one. Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! Otter: Germans? Boon: Forget it, he's rolling. Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [thinks hard] Bluto: the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.172.57 (talk • contribs) including everything from LEAVE IT BE

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 03:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to bowl a strike[edit]

As the article title says, it's a "how to" and as such falls under WP:NOT. -- JLaTondre 02:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. CanadianCaesar 02:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Anyway, everyone knows the real way to bowl a strike is to use the ball to knock down all the pins. --W.marsh 02:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vacuity --BrianFG 03:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An all bold article that ends with a Peace Out, so it's not something for Wikibooks or WikiGuides. Otherwise, it's a how-to. Geogre 15:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete webspam, non-notable, nonsense, all bold, a how-to - in fact, comprehensively unencyclopaedic. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete per zis Guy, you know? — JIP | Talk 18:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it isn't a Wikipedia article. And also because there are many different ways to bowl a strike. Croat Canuck 05:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for about a dozen different reasons. Stifle 00:14, 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 withdrawn by nominator. --GraemeL (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike's[edit]

This is a disambiguation page that does not point to any Wikipedia links. It disambiguates only two external links. I don’t think this belongs in the Wikipedia. Anyone know of a policy covering this? •DanMS 02:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) says, Dab pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles. I cleaned it up, it's probably OK now. --RoySmith 03:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Mike. I removed the external links (inappropriate for a disambig page) and added the link to Mike's Hard Lemonade Co.. CanadianCaesar 03:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I withdraw the nomination. Guess I should have looked for the link to Mike's Hard Lemonade before I nominated it. My apologies. •DanMS 03:37, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biodroid Empire[edit]

Kind of confusing, but this article is describing part of the plot of a novel by "N.C. Nahin". Buuut, since you're reading this on AfD... I can't verify that there is an "N.C. Nahin" [4], nor that there's a book by this title or author on Amazon/etc. Searches for the proper nouns in this article just point back to the WP article. Has one editor, an anon, who feverishly added all of this in August and hasn't been back. The information in this article seems unverifiable to me. --W.marsh 02:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Renata3 06:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under condition: That we get to finally see what is beyond the More to come... That had me right on the edge of my seat. Just kidding, actually just a delete. JHMM13 07:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The novel appears to be here in this article. No doubt the world needs more Foundation Series-like novels, as the authors of such are readers for the same, but this does not appear to have been actually published. Good luck in the career and all. Geogre 15:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Sheesh.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 22:25, 28 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. Owen× ☎ 03:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Buffoon & Co[edit]

NN webcomic; one relevant Google hit and no relevant Alexa. User's only contributions are to this article and its related production company. See also Universal Studs Pro-Ductions below. - Lucky 6.9 03:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Renata3 06:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. JHMM13 07:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • D =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article describes a single Newgrounds webcomic. An Alexa rank would be hard to get, since it's at Newgrounds, but its being there also means that it's just another creek in a stream that branches off a river of a thousand diversions. Essentially, the article is advertising, and Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 15:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not Wikipedia material. MidnightWolf 07:02, 28 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. Owen× ☎ 03:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Studs Pro-Ductions[edit]

An admitted "fake production company" by a new user whose only contribs have been self-promotion of a nn webcomic. - 03:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete some kid had nothing to do. Don't forget to delete images too. Renata3 06:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Cheated. Delete as per above. Anyone get the reference? :-) JHMM13 06:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • D =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, vanity, crappy logo. Ifnord 15:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Probably a vanity article. Note that it's "a fake production company," according to the article, and therefore it's just a name that some dude uses for his Newgrounds comics. This "fake company" has not achieved notoriety or fame independently of its creator or creation (and those, of course, haven't, either), so an article on it is unencyclopedic. Geogre 15:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable vanity that will be sued into oblivion by Universal if it ever so much as tries to release anything with that name. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:27, 27 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 --RoySmith 03:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MiliPants[edit]

This is a kind of underpants for soldiers. Notable or not notable? I am inclined to think not. I did get 56 Google hits on the word. Let the panel decide. •DanMS 03:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertising.--Alhutch 05:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge if it can be. It's kinda cool information but should not get its own page. Maybe it can go into some sort of military uniform page? Janet13 06:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an ad with sprinkles of vanity. Ifnord 15:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Advertising. If this particular type of underwear (for men as well as women? are there other applications -- strip clubs, e.g.?) achieves such fame that it's referred to outside of defense procurement and quartermaster corps, then it will need to be discussed. As it is, it's a new product. Geogre 15:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam - and I am astounded that this didn't turn out to be a hoax! But negligible Google presence means it has no evident significance. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, it's not a hoax and doesn't appear to match any established criteria. Stifle 12:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pestilent Divinity[edit]

Band vanity. No significant activity whatsoever, merely an excuse to link to the band's own website

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cell Bone[edit]

Neologism. Denni ☯ 03:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If it exists, it doesn't appear notable yet. If kept, move to Wiktionary. Herostratus 04:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This should really be a speedy delete. Firebug 04:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I'll second Firebug's vote, and actually vote for it as a speedy. :) Janet13 06:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable neologism (and even if notable, a dicdef); probably a hoax anyway, Google hits seem all to refer to somethign else Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to BJAODN. Funny! linas 19:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete. This is a dictionary entry, and a bad one at that. Stifle 12:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 04:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of on-screen clichés[edit]

This article has bugged me for a long time. A lot of it's so called clichés only appear in one TV show, movie etc. and are very badly worded. Whilst cleanup seems like an easier way to approach it, I only see the list continuing to be unruly, so I recommend its deletion.Barneyboo 04:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite. Although this walks a fine line between POV and original research, I don't think this article is unsaveable. But it needs considerable work. (PS. especially if Zoe's allegation of possibly copyvio is correct) 23skidoo 04:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this floats all over the place. There's a version of it in the imdb forums, which would make this a copyvio. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - bordeline encyclopedic, unsourced, POV, but very very interesting and amusing. Renata3 06:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs cleaning, not deletion. "Unruliness" is not a deletion criteria. :) I also hesitate to delete pages with large edit histories, indicative of a lot of work by a lot of people. Turnstep 15:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What I meant by it being unruly, though, is that even with cleanup, it's fundamental flaws will still be there, even if it is a tenth of the size. It's just a very subjective list which I can't envisage in a cleaned up form. Barneyboo 17:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree. How many times must something be repeated, and by whom, to become a cliché? What is the essential verifiable difference between a cliché and a catchphrase? How does this advance our understanding of either? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Many different ways it fails the list criteria. For one, it is inherently POV to call something a "cliche." For another, "on screen" means, to me, movies, but, for the article authors, television. Third, there is no way to be comprehensive here, and there is no "notable cliches" that can be appealed to (i.e. with other poorly conceived lists, people will say, "Well, obviously, it's not supposed to be a List of all American directors, just the notable ones," but that can't be said, here). By the criteria for lists, this one fails. Geogre 10:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me, "on screen" means both movies and television. The only difference is a technical detail in the viewing apparatus. Television shows have much in common with movies, much more than with, for example, theatre plays or books. Is there a really important distinction between movies and television or do you just harken back to the pre-TV days? — JIP | Talk 20:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Turnstep that it should be kept and cleaned up because of the large amount of edits (547) by different users. Many list movies which they come from, and some are so obvious they dont need verification - "Car chases will usually involve...Passing through a narrow alleyway stacked high with empty cardboard boxes...The pursuer will crash through something being carried across the street, usually a pane of glass or a fruit cart" or how about "There is always a big red button that is not supposed to be pressed." - countless movies Astrokey44 13:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Theres so many that they would need their own article, maybe a few of the more obvious ones should be mentioned there with one of those 'See main article' links Astrokey44 14:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For what value of need? As far as I can tell, WP is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. What is the encyclopaedic purpose of keeping more than are required to illustrate the point? And come to that, isn't cliché a dicdef anyway? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The page could do with some examples for each of the clichés. — RJH 16:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coffee 18:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a drinking party game, not an encyclopedia article. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you deleted every badly-written article, Wikipedia would be 50% gone. This is useful and needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Battle Ape 09:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The issue is not how badly written the article is. The subject matter is simply not encyclopedic, no matter how eloquent. Barneyboo (Talk) 12:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Roger Ebert has published a list of film cliches. I could be persuaded to keep this if other prominent writers have written similar lists and the article compiled them. Durova 19:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm sorry, I fail to see how famous people compiling such lists makes the lists encyclopedic. -- Dalbury(Talk) 21:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with rewrite. A lot of people contributed to this, I'd hate to see it go. Perhaps rewrite and eliminate non-reoccuring "chiches."Gooberliberation 23:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While there are some okay reasons for deletion, rubbing out something with a huge history would be disappointing. At the most, we could eliminate some of the less common items, and elaborate or provide examples of the very common ones. Just look at the video game cliche list. Sonicrazy 00:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentFor the record, Sonicrazy is one of the contributers to the list. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -- SCZenz 05:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The effect of segregated education on negro school children[edit]

Either a copyvio or OR. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with Zoe. Make it go away. No hits on google under that title. It reads like someone's term paper. Janet13 06:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Renata3 06:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be rogue editor, all his edits questiojable. Herostratus 07:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean-Up --- chiefly involves summarizing some crucial sociological research from the period well before Brown v. Board, and since it helped inspire that decision it was obviously noteworthy. --Christofurio 17:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the title is definitely wrong and the content is currently wrong, would you like to merge what you consider the encyclopaedic content to the correct article? Perhaps racial segregation per BD2412 below? I don't feel qualified to sort wheat from chaff on this one. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that seems to be the developing consensus. I've just parked the whole article into the talk page of racial segregation so when I have some time I'll go back there and merge what I can. With that understanding, I concur with the vote to delete. --Christofurio 16:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

Phantom canyon road[edit]

A lovely drive, I'm sure, but not notable. Denni ☯ 04:28, 27 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grophland[edit]

nn game site, alexa ranking of 623,084, 58 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:49, 27 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Hatred[edit]

nn band "currently in the process of making their first song". We should be able to speedy this stuff. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Alhutch 05:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although technically the crystal ball argument is a little flawed, they're certainly non-notable. Peyna 05:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. I too wish there was a {{db|bandvanity}} tag. Herostratus 07:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not submitter, but just doing some cleanup. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable band. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable band vanity with the usual cry for a speedy tag for this. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If their song is actually released and becomes popular, it can be recreated. *Dan T.* 05:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and request speedy category per Herostratus. Stifle 12:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine Anime Forums[edit]

nn web forum that is "not 100% completed". User:Zoe|(talk) 05:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 19 registered users Renata3 06:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete stunningly un-notable. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable (and apparently non-complete) web forum. There are lots of web forums out there, so good reasons for the notability of one of them are needed to keep it. *Dan T.* 05:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:49, 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Wood[edit]

Could not find any of these books in google search, and no evidence that any of the Greg Wood in google search refer to this person. Not notable, unverifiable, vanity? D-Rock 05:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete appears to be nothing more than nonsensical vanity. I am unable to verify any of the information on the page. Peyna 05:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Renata3 06:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as vanity bio, Herostratus 07:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparent vanity. If I was born in the same hospital as someone famous do I get an article too? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I studied at the same university as Linus Torvalds so obviously I'm notable too. Oh, who am I kidding? Delete. — JIP | Talk 18:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity bio, NN, irritating writing. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:52, 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pr0metheus burning[edit]

nn "rhythmic noise project" with no entries at artistdirect or allmusic and only 65 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quentin Pierce 05:51, 27 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 Speedy Deleted as copyright violation from the BBC under WP:CSD Criteria A8 copyright violation of a copyright of a commercial content provider. Capitalistroadster 18:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Dr Edward Lestrade[edit]

Despite all of the words, I don't see that this person is particularly notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, it's a horribly written article that makes repeated attempts to establish its own notability, but the subject does appear to have published a number of scholarly articles and books that might make the threshold for notability. With enough clean-up it might survive. Peyna 06:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete badly written resume Renata3 06:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he's so notable, someone else can write the article especially for Wikipedia instead of copying and pasting from another site. JHMM13 06:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is a copyright violation. JHMM13 06:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the BBC site is a self-authored encyclopedia. Dlyons493 Talk 10:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio and copyvio. Turnstep 15:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. First and foremost this is a copyvio from [5] - BBC asserts copyright over all content of h2g2, whatever its source. Second, this is the h2g2 researcher's sole edit and is not part of the "edited guide" (the subediting process that turns, essentially, user subpages into substantive content). Third, even though I suspect the guy might be notable, this article is so blatantly WP:VAIN that WP will be better off if we delete it and wait for a neutral person to create it (which, if he genuinely is notable, will happen). Oh, and the author's sole contribs have been this article and linking it from Sherlock Holmes and Inspector Lestrade (now reverted). Aside: can someone teach me how to use the copyvio template some time? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:05, 27 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wild scotsman[edit]

A non-notable distiller of a non-notable scotch whiskey. Denni ☯ 05:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. From their website: We have 1 guest and 0 members online says it all. I was the one guest. JHMM13 06:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Renata3 06:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's quite interesting but main claim to notability is purchase of 10 casks of whisky (without an e) Dlyons493 Talk 10:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparent vanity. Might reconsider if they want to send me a case to verify. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Interesting entry.... it could use a cleanup -- but it does not follow WP:CORP. HackJandy 06:25, 28 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 Speed delete --RoySmith 16:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D0h[edit]

Google gives no indication of this group's notability; it doesn't seem verifiable that it even exists. Written like it's some kind of joke. —jiy (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy as per nomination. JHMM13 06:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete Renata3 06:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Herostratus 07:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and unverified. Turnstep 15:03, 27 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet As Sugar[edit]

Delete. This appears to just be song lyrics to some random song. Even if it was "Hey Jude" I would still nominate it for deletion. JHMM13 06:49, 27 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Libras have more fun[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine. --Spring Rubber 06:51, 27 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Gods Of Rock[edit]

Band vanity, not notable, Speedy Delete Herostratus 06:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy per band vanity. Actually, let's just delete them for having a horrible name. JHMM13 07:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. --Nlu 07:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete band vanity Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete Hard to pick out legitimate hits from Google, but this is clearly vanity even if it isn't non-noteable. HackJandy 06:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we're having dozens of these a day, I wish they were speediable. Stifle 00:15, 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Incredible Project[edit]

Band vanity, not notable, Speedy Delete Herostratus 06:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy per band vanity. "Invigorating live performances in Worcester?" That just doesn't exist. JHMM13 07:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop)..." This is one of the rules for musical notability. The article includes this statement "This band is widely held to be representative of Worcester's funk and dance scenes, as well as its wider independent rock and roll scene." Makhnono! 18:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a press link: http://www.dcfiy.org/press06.htm
  • Delete. One of their 'noteworthy' performances happened at a band member's home? In the basement? Ok, when their parents let them record an album maybe I'll reconsider. Ifnord 18:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more band vanity. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for deleting the "noteworthy performances" section. I started this article and did not write that part, which was false. "Tanner Zona" is not anyone I am aware of, nor is he currently or previously a member of The Incredible Project aflockofshegulls
  • Delete, not a speedy yet, but Ifnord says anything I need to say. Stifle 00:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:02, 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed[edit]

Dictionary definition. Delete or move to dictionary of slang, if there is one. •DanMS 07:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Normally, I would say that this should be merged with some page called "List of Slang" or "New York Slang" (There are London Slang and Boston slang pages), but since those don't exist, and since "Motion, Stew, Juan, Sar, and Co." aren't quite in the running for spots on the usage board, let's give this one a big fat delete. JHMM13 07:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef, with no real evidence of the neologistic usage. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make a disambig page, because it is linked to by several articles [6], some of them mean "mixed race", others mean mixed as in a 'dj mixed', then I guess you could note the urban slang term too Astrokey44 14:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Which means the links don't conform to WP:NC. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per zis Guy. Stifle 12:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley likes goon[edit]

Gets 727 Google hits. Non-notable. --Hottentot 07:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. JHMM13 07:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable and (if the article is right) racist web animations. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Maybe the animations don't work properly in Netscape, but all I see on the link provided are some very, very primitive animations that doesn't do anything except move cut-out figures a little. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 12:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, plus i'm editing out the nonexistant category:Aboriginals. BonsaiViking 16:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STFU Katielady[edit]

I am wondering whether it may be speedily deleted, since this is a clear case of provably false information: "internet phenomenon" with no internet presence. mikka (t) 08:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep--article has been modified to address concerns. (Full disclosure -- I am the original author of the article.) I see what you mean about the term 'internet phenomenon', and I agree that I mis-interpreted the term. I shall remove that term from the article. (I was interpreting the term as something that *was created* through the internet, whereas I'll agree with you that the definition ought to be *is spread* through the internet.) My apologies. However, I can verify the trend referred to in the article does legitametly exist, so I'll rewrite the article with a different classification to address the concerns raised here. Tavistmorph 16:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--article needs a few factual revisions/clarifications but is mostly accurate. I am one of the original participants, I will be working with the author to amend the information. I agree that "Internet Phenomenon" is a misnomer; the meme mostly propagates person-to-person (using the Internet as a mode of communication and documentation) and installations are all real-world instances. [email protected] 2005-11-27 12:56 EST
  • Delete if it's not a neologism, it's certainly not noteworthy. Ifnord 18:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable neologism. "Evidence" (Photoshopped?) is not compelling. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With five Google hits, it's not much of a meme. Capitalistroadster 18:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's certainly not an "internet phenomenom', but since that phrase has been apparently been removed by the original author, it passes all the other Wikipedia requirements. Google trail of this meme is admittedly small, but it demonstrably does exist. Heapchk 20:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You apparently are not familiar with wikipedia policies. Main issues here are notability and verifiability. We do not keep articles about things which do not already have articles in reputable sources. The reason is simple: wikipedia does not have peer review, and may rely only on already published third-party opinions. mikka (t) 20:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Bwithh 20:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It could be the next "all your base" but I would think then it would be notable. Also, seems to be "original research" even if it is spreading. One thought that occurs to be is someone may be trying to make it an "Internet phenomena" by getting it into the Wikipedia? Mark K. Bilbo 23:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems like an inside joke from one web forum that somebody is trying to turn into an Internet phenomenon, including the use of Wikipedia itself as a vehicle to spread the meme, which is not a proper function of this site. If it does manage to spread sufficiently, it will then be notable and the article can reasonably be recreated at that point. *Dan T.* 04:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it doesn't look like it's spread much beyond the original board where it started. It's not even close to being an "internet phenomenon" yet. --Bachrach44 16:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Heapchk. Stifle 12:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Model Motion[edit]

A defunct televison show on a local-access televison channel in Arlington, Virginia. No Google or IMDb hits. Seems rather non-notable. Recommend delete. •DanMS 07:28, 27 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 Speedy delete (per creator's consent, and only editor was creator). --Nlu 16:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Modem Madness[edit]

Spam, but doesn't seem to fit a CSD category. Delete. --Nlu 07:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete....quickly. Spam. JHMM13 07:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatant shilling.Bjones 14:02, 27 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 RESULT by community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Truthism[edit]

Sometimes you come across pages like this and all that "respect" you had for D-grade philosophy majors vanishes in an instant. "Truthism" only put up 265 results on Google, and none of them appear to have anything to do with a staunch opposition to "falsism. Delete. JHMM13 07:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • And isnt wikipedia for getting undocumented events/beliefs on it, which seperates it from other static encyclopedias? Thanks for proving my point. Google isn't able to help you learn about this belief system, now wikipedia is able to. --Comment posted by 67.175.186.219 (Please put ~~~~ after your messages. JHMM13 07:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not for allowing any person to post whatever he wants without any validity from the outside world. There are no publications to support the fact that "truthism" even exists except in your mind, and if you'd like to gain notoriety, don't do it through Wikipedia. We report on notoriety, we don't create it. That's what an encyclopedia does. JHMM13 07:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this getting deleted? There are two seperate people writing this who are experts on the subject. However insane the editors here find this article, we feel the same for many other topics on here. But isnt fairness of ideas allowed here? We believe in this so please do not delete it. --Comment posted by 67.175.186.219
  • Speedy Delete with extreme prejudice as arrant nonsense. Spamming of discussion board by authors not appreciated.Herostratus 08:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So one person who googles a word and can't find results who isn't able to properly research something they don't understand, decides if this stays or goes? There are a lot of subjects that do not have a web presence, do you exclude those too? Guess what, there is more to the world than google. I know you are surprised to hear that, but it is true.
  • Speedy delete, utter nonsense. Squiddy 10:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^^A communist who likes Nietzsche wants to call something else "nonsense?" LMAO
    • Lunacharsky, the 20s Soviet minister was a Nietzschean Marxist, and the distinctly anarchistic historian/philosopher Michel Foucault was strongly influenced by Nietzsche. Nietzschean socialists include G B Shaw and A R Orage. Feel free to re-attach your arse with whatever degree of sheepishness you think appropriate. Squiddy 11:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's main author states outright above that this is an "undocumented belief". That alone is enough to determine that this is unverifiable. The content and edit history of the article, where the tenets of this purported belief are altering in response to this very discussion, convinces me that this is a belief system that is being constructed on the fly by its author(s) directly in a Wikipedia article, that has gained zero traction outside of Wikipedia or indeed outside of its creator(s). It is thus original research. Delete. Uncle G 16:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Authors' comments here demonstrate it is original research. Peyna 17:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Complete Bollocks. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense. linas 19:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete if there isn't a category of "Delete for HUH?" maybe there should be. Mark K. Bilbo 23:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an underground movement involving hundreds of peoples. Truthism is on the rise. You can delete it now but in 3 months (Merlin willing) someone else will put it up. Maybe some followers will make a few hundred websites explaining our ideology and then we will see a stop to this persecution.

Get over yourself. Followers of some religions and sects throughout history have been persecuted by being driven from their homes, forced into ghettoes, burnt alive, set upon by wild animals, and massacred by the thousands and millions: your "persecution" is having a substandard encyclopedia article deleted. --Calton | Talk 01:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit you are persecuting us? Sounds like you are a SICKIST. Read some real truth and get back to me. Id start with Metzger's science papers and then some of Merlin's FACTS. Then maybe you will stop the liarist personal attacks.

What part of my use of quotation marks/inverted commas around persecution escaped you? If you don't understand their purpose, I can recommend some good grammar books, and then you can get back to me. --Calton | Talk 15:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Delete. Nonsense. Logophile 13:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Be careful crossing the bridge. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Truthist teachings show us that in the end, SICKISM like it is displayed here will be destroyed. Merlin is REAL and will use his stones to stop this.

  • Hm... interesting little comment you backed up and blanked. The one that goes "Go ahead and delete the article, punks. It'll be back up tomorrow." Maybe the page should be speedy deleted and prevented from being recreated. Mark K. Bilbo 04:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt write that. As I said, multiple people are involved in truthism. It is not a FAD, it is FACT!

I think you could change "sickism" to "sockism" and you'd find some people around here agreeing that it exists :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Sockism" is fake. Merlin never mentioned it. Anti-harpism is REAL. Read the studies performed by Metzger. You will learn some truth. Heil Merlin.

  • This is all, at the very least, extremely amusing. JHMM13 07:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have a wikipedia editor using the word (however incorrectly) therefore it should stay. BTW, google some real keywords like "magic crystals," "merlin," and "bunyanism" and youll see what Im talking about.

Now, now, don't drag a perfectly respectable field like bunyanism into this argument. JHMM13 07:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on you, you're being ismist :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Rising Sun[edit]

Non-notable band, doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria - Akamad 07:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy per band vanity. This says it all: Their debut album is expected to be released by the end of the year. JHMM13 07:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See update --Moman 09:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NMG. Not eligible for speedy under current policy. PJM 16:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and bemoan once again the lack of a speedy category for these. No, to be fair, this one is slightly above the average - at least the band's name is not nauseating and the cover art is moderately pleasing to the eye. I suspect that nce they have actually sold some albums they might become notable. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article should be kept. Note the band's connection to the Fretworks Mandolin and Guitar Orchestra. While Fretworks may not be "extremely notable" in pop culture, in similarly styled musical spheres it is quite well-known (as it was the first and only of its kind). This fact in addition to the association of the members of the band in question with that ensemble should grant legitimacy under the WP:MUSIC guidelines and criteria. --Moman 04:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. All but one of this user's 125 edits have been made since this article was nominated for deletion. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:45, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 08:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personalized Native Language[edit]

Appears to be total nonsense. However, I want some opinions before speedy deleting it. --Nlu 07:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy to save more people the trouble of losing 15 seconds of their life reading that nonsense. JHMM13 07:50, 27 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bile Nephrosis[edit]

Myspace band formed in 2005, has one EP, no label information. Fails WP:MUSIC. --W.marsh 07:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I may want to pick up Defecating Upon the Body of a Gutted Harlot at the local music store for some soft listening, though.JHMM13 07:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 16:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I share JHMM13's inexplicable compulsion to seek out this God-awful title, but not to the extent of paying actual money. I suspect that many others will feel likewise, and that this may in fact undermine the profitability of the entire enterprise... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:31, 27 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 keep (you're welcome to merge).  Grue  09:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WMLN[edit]

Does not seem sufficiently notable. It is a college radio station, and the awards won are not particularly impressive(see http://www.curry.edu/Student+Life/Curry+College+Radio/). Unless I am mistaken, the wattage is also low Superm401 | Talk 07:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I wouldn't call these guys non-notable, but they should certainly add that link to the page and add some links to the "awards" won. JHMM13 07:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm...who's "they"? Let's remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Superm401 | Talk 08:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I honestly don't know, but in terms of notability, I think this station is just large enough to "matter."
  • Keep. Article could stand some improvement (like some specifics about the mentioned awards), but it's no worse than WCHC, or some of the other articles about FCC licsenced stations in the U.S. D-Rock 08:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep non-crufy, verifiable radio station articles. Jacqui★ 18:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the college article, as has been done in several other comparable cases. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the college article. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Dalbury. Stifle 12:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bigot slutwrench[edit]

Not on AMG, article gives no evidence that they have any releases or a label, thus fails WP:MUSIC. The only contributing author attends the college where the band plays... probable vanity. --W.marsh 07:59, 27 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 Speedy delete (as nonsense) --Nlu 08:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Fok[edit]

A likely hoax article, as google searchs of Jeffrey Fok, "Jeffrey Fok" + celtics and "Jeffrey Fok" + patriots produce no results. Unless concrete evidence (ie. career NFL or NBA stats from a reputable source are produced) this is just a hoax and nothing more. Can you really survive a hurricane, go to college, play NFL, NBA for 14 years, and help develop Halo 2 without Google having heard of you? Really? Harro5 08:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. - Akamad 08:14, 27 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 Speedy delete (as nonsense and/or non-notable biography) --Nlu 08:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher H. Taylor[edit]

Possible hoax. "Christopher H. Taylor" returns 234 search hits which include an attorney, an accused peeping tom, a bird photographer, a tennis player, a livestock judge, and so on, but nothing matching the description given. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:13, 27 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 Consensus not reached. Keep. Enochlau 08:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Amazing Spider-Man comics[edit]

For the love of all that is good, why does this page exist? Should wikipedia list every comic ever made? This is an encyclopedia!!!! Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This just encourages guys like Brown Shoes22. Highlights of very important issues MAY belong here(although I doubt it), but listing all these issues??? Delete it now, please!!!! Dyslexic agnostic 08:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I vote Keep for now unless someone gives a compelling enough reason to delete it. The title of the page is "List of..." so it makes sense that it would be a list of whatever it is. JHMM13 09:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote keep as well. It's the only one of the many, many Spider-Man series up here, and it's interesting to see the history of the series' run, with characters, artists, etc.
  • Keep. I dislike most "list" entries, but this subject seems far more notable than some other 'crufty' list entries that have made it in. PJM 15:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, I know others like it, but even as a former (huge) Spider Man fan I really cannot see what this is doing on WP. It belongs on a fansite. It seems to me that WP is becoming, by stealth, the free web hosting provider of choice for fiction and game fans. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is a list of a notable comic book. Carioca 23:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Spider-Man is a very popular comic book, this list can help illustrate the evolution of this comic. Seano1 01:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom., even though I know I'm spitting into the wind. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Notable issues / events coinciding with issues could be made into a real article, but a list which instead focusses on just numbering each comic with sometimes some notes to the side does not strike me as appropriate for wikipedia. --Qirex 12:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless fancruft. --Apostrophe 19:37, 30 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 04:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dropcast[edit]

Advertisement. There are 725 Google hits for Dropcast (195 unique ones). Their website has no Alexa rank. Not notable - delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:08, 27 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. I count 11 delete/merge, 4 keeps. Based on the raw count, I could have been convinced to go either way. After all, three minor acting credits and a poorly selling book is three credits and one book more than I have to my name! Still, the article itself reads so much like a gossip column, I don't think it's worth keeping. One could make the argument that we aim to be a superset of every encyclopedia that has ever been published, and thus the IMDB article should mean it's good enough for us, but I think it would be a hard sell to convince me that IMDB is an encyclopedia. --RoySmith 14:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Dow[edit]

I know I worked to make this page normal, but this isn't a very notable person. She has 3 very minor credits as an actress, one book that was hardly a best-seller, and is mostly known for her relationship problems with her daughter, Jennifer Aniston. I don't think she's quite notable and the Aniston Vs. Dow conflict can be briefly summarized on Aniston's page. There are a lot of other celebrity relatives who are not really well-known for any other reason than maybe a small media-reported conflict with their celebrity offspring, i.e. Aaron Carter's mother Jane Spaulding Carter, Sandra Dee's stage mother, etc.

  • Delete per nomination.Vulturell 09:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this lady has just enough notability to stay, especially if she has a mention on the Jennifer Aniston page. JHMM13 09:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment She is mentioned on the page but Jane Spaulding Carter (who has no article) is mention on Aaron Carter's page, etc and they are notable/not notable for the same reasons - they both wrote books about their offsprings and had a little media coverage on their feuds.Vulturell 09:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable enough to stay[7]. PJM 14:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing here that couldn't be on the Aniston page; being related to notable people does not make you notable. Peyna 17:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but only just. I nearly voted keep until I saw the IMDB article - two also-ran film parts in nearly 40 years does not cut it for me. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Jennifer Aniston. Owen× ☎ 21:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete on the same lines of Just zis Guy's reasoning. Jacqui★ 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; not all that notable, but just barely notable enough for the fairly low bar I think the site should have. *Dan T.* 04:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Just zis Guy, you know? Stifle 00:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Put whatever is usable in Jennifer Aniston. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough credible third-party sources to make it encyclopedic. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. Arniep 03:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although she isn't that well-known, you could probably call her a Z-list celebrity, and she has had some 'famous moments', so I think she just makes it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypriot stud (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per SlimVirgin --Jaranda(watz sup) 03:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 spam, particularly in light of author's action in deleting this entry) --Nlu 09:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Investment Manager[edit]

This article seems to be spam, but I may be wrong. Looking for input on this one before I make a delete decision. Thanks. JHMM13 09:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like spam to me. Delete. tregoweth 09:25, 27 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 speedy delete: recreation of deleted content. If anyone sees this page get recreated, drop a line on the Administrator's Noticeboard. Thanks, Mysekurity 07:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dusted[edit]

Unnecessary article. Delete or merge to Rollo Armstrong. - Mike Rosoft 09:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no need for own page, just merge it Sethie 20:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I am doing this wrong, sorry.... I added a RFD on Nov 26, 2005. When I went to add this page, it already exited, though on a previous entry that I am guessing has nothing to do with the current one, hence no need for Speedy Delete. Sethie 20:29, 26 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 Keep. Enochlau 08:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trannyshack[edit]

Localized, not notable. Delete --Spring Rubber 09:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep scores many Google hits and appears to be a big part of the scene in SF (which is not a small place). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 96,900 Google hits, 79,000 with "San Francisco", I'll accept that it's notable. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JzG. MCB 07:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree, it's notable and deserves to stayOgnit Ice 18:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 copyright violation, with very minor alterations, perhaps to evade search engines. --Nlu 17:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

叶蓉[edit]

not in English

  • Delete, unless someone can translate it and see if it is worth keeping (eventually transwiki) JoJan 10:41, 27 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. Enochlau 08:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CallingID, CallingID Toolbar[edit]

Not notable. Vanity page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.82.2 (talk • contribs)

I'm not voting, but I'd like to point out that Webrunner69 seems to be a sock puppet for CallingID and is the main source for spamming^Hdiscussion on the web for CallingID -62.31.82.2 01:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Contributions/Webrunner69 - edits restricted to the article, this AfD and linkspamming. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:27, 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 Speedily deleted. Enochlau 08:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Allen Weller[edit]

Not convinced of the notability of this individual. Article created by Larcin1978 (talk · contribs) who has worked on this article and nothing else - possible vanity?. No Google hits for "Chris Weller" and "Kris Allen" together, and only 45 for "Christopher Allen Weller". Delete CLW 12:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 14:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vanity. Ifnord 18:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete no discernible claim to notability so WP:CSD A7 applies. Tag added. Sliggy 22:20, 27 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 Transwiki-ed. Enochlau 08:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to prepare an onion cell slide[edit]

Transwikied to Wikibooks; the transwiki page says to AfD the article if it hasn't already gone on AfD. Johnleemk | Talk 12:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is also in use at Wikibooks - Marshman 17:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, transwiki complete. Stifle 00:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a how to guide. --Bachrach44 16:46, 30 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 NO CONSENSUS.

Final tally at closing was:

No anon/socks to discar. Owen× ☎ 22:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sucker born every minute[edit]

Unencyclopedic entry based almost entirely on speculation; the article basically says that the phrase exists, may or may not be attributable to three different people and was once paraphrased by a theatre group. Delete CLW 12:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further to discussion below, merge to P. T. Barnum and redirect both this and There's a sucker born every minute (surely the more common form) to P. T. Barnum. CLW 07:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to P.T. Barnum. Interesting material, but individual quotes don't deserve their own articles. — JIP | Talk 18:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to P.T. Barnum. Firebug 18:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to PT Barnum, where it has a definite place. The only thing that would not survive the move is the link to Firesign Theatre, which I'd excise anyway as there is no real evidence that this particular paraphrase (of the many hundreds which surely exist) is especially notable. Strangely that was part of the orignal content of the page by User:Geo Swan, editor on the Firesign article and creator of one Firesign-related one. I must go and do something else for a while, I keep having these unworthy thoughts about the motives of my fellow Wikipedians. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to P.T. Barnum as quotes are from this person anyway. MONGO 20:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Sigh) One of the main points of the article is that Barnum is not the creator of the phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs) 15:28, November 27, 2005
      • The fact is, most people attribute the phrase to P. T. Barnum, correctly or otherwise, and it's listed in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations under his name. If there is credible evidence that the origin is disputed, this should be explained as neutrally as possible, at the P. T. Barnum page. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you pay a visit to the Bartlett page for this quote I think you will agree it makes clear Barnum never uttered the phrase. You won't find a single credible source that claims he did say it. -- Geo Swan 11:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • But, as I said, it is listed with his name—"ATTRIBUTION: Phineas Barnum (1810–1891), U.S. showman. Attributed," with a neutral disclaimer—we should follow suit. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: As a courtesy to me would someone explain why merging and redirecting makes sense? I am serious. I recognize some of your names as regular patrollers of {afd}. I think I am missing something. It seems to me that there are some shared assumptions that you regular patrollers of {afd} all share, and don't realize the rest of us aren't aware of. Is there a reason why one big article is better than several smaller related articles? If this is explained in some wiki policy document? -- Geo Swan 20:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because stub-sorting is a pain in the buttocks, because quality of articles is more important than quantity, and because when a new user enters something in the search box or clicks the Random Page link and gets fed an article consisting of only a few sentences, it reflects poorly upon the encyclopedia as a whole. Or, well, that's my opinion anyway. Hey, I just discovered I'm a mergist.— FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Welcome to the club. May I just take a moment to clarify: when I said that the fact of Geo Swan's having created another Firesign-related article was an unworthy thought, I meant exactly that. His edit history makes it abundantly clear that he is not a single-issue wonder, but an editor with a wide history of interesting added content. I know I am sometimes prone to irony - Geo Swan, please accept my apologies if the comment was misread in any way, I was actually having a go at myself, not at you. Honest. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Freak of Nature, thanks for offering your explanation. I don't know what "sub-sorting" is. But, it seems to me that your concern about new users being turned off, when they click on the Random Page link, merely reveals a flaw in the implementation of the Random Page code -- one that could be fixed with a sensibility filter that didn't show pages that fell below a certain threshold of edits or sentences. WRT new users please consider the comment I posted to Dalbury's vote below, where I suggest thought experiment. If you are going to base your vote based on new users I think you have to consider the frustration and inconvenience a merge poses for readers who go to the page because they want to know the background of the phrase, and, instead, are taken to a completely different page, a biography, or someone they may never heard of. -- Geo Swan 11:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the phrase is often used without attribution is pretty irrelevant. "To be or not to be" is often used without attribution, but it still belongs to Shakespeare. That said, if there's serious dispute about the source of the phrase, Keep but move to There's a sucker... —Wahoofive (talk)
  • Keep. The merge votes, I think, are a little rediculous in this case. Sure, the fact that PT Barnum didn't actually say it would stay on his page, but the other people would be deleted as irrelevent on that page. So it needs to stay here. Jacqui★ 00:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking for myself, I vote merge because the phrase is popularly attributed to Barnum, and the history of the phrase is inextricably linked to him (an early example of a snow-job, I guess). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Jacqui. Seano1 01:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Barnum article. Sheesh, do we need an article for every quote that may have been misattributed? -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a strawman argument. No one is suggesting that every misattributed quote merits an article of its own. The phrase merits an article because it is widely used, and has long ago entered our cultural shorthand. Most instances of its use don't explain its meaning, or attribute it to Barnum. The wikipedia should have an article devoted to the phrase to help out those unfamiliar with the phrase, or those for whom English is not their native language. Merging to Barnum is a disservice to those who want to use the wikipedia to find out the phrase's background. Here is a thought experiment. Go to one of the articles that links to this one. Pretend you have never heard of Barnum. Now pretend you clicked on the link, because you were interested in the phrase, and you got taken not to an article about the phrase, but to some guy from the 19th Century named Barnum. Let me suggest that, if you were a new user, your first reaction would be, "This wikipedia is not as useful as people claim. WTF would it take me to a biography of this 19th Century guy, when I told it I wanted to know more about that phrase?" -- Geo Swan 11:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Barnum. Do we really need articles for every famous quote? Sorry for my language now, I am just making a point: The quote "Fuck you" is a much more used quote than the Barnum quote, but it isn't an article of itself, but redirected and a part of the article "Fuck". By the way, the Barnum quote should be listed as "trivia" in the Barnum article since it is uncertain whether he said it. My Regards, Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 12:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I want to address those of you who identify yourselves as "mergists". I understand that some of you feel an aesthetic affinity to merging. I get aesthetic affinities too. I get aesthetic affinities for doing things certain ways, or making things look in certain ways. But, what I have to acknowledge, is that those aesthetic affinities sometimes screw me up.
It seems like most people who want to merge this article into PT Barnum are prompted by an aesthetic sense. The merge feels right to them, because all merge suggestions feel right to them.
Some instances of making things look right really are incredibly useful and important. An instance of that here on the wikipedia would be we the see also and external references sections. There is a project to go through all the articles and regularize their usage. Making all our external references appear as regular as possible, makes it easy to find the particular parts we want. With instances like this, once we get used to putting things in a regular format, we internalize that format, so we can recognize it at a glance, and can recognize when it is not in that format, at a glance. And our aesthetic sense kicks in, so we feel dissatisfied when it just doesn't look right.
But that aesthetic sense can really betray us too, lead us into bad decisions. There are certain kinds of tasks where I am tempted to use my favourite tools. I want to write a script, make use of some regular expressions, to automatically select some stuff, and make transformations. I think I am good at it. I estimate it won't take very long, and I will feel an aesthetic satisfaction doing the task that I wouldn't feel if I made each change by hand. But it turns out I made some typos, or didn't fully appreciate the special cases, and I have to write several drafts. I find myself reluctant to admit when my aesthetic sense betrayed me -- when brute force manual editing would have saved time and prevented errors.
We have to be disciplined about how we allow ourselves to exercise our aesthetic sense. We have to recognize that even the best aesthetic rule, which
Merging can break things. It will break things in this particular instance. Three of the four articles that link to this article already link to PT Barnum, right in the same sentence or a neighbouring sentence. So, redirecting this phrase to PT Barnum breaks those articles, by putting a second, deceptive link to PT Barnum near the real link to PT Barnum.
That sucks. Its broken. Let me suggest this merge is a misapplication of your aesthetic sense. -- Geo Swan 12:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Geo, here is how I see it: people will go to the Barnum article and expect to find reference to this comment, due to widespread popular (mis?)attribution. Note that the references are not actually conclusive on that score. Therefore, the Barnum article has to mention this phrase, even if only to say he never said it. It would make sense to cover it twice if (a) there was a substantial likelihood of people entering this phrase as a search term (which I don't think there is, and anyway the search would find the Barnum article), or (b) there was substantial additional encyclopaedic content, which I don't see: beyond Barnum-specific discussion (which again ionvolves redundancy as it has to establish the background of the quarrel, which is properly done in the Barnum article), there isn't much to say. It's an aphorism, people use it. This is not a dictionary of aphorisms. If there is a list of aphorisms it would probably be listed (as it is in my dictionary of aphorisms) as widely but probably erroneously attributed to Barnum. You've seen what Bartleby has to say: [8]. So, I support a merge for maintainability, avoiding duplication, and ease of use because I can't see what other encyclopaedic relevance it might have, this not being a dictionary of aphorisms and all. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The phrase has independent significance above and beyond the Barnum article and discussion about its origins deserve a separate entry. Jtmichcock 05:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename. I was in the process of closing out this AfD when I came to the conclusion that I so strongly disagreed with what appeared to be the majority opinion that I'd rather express my own opinion and let somebody else close it out. Given how popular the phrase is, and how it appears that Barnum did not actually say it (which I've heard before), I think it deserves to stand on its own. The Barnum article should reference this one. Rename to There's a sucker born every minute (as mentioned above, the most common form), and redirect this name (as a common mis-spelling) to that one. --RoySmith 14:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 re-creation (with simple name changes) of content for which there is a consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schluegenkopf. Uncle G 16:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo[edit]

New version of the User:Schluegenkopf hoax, variously deleted in the past as Schluegenkopf, Schluedenkopf, The Ricci Family and probably others. Tearlach 14:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:10, 27 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. If nobody knows, how do they know? -Mysekurity 06:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OmboboTeam[edit]

3 Google hits. Speculative in nature, "too secret". Punkmorten 14:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and non notable. Ifnord 18:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ifnord. Stifle 00:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:14, 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. Enochlau 08:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

School Four[edit]

Some unencyclopedic schoolcruft with local spook-tales. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOR. PJM 15:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, if we can get a cleanup and sources. Stifle 00:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. --Bachrach44 16:47, 30 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. Enochlau 08:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of South Park[edit]

Article is unencyclopedic and completely subjective.

  • Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. PJM 15:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In July 2005, it was discussed on Talk:Politics of South Park that the article comprised solely editors' own analyses of the political stance of South Park, presented as though they were Wikipedia's own opinions, and was thus both biased and original research (an issue that had been raised a month before on Talk:South Park Republican). Sources and attribution were requested then. The article has sported neutrality and accuracy dispute tags in the months since, and during that time not a single source has been cited in the article to indicate that this is not original research, and no attempt has been made to attribute the opinions on the politics of the show to the people who actually hold them, or even indicate that anyone other than the editors themselves who are writing the article hold those opinions. (On Talk:South Park Republican, an editor refused outright to cite xyr source.) The evidence of the edit history and talk pages is thus that there is no scope for this article to be anything other than non-neutral and original research. We are here to create an encyclopaedia that condenses and summarizes existing knowledge that has already been peer reviewed and published, not to collaborate on creating from scratch a political treatise about a television show. Delete. Uncle G 17:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So what is being argued here? Are you saying that this subject is inherently NPOV/OR, or that what is posted now is such? I do not see why a perfectly satisfactory article can not be created discussing the politics of South Park. This is a program many people watch, and more have heard of. It has pushed the envelope, and is notable. Now, if you don't like the current content, why not edit it? Sandpiper 19:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only satisfactory edit as things stand is to delete the article. You assert that a "perfectly satisfactory article can be created". This implies that you know of sources on this subject that can be used to create such an article. So cite them. Merely claiming that this isn't original research and can be rendered neutral, without actually demonstrating that it isn't original research and providing sources to work from, won't cut the mustard any longer. Sources have been requested for five months, and not only have editors not provided them, they have even refused to provide them, one stating that xyr contributions are the "product of some research I had been doing". It is now crunch time. The currently unsubstantiated assertion that this isn't original research now has to be backed up with something concrete within the next few days. Uncle G 23:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't need to cite a source to state an opinion here, nor does anyone else. It is my view which counts here. The idea is to seek consensus not win by playing a trump card? Sandpiper 16:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The idea is, as I have already said, to create an encyclopaedia that condenses and summarizes existing knowledge that has already been peer reviewed and published, not to collaborate on creating from scratch a political treatise about a television show. Uncle G 18:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Possibly, but did it used to be to create an encyclopedia which people could rely upon to tell them accurately what they wanted to know about anything? Sandpiper 20:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • No. Things that humans want to know about is not the same as things that humans do know about. Wanting to know about things that people don't know about is, after all, why people do original research. Uncle G 16:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh no (really no). Wiki notion of OR is not at all the same as the real world meaning of OR. It is much more restrictive. Things rejected on wiki would be laughed out of the examination, if submitted for a degree where OR was expected. Sandpiper 18:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Article doesn't cite a single source; thus it more than likely the research of the editors involved. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOR actually says:'Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.' So, yes, wiki policy specifically expects editors to do research, specifically to collect and collate information from primary sources (i.e. the programs themselves). It is quite plain the primary source is the programs themselves and this is implicit throughout the article. Sandpiper 16:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read the whole policy, in particular the part that says "it is essential that any [...] any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data has been published by a third-party reputable publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library". Collaboratively creating an analysis of the political stance of a television show, where no such analysis exists outside of Wikipedia is original research, plainly and simply. You have the opportunity to provide evidence that such an analysis exists, which is the only way that you can demonstrate that this is not original research. Merely arguing as you are that that we should include original research in our encyclopaedia isn't persuasive. Uncle G
        • I did read the whole policy. then I read it again, and all the talk page, and commented. My conclusion was that the policy had been somewhat subverted into a tool for closing arguments. Sandpiper 20:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that one of the fundamental policies that tells us what we are actually doing, and (furthermore) not doing, here is a means for closing arguments is not a matter of subversion. Uncle G 16:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes it is. It misses the pretty obvious point that while references might make an article better, an article with no references is better than no article at all. This is also part of wiki policy. (or it was) The proper criteria for inclusion is accuracy, not whether it has references.Sandpiper 18:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or perhaps transwiki to wiktionary as a definition of original research :oP Jacqui★ 00:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOR. The South Park Republican article covers everything this article dose without original research. Seano1 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I contributed somewhat to this article and looking back, it's completely unencyclopedic and inherently NPOV. daleki 01:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This sort of thing seems inherently POV and OR. *Dan T.* 04:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is interesting, it is not POV as it shows any political view from either side, and it is not original research because of the number of different editors. The source is the show itself, which is verifyable because of its worldwide popularity Astrokey44 14:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I don't understand how the number of editors changes the fact that this clearly is OR. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Presumably because a number of people have come to the same view that in fact it is not. Sandpiper 16:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just because a lot of people say it isn't OR doesn't make it so. Show me the references! --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wiki supposedly works by consensus, not evidence or precedent Sandpiper 20:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see OR here. The facts are easily verifiable by watching relevant episodes.  Grue  17:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article doesn't contain facts, it contains conclusions. For example, it states that episode 502 is "Against censorship on TV". This is a conclusion, drawn from watching the television show and inferring a political stance indirectly from the plot and dialogue, not a verifiable fact about the television show. It is an opinion about the television show. It isn't attributed to the person who holds that opinion, and no source for it is provided. There's no evidence that it is anything but a conclusion drawn directly by the Wikipedia editor who first published here. The whole article is like this. Uncle G 18:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know you have a point Uncle G, but I do not support an absolutist reliance on references. It becomes an instrument for censorship rather than accuracy. There is a distinction between drawing novel conclusions and stating common conclusions which would be drawn by the average(informed) man had he been (in this case) watching the programs. The latter is not OR by any normal definition, and is not so under the explicit exclusion clause in wiki policy. Nor does the absence of a reference prove something is OR. The logical premis can only be that the presence of a reference proves that it is not.Sandpiper 20:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • We have no idea what the "common conclusions" are "which would be drawn by the average(informed) man had he been (in this case) watching the programs". There are no sources to tell us. You cannot prove that what is in the article are those conclusions, or even that most people won't in fact come to entirely different conclusions.

          If you don't support relying upon references, then you won't be comfortable here at Wikipedia. That is what we do here. I can highly recommend adopting the stance of always insisting upon there being references and good sourcing, though. The articles that you create won't ever come to AFD in the first place (I speak from experience.), and you can even rescue the odd article from deletion here, there, and yon, too. ☺ Uncle G 16:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

          • No, you miss the point. Every editor of wiki is one of those average informed men. If you are arguing that editors are unable to make choices about what is common sense to include, then there will be no encyclopedia at all. You make my point for me too, that references are not being used as a tool for improving quality, but for settling arguments about deletion and non-deletion. Wiki has been criticized as lacking an editorial POV. The real problem is not having a POV but making it clear where and how this applies. Wiki insistence on removing POV is its main tool for controlling editors. This may be necessary, (or not) but it also reduces the quality of certain kinds of article. Any kind of article which relies upon an opinion, in fact (politics, biography, economics, literature...). It is also against the spirit of wiki, that anyone can contribute. This may become wikis greatest problem if it continues. Sandpiper 18:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV clearly states that all views of a subject should be fairly represented. This article inherently cannot do that because it tells readers how these episodes should be interpreted. Accurate or not, it violates Wiki policy. PJM 19:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grue. Stifle 00:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. Grackle 01:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nim. and Uncle G. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:18, 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. Enochlau 08:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neogia[edit]

What is going on in this article? Machine generated sentences? I get the vague sense that this is an advertisement for something. delete

Lotsofissues 14:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Advertisement, and (badly translated) content is a straight lift from web page here Humansdorpie 17:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This product may be notable—or maybe not. I did get 220,000 hits on Google for Neogia. Neogia appears to be an adjunct to another system called OFBiz, for which I found 587,000 Google hits. However, Wikipedia does not have an article for OFBiz, so it would seem rather useless to have a separate article for Neogia. Anyway, this article on Neogia is virtually incomprehensible, so let’s dump it. •DanMS 17:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Press on, er, Delete. Does appear to be machine-translated, and incomprehensible. MCB 07:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Design /Recording Compex limiters[edit]

Not suitable for wikipedia: "This article will describe the procedure for rebuilding Audio+Design [compressor] limiters". Seems like either original research or copy from some magazine. Delete. --Anthony Ivanoff 13:56, 27 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. Enochlau 08:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ce Soir[edit]

From the Discussion page of this article:


'Delete': This album was a rumor that Ulf Ekberg debunked in an interview on October 20, 2005. There never was a Ce Soir album.

www.aceofbase.nl --12.221.181.152

'Delete'
I STRONGLY agree; I never believed this album existed, and had difficulty convincing people it was a stupid rumor. I'm so glad the band has finally put an end to this ridiculous rumor.--Firsfron 18:04, 26 November 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. Enochlau 08:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian entertainers[edit]

Delete Unless these people make people laugh at the pew......delete. 65.9.143.76 23:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should maybe learn the templates for verify and cleanup. That said this list is very broad and not too deep. So I'm abstaining for now unless sockpuppeting delete votes proliferate.--T. Anthony 09:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote: the anonymous nominator's point might be that the title is ambiguous, that it might be interpreted as "People who entertain Christians" which, technically, could be anyone (as an "entertainer" might have fans of any faith, and not even know it). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title is in line with other lists, so that's not really an issue. However, it's still listcruft. Delete way too big and unmaintainable, difficult to verify in many cases, and anyway, who cares? Unless their Christianity affects their entertainment content, it's just as irrelevant as their shoe size. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From the looks of it this list only presents entertainers who are Catholic and not entertainers who entertain by involvement of Catholicism...therefore this list is pointless. Antidote 23:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete almost as stupid as List of white people StabRule 23:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to suspected sockpuppetry of StabRule, nom and others. (See my comment here) Peyna 00:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or tighten the criteria. Looking through the list, I found most of the articles made no mention of the person’s faith. It seems the list was made with a very low threshold hold of what constitutes a Christian. The result could almost be called ‘ a list of none-Jewish actors’ and is about as useful as a something like a list people who drive Japanese cars. Seano1 01:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite- if this is a list of entertainers who happen to be roughly Christian by religion, I'd say strong delete. But a list of people in 'Christian entertainment', or entertainers who have used their celebrity status to promote their faith would seem to have some validity. The criteria should be that they are notable for being Christians and for being enertainers.--Doc ask? 02:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably a good idea. Tuth be told as this list stands I think it's very weirdly put together and I'd actually consider delete, but if it could fixed on those lines keep.(No vote for now)--T. Anthony 02:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. We need more like this, not less. -- JJay 17:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Out of control list. Models and athletes are entertainers? Why not just have a list of notable people who happen to be Christian? -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit for relevance per Doc glasgow. Durova 20:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on that. Delete might have been easier, but I think this is going either keep or no concensus. As it stands now most names should be relevant to the topic.--T. Anthony 16:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should we also start to list Italian plumbers? Jewish accountants? French dentists? --Bachrach44 16:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not against deletion, but could people point me to where the List of dentists and List of plumbers are at Wiki? The horror at making more lists related to them I've noticed is discussed often at delete votes, but I have no idea where the originals are. I'll check Wikipedia:List of lists I guess.--T. Anthony 17:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find them, but I'll start one on dentists and see how it works out.--T. Anthony 17:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The dentist one almost kind of works. I considered doing a plumber one, but it wouldn't work and would be going too far anyway.--T. Anthony 06:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 03:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mylo Carbia[edit]

This article was originally much larger and based (unknowingly) on faulty if not downright fictional source material. Once the faulty material was removed, there wasn't much left. See its history and talk page. It's not clear if "Mylo Carbia" is a hoax, an out of control boaster or a victim of some sort of bizarre practical joke, but no matter how thin you slice it, it shouldn't be here. Richfife 16:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I wrote this article based on the subjects good faith, however after furthur investigations conducted (Especially those by Richfife, whose work has been incredible), I have reached the conclusion that Mylo fabricated an elaborate hoax and filtered her fictional bio to other meidas. Therefore, let me as creator of the article, be the one to drive in the first nail into this article's coffin. Tony the Marine 18:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It appears we have been the victim of an intense campaign of self-promotion. See Talk:Mylo Carbia. Gamaliel 20:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Read the talk page. Wow! -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition I received an email from Mylo Carbia disavowing the contents of the page and giving her approval for its removal. Richfife 05:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Mylo Carbia offers clarification of what Internet rumors are true and which are false on the talk page. She clearly has no interest in being listed on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.183.156.248 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 03:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problem of interaction[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete looks like somebody's term paper that they heavily plagiarized off of random web pages on the Internet, original research and possibly copyvio. Peyna 17:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I ask why you think plagiarised? I'm sorry about the 'please format' but I'm new here (don't bite the newbies...?). Azushi
      • Because a google search revealed similar phrases to many of the sentences in the article, but no exact matches; thus suggesting that someone used them as sources and changed a few words around. It also looks very suspiciously like a term paper. Peyna 23:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course there were similar phrases! The topic is utterliy central to the philosophy of mind. I'm sure there a thousand articles called the same thing using very similar phrases because that's the philosophical terminology. I don't recognise your "Google approach" to identifying plagiarism; I could write you another "term paper" on how flawed a strategy that is. If it needs re-writing, then re-write it as you see fit (preferable to deletion, as stated by Wiki guidelines). I was simply plugging a gaping hole, as I saw it, namely that the problem of interaction had no entry on Wikipedia. I found this incredible - and this is certainly better than nothing.
  • Delete There's an article in there somewhere, but this is just an essay. And the [Someone needs to format this correctly for me] isn't very endearing either! Dlyons493 Talk 17:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like "original research." In fact, it looks like a term paper. Puts me in mind of some of the work of User:Supremevo01 interestingly enough. Mark K. Bilbo 23:25, 27 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 redirect.  Grue  09:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Demon Seed[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOR. PJM 20:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but I wouldn't call it original research. Peyna 17:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to be about the movie or the book - as far as I can tell - so I assume it's 'made-up'. Also, the "by Sean" signature at the bottom doesn't help its case. If you know that it's based on notable creative work, please place a link here. Thanks. PJM 21:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Andrew Levine. Peyna 22:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Demon Seed. There is no salvageable content on The Demon Seed now, and it's very possible that someone looking for the actual film/novel Demon Seed might think that its title includes The and type that into the search bar. Andrew Levine 22:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Demon Seed. It is what most of the people searching for this will be looking for. Capitalistroadster 00:09, 28 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 Consensus not reached. Keep. Enochlau 08:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Microcosm Publishing[edit]

This article describes a publisher called Microcosm Publishing in Portland, OR. All the references I find (e.g. on Amazon) are to a company of the same name based in the UK. The article says this is an independent publisher and distributor of zine, books, pamphlets, 1" buttons etc. Some Google hits to support this, but that does not make them notable. The pass the first test for vanity, in that the first words in the article were a weblink to their site (removed). I can't see a lot to suggest that the zines themselves are notable. The article concludes with an invitation ot their 10th Anniversary Party (I will contact them, obviously they will be happy send me complimentary first classs tickets from London Heathrow so I can validate this). Overall, this looks like vanity, borderline spam. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Appears to be advert for non-notable independent publisher. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Due to their style of distribution, it will be difficult to find Microcosm on any internet merchants. Their material is mainly distributed through radical bookstores (such as Paper Matches or the Wooden Shoe) or infoshops in North America. Most of these have little or no web presence. However, materials from Microcosm Publishing (with which I am uninvolved) are fairly ubiquitous in such places. All the same, it is something of an advert. Makhnono! 02:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. But, it looks like you are in Portland, and your perspective of the publisher's notability may not be valid anywhere else. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I am in Massachusetts. The Wooden Shoe is in Philly and Paper Matches is in Indianapolis. Microcosm materials are fairly widespread in radical circles; the problem is internet verifiability of that. Makhnono! 19:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I see that I was mistaken about you being in Portland. I apologize for any misunderstanding on that. -- Dalbury(Talk) 21:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important independent publisher, has some very interesting zines. Needs to be NPOV'ed, though. Voyager640 06:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did a little bit of work on the page. Doesn't look too POV actually. Voyager640 06:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey, Voyager - can you quantify "important"? The hits I found (of which there were several) were for a UK company of the same name. What did you find, please? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Each of the published titles get a few hundred Google hits. There doesn't seem to be much buzz about any of the them. Still looks like a non-notable publisher of non-notable comics. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:48, 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. Owen× ☎ 03:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big betty[edit]

Reads like a hoax, Google and a newsgroups search finds no verification that this is a character in Good Times, Good Friends. --W.marsh 16:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. PJM 16:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A sitcom with 'heavy drama'? --BillC 20:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not verifiable, and little content to entry.--Chuckhoffmann 00:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 03:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big Locote (Hi-Power)[edit]

Nothing on AMG and so little on Google/Newsgroups as to be essnetially unverifiable. Anyway there's no evidence this guy passes WP:MUSIC. --W.marsh 16:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.--nixie 12:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big neighbourhood[edit]

While there is a "Big Neighborhood" on AMG it doesn't seem to be this band. Anyway, article indicates they don't pass WP:MUSIC, only one release and no label info. Another one with nonexistant google coverage so I wonder if it's a hoax too. --W.marsh 16:12, 27 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.  Grue  09:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Riz fc[edit]

Barely notable, haven't made an impact yet. Aecis praatpaal 16:13, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 03:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anything forums[edit]

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a webguide, and the site mentioned here appears pretty non-notable. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:18, 27 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.

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy, under A7 --RoySmith 19:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris_Ziegler[edit]

Vanity page Theusername 17:22, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PAUL HAND[edit]

Looks like vanity - no context indicating notability ( Note: This nomination made by User:Taejo. Humansdorpie 19:45, 30 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 Consensus not reached. Keep. Enochlau 08:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese family structure[edit]

Original research and distinctly POV by a user who has created two pages (this and The effect of segregated education on negro school children), both now nominated (the other not by me); the user has made two other edits, both reverted, both replacing established content with similar essays. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Mark K. Bilbo 21:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jacqui★ 00:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • An encyclopedia article on Japanese families sounds fascinating. This ain't it. Delete. --Calton | Talk 01:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that, too. I spent a while trying to see if I could condense something usable out of the current content, but decided it was beyond me. If anyone can manage that I'll happily withdraw the nomination, as it's clearly a valid subject even if this treatment is pretty much irredeemable. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I made a quick sweep to remove some of the horribly non-encyclopedic text, condense and format -- its not the best start, but I think its an important article and some of the content can be salvaged. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I hope it's not a sin to vote and close at the same time, but the original problems of this article seem to have been addressed, and the editors above have noted that there are no objections to this particular subject being rendered in an encyclopedia. Enochlau 08:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fonearena[edit]

Advertisement. Joyous | Talk 17:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as advertising. Ifnord 18:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nm. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:22, 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. Enochlau 08:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston upon Hull; City of UA[edit]

Nothing links to this page, city of UA an unknown reference Kinhull 17:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This appears to be an attempt at a redirect which I edited. It therefore should be listed at Redirects for deletion not here. Capitalistroadster 19:02, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toaster Fiction[edit]

This is a fanfic term applying to devotees of Batman and the Scarecrow. It appears to be confined to one LiveJournal community. Not notable enough for inclusion at Wikipedia. Joyous | Talk 18:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN. Take out the reference in Scarecrow as well. -- Perfecto Canada 22:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft. Toaster Fiction brings joy to EVERYONE. whether they know it or not. Do not kill the toaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.102.59 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas & Friends Lego Duplo[edit]

Non-notable. Doesn't cover anything new about Lego or Thomas and his Friends Blightsoot 18:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, way too little information. — JIP | Talk 18:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:39, 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. Enochlau 08:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nozegrind[edit]

Lack of Google hits suggests not notable - delete CLW 18:10, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albatross 11[edit]

recreated speedy delete page (be it a little more serious). However, the site isn't notable enough to need an article, and the fact it has no Alexa data is a sign of this. Probably also a vanity article.Blightsoot 18:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't justify a speedy, because it doesn't meet G4. --RoySmith 19:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Such an article like this hardly seems encyclopedic. Maxistheman 23:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:41, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

School is Hell[edit]

Found this while looking at the Matt Groening page, only to find this nonsense. The book doesn't need it's own article; Life in Hell is enough. Nick R 18:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, this isn't even about the book! It's just some random rubbish. — JIP | Talk 18:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, patent nonsense Firebug 18:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Ifnord 18:37, 27 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. (I will recreate it to redirect to Laminate, which makes more sense) Enochlau 08:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laminator[edit]

Self-admitted NN band. "Most music was released locally but can ocasionally be obtained via bullying." --202.156.6.54 18:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • (sorry didnt check what NN band was) but ' most' music was released locally, not all of it. Also see RDF (radical dance faction) much of their music was also released locally, but it doesnt stop them being an immensely important band of our time. I believe Laminator also played an immensely important part, i'm not adding them for any commercial reason or just to give them kudos. do what you think's best i suppose. (unsigned comments by User:82.24.148.47)
    • NN means non-notable. Please refer to WP:MUSIC and see if the band meets the requirements for notability. --202.156.6.54 19:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vanity or delete as non-notable (notable achievements listed as, "stealing each other's lighters.") Ifnord 19:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city ' Incredibly prominent, important part of late 90s/early 21st century youth culture in middle-england. Have had reviews in Kerrang. 'lighters etc' is reference from local zine.
  • Delete as NN. Give us verifiable sources for your claim, and I'll look at this again. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:45, 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. Owen× ☎ 04:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AmigaCam[edit]

Some user's personal website about the Amiga, which the user is advertising as the greatest Amiga site ever. 492 Google hits, the most of which seem to be mentions of the site on sites with user-submitted content. Alexa ranking 2,744,896. This is obviously a non-notable website. Delete and take care to remove all advertisements from Amiga and other articles they may appear in. — JIP | Talk 18:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This seems to be a personal-promotion article. Val42 03:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It just ain't notable enough. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This AfD discussion page was first blanked, then moved to [[9]] (yes, a Wikipedia article named like a URL) by the article's author. — JIP | Talk 06:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: He did it again. — JIP | Talk 18:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Argee with Val42. ADSR6581 12:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:54, 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 Speedy keep. There is no way this article is getting deleted. If it has neutrality problems then fix them. SimonP 19:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide[edit]

This page should be deleted because it is refelcting the Armenian point of view. Its aim is solely to misinform people rather than informing people. I looked at the Azeri page and there is no reference to Azeri Genocide which happened 10 years ago. If Azeri Genocide is ignored this pase should also not exist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.147.83 (talk • contribs)

Delete- I want it to be removed because there is no reference to Western missionaries propogating Armenians to fight againist Ottomans before the war. Did Ottomans wake up one night and decided to kill Armenians: NO! What about the Turkish casualties? There in no reference to Turkish casualties and Turkish point of view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmriver (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haust[edit]

NN, advertising, very recently created business --Impaciente 18:35, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Rex[edit]

NN, no specific Google hits for either artist or hit single. --Impaciente 18:46, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basofe[edit]

At best this appears to be a great article about a non-notable slang term. It was originally nominated for speedy deletion, but I don't think it qualifies. -- Francs2000 18:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I tried to verify not just the existence of this term, which seems clear, but the other information in the article, and was unable to do so. "Basofologia" and "Basofology" appear to be neologisms, which makes me doubt some of the other information about the importance of the term. Chick Bowen 04:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should be kept, it talks about a street term used in Portugal by a type of people, wikipedia have lots of articles of this kind so this should be keep saved! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.58.253.82 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 29 November 2005 - And then moved down the page by User:86.132.157.98 - Only previous edits by both users have been in Basofe.
  • This term really exists in Portugal, it's a new term "made" by a humour show called "Gato Fedorento", this term appears in one of their sketches, since them it is used by a lot of people, keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.164.104 (talk • contribs)


don't delete

being a portuguese person, i actually find it quite factual the information displayed on this article, it is all true, these chungas, dreads, mitras, are the most pathetic thing on the face of this earth, their style, the way they talk, lowest class people, its true it might be offencive towards them, but in general anyone in portugal who is not one of these can admit that they are pathetic [edit]

I Agree...

Being a current resident of Portugal, I must say that I completely agree with the above message. The chungas that crawl the streets over here are pathetic creatures, and if any of them get angry and hurt by this article my day will be just a little bit brighter. But anyway, there is a very small chance of that happening since chungas are not educated and therefore cannot speak english, and they definitely do not have acess to the internet as not even their lives are worth as much as a decent computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.22.152 (talk • contribs) and that includes both of the above paragraphs, despite the attempt to make it look like two comments.

  • Delete per nom. I noticed it on my RC patrol, but decided it can't be speedied. Thought of listing it later for AFD and I find that it is already listed. --Gurubrahma 07:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I do not believe this article should be deleted. This article is genuine. The term "basofe" is analogous to the term "chav" that became slang in the U.K. Just like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav is a valid article this one should be too. At most, this article should be tagged incomplete because there is clearly more formal definitions missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.172.0.142 (talk • contribs)


I don't agree this article should be deleted, as it is genuine about a word that's currently used in the Portuguese Slang, to describe this kind of 'new-age' groups. Maybe clean up, but certainly not deleted. --84.90.132.174 22:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 21:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candi Kubeck[edit]

ValuJet Flight 592 has a good article covering this incident and Kubeck's notability is only based on that event. This should be deleted and some portion of it perhaps merged with the VJ592 article. Delete Dbchip 19:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per previous debate as notable pilot. Capitalistroadster 22:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please keep in mind that during the previous vote, there wasn't a substantial ValuJet Flight 592 article, which changes the situation. The subject is only notable for the one event that is documented in that article, so any content about her is most appropriate there. This article is never going to grow or become substantial or have more outbound or inbound links from other articles. I respectfully request that you reconsider as well as others who have previously voted. Dbchip 22:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The entire flight of VJ5982 was about seven minutes long, and very little is known about what the crew did, especially as they lost radio communications and power to the black boxes relatively early in the flight. I have read in an aviation publication an acknowledgement of her that she did immediately declare an emergency and initiate an attempt to return to Miami when she felt the kick of the loose tire exploding in the cargo hold. I do not feel this is sufficient for her inclusion in WP. Tandem 23:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Dbchip. —preceding unsigned comment by Reyk (talk • contribs) 01:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 'first female captain to die while on duty' is notable in my book. - squibix 01:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge slightly and redirect to ValuJet Flight 592; subject is not independently notable (first female captain to die is trivia). The balance of the article is substantially unverifiable, I'd say. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep did she suddenly became less notable since the previous VfD?  Grue  17:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Different context this time. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Xcali in previous vote. Stifle 15:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Previous AFD[edit]

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)

Candi Kubeck[edit]

nn This nomination should not be considered an implicit delete vote, I have voted seperately. You (Talk) 19:50, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I had a go at it and made it look a little more like a Wikipedia arcticle. Neutral. --Sn0wflake 21:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete or, better still, move to user page. - Lucky 6.9 19:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Note - crossing out Lucky 6.9's initial vote to avoid confusion following his change of vote below. -- BD2412 talk June 28, 2005 20:49 (UTC)
  • Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. -- BD2412 talk 20:01, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Keep and wikify. Being the pilot in a notable air disaster is notable. (Userfy? To where? She's dead.) Pburka 20:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Misjudgement on my part - I missed that bit! Vote withdrawn. -- BD2412 talk 20:41, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • She was a pilot in a notable air disaster? Then Keep. I should have read the article better. You (Talk)
  • Keep. Notability established in article. --Unfocused 20:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the crash was not blamed on pilot error, I don't think her biography is notable or relevant. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Give her a mention in ValuJet Flight 592 and delete this article. --Xcali 21:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This has changed significantly since it was first posted. No mention was made of the ValuJet crash in the original article. So much for "userfy." Changing vote to keep. - Lucky 6.9 23:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable female pilot. JamesBurns 03:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable enough pilot. Capitalistroadster 09:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, what JamesBurns and Capitalistroadster said. MLSfreak777
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dnforum.com[edit]

A forum about domain names. It claims to be the main forum about domain names, but it's still just a forum. -- Francs2000 19:05, 27 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 keep (even after discarding IP addresses etc). – Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (game)[edit]

This was nominated in 2004 and kept (not without controversy). My Google skills are not the best in the world, but I've just spent ten minutes trying to find any references to this game outside WP and minor blogs, without success. It looks to me as if it's either a very minor cult, or a nihilartikel (it is heavily self-referential). I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise, but if this is a meme, it seems to me to be a minor one, and largely founded on this article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - deeply irritating and non-notable pseudo-meme Bwithh 20:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - have you had a look at the articles discussion page which gives numerious references including links to some sites which existed a couple of years before the article was created. as for something to google; [10] --MilkMiruku 00:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think I've heard of this. Andre (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've definately heard of this... long before I saw the google page. And I'm not big on the whole internet-meme scene, either. It's very popular where I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.12.4 (talk • contribs) First edit
  • Comment: A game that is not a game played by people who can only play it when they are not playing it? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I really like this game195.188.173.96 11:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found out about the game ages before I heard about this page, its only after a couple of years of anguish (from a large number of my friends), that someone actually bothered to Google The Game and found this page and told us about it on our website. Hence the page may have created the cult (I don't know how old it is), though The Game is now self-perputuating and the will continue to exist regardless. Though perhaps it should be taken down purely to save others from it's unforgiving grasp. 195.173.15.12 13:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Everyone keeps talking about how they can't stop playing this annoying game. Me, this Wikipedia article was the first place I heard about it. Is it an Anglosaxon-only thing? — JIP | Talk 13:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 684 students play it at Cambridge University alone, and that's according to facebook society figures when only about half the university are members of facebook. I certainly heard of it a long time before I saw this article 131.111.8.96 13:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I heard about this game in real life. The argument that it only exists on Wikipedia is bogus. Birkett 14:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said it only existed on Wikipedia. I said I had never heard of it before. Who am I, the supreme authority of deciding what exists and what doesn't? There's an unbelieveable number of places in Finland that you haven't heard about, for example. Does this automatically mean they don't exist? — JIP | Talk 19:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems to be quite a lot of people who plays this game in our university in France and almost nobody knows this Wikipedia entry. --82.235.37.168 16:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Even though we are all losing the game in talking about it. If it must be deleted can it go to uncyclopedia or is it too sensible for them. I feel it belongs somewhere in the wiki family.Signed in 18:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC) User's third edit[reply]
  • Keep even though I'm irritated about having lost. Again. At least a dozen people I know offhand in the midwest United States know of this game independent of my knowledge of it; this is of course ancedotal, but the game is viral in nature. --Stephen Deken 18:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I lost it a few minutes ago, so being here didn't make me lose it. The Game exists everywhere, including Oregon. No way this isn't notable. Ingoolemo talk 18:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep. It seems that this is in a lot of AIM profiles, facebook, and otherwise. To the author of the deletion notice, did you ever consider that some od the details of "The Games" origins were a joke? I don;t see any valid reason for deletion --Brianopp 18:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC) (User's first edit)[reply]
  • Keep. I love the game, even even though it is a source of eternal torment. Anyway ths site is supposed to be a comprehensive online encyclopedia and if you delete a widely known phenomenon as this is then the site will not be comprehensive. Oh and it is heard of outside of WP, for example; http://www.losethegame.com 152.78.254.128 19:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.248.8 (talk • contribs)
  • Is this up for deletion again? Yawn. Keep, as long as berks can stop sabotaging it with crappy rules about half-hour grace periods and competitive strategies. It's a laugh; enjoy it. Kinitawowi 22:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm stating that it has been through AfD before, it was deemed notable enough to keep then, and but for the actions of a few idiots it remains so. I base my judgements in AfD on deciding whether a topic is worth keeping, not necessarily the content. The Game is real. I'm not an avid player, but I'm smart enough to know that memes (which The Game is, essentially) propogate very rapidly through blogs. Of course it's going to turn up in lots of non-notable blogs; that doesn't make it non-notable of itself. Kinitawowi 23:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

This game is utterly brilliant, keeping us college and uni students occupied, frustrated and in despair for many an hour. Admittedly, the whole rule and grace period issue is a bit weak, bu tthe game is absolutely brilliant and deserves recognition. KEEP!!! (lost the game) 141.163.84.17 02:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep

I view it as being as pertinant as any other game I've played, and I've been playing it for a year and a half. Bkkbrad 03:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it's notable and widespread. And much like Color or Country, this article can be informative in an unusual way: if you knew of the game, you now know that it's not just something stupid your friends came up with. It's something stupid that startling numbers of people know about. rspeer 06:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It appears inherent that you wouldn't find any mention of it in Google, if the whole point of it is forgetting about it. Judetlk 07:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I personally find the entire idea of a game whose entire idea is to forget about it utterly stupid. I won't waste my time trying to "play" this "game". Nevertheless, I acknowledge it's a real meme, and am not further advocating the deletion of this article. — JIP | Talk 11:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Game will continue and spread regardless of whether this page exists. I played it for years before I found any reference to it on the internet and as far as I'm concerned it definitely deserves some recognition. 222.153.81.183 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC) (First edit)[reply]
  • Keep per Stephen Deken. Stifle 15:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a very cool game and has been around for a while. taladraco 14:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC) This is this user's first edit.[reply]
  • Delete Burn this with fire. Sock infected, unverfable --Jaranda(watz sup) 03:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh dear. Please enlighten me: who are the socks? What evidence do you have? "Sock puppet" does not mean "new user", and to equate them is hostile toward newbies. rspeer 16:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've heard of it before. The Wikipedia article is useful for explaining to people who haven't heard of it before. --JD 04:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Heard of it before reading this article. Hagbard Celine 12:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is an amazing game that is very famous. I know at least 60 people that play the game. This wikipedia article is amazing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.182.47 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. The excessive meatpuppetry astounds me. Peyna 01:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Miller[edit]

Vanity article with LOTS OF CAPS and some enormous pictures, claim to notability is being a member of a band called the Breeze - strangely enough this article was mostly the work of User:Leonardbreeze. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as vanity, non-noteworthy, and garish. Ifnord 19:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7 JoJan 19:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as all of the above (My eyes! My eyes!). Mark K. Bilbo 23:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vanity. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not speediable because there is a claim to notability, too bad it's rubbish. Stifle 15:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, hilarious. --Clyde 22:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad someone agrees with me :-) I would have {{db-bio}}'d it if there had been no claim to fame. Perhaps he will one day achieve notability for the crapness of his vanity page? I'd have said Userfy, but those pictures... - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:30, 30 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. Owen× ☎ 04:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seven point exit strategy for Iraq[edit]

Article is what the title says. Unsourced. Deletable on one or more of the following grounds: Source material, not an article; Copyvio; original research. -- RHaworth 19:18, 27 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 speedy delete because not substantially different from the article discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAMPAIGN for MEMORIAL IN BELFAST TO JAMES MAGENNIS VC. -- RHaworth 19:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THE CAMPAIGN FOR A MEMORIAL TO JAMES MAGENNIS VC[edit]

Because wikipedia is NOT a memorial... or a soapbox. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:20, 27 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 REDIRECT to Paschen series. Owen× ☎ 04:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pasen series[edit]

This page appears to be a hoax, there is no such thing. linas 19:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nonsensical, doesn't exist. There are no english-language google results [11] for "pasen series". (Those are real words in Spanish, which get many hits, but have nothing to do with the article.) -- SCZenz 19:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Paschen series which is presumably what's meant. Dlyons493 Talk 21:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you read the article, and also Katz series by the same author, you'll see that it's not. It's plain silliness. That being said, a redirect (or maybe a delete, then redirect?) would work just as well. -- SCZenz 22:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Karol 08:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Loots like Michael Katz made up a couple of terms and wanted to write about them. Zordrac 14:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katz series[edit]

Hoax, there is no such thing. Probably worthy of a speedy delete, at that. linas 19:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Definitely no such thing. A goggle search for "Katz series" +Hydrogen gets 2 hits, neither of which are relevant [12]. -- SCZenz 19:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Twenty-two Skidoo. Speedy delete before it gets mirrored too much. --hydnjo talk 20:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. PJM 21:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Karol 08:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in spite of Katz series getting 480 google hits, I checked them all and none were relevant. Ergo hoax. Zordrac 14:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (attack page). --Nlu 20:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You Can't Polish A Turd[edit]

possibly an attack page

  • Neutral - This looks like an attack page and could therefore be speedied. But I rather have the viewpoint of American viewers, who may know more about this program. JoJan 19:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, it looks like a phrase used for anything bad that can't be improved; the author here took license to apply it to a TV show. --Merovingian 19:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this is not Speedy delete because? --hydnjo talk 20:16, 27 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.  Grue  09:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Walking Game[edit]

Non-notable game. I canm't find anything on google relating to this game outside the website already linked to, or to any of the "notable" individuals or incidents mentioned. -- Francs2000 20:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~)

  • Delete per nom. Google search for "the.walking.game casualty" gives no results. Probably hoax by anon editor 66.108.29.119. -- Perfecto Canada 20:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP- Deleting this article would be robbing the youth of America a chance to learn more about a sport they are increasingly interested in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.84.246 (talk • contribs) 21:10, November 27, 2005 (YTC) NOTE: "Keep" added to comment by Dburnsey43 (talk · contribs), who has 'voted' several times already.
  • Keep On the contrary, i have played this game many times and have seen it in action on the streets of both manhattan and San francisco. Some of the participants achieve a balletic elegance akin to the better NFL running backs. This game has merit. not everything worthwhile can be googled! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzrobertz (talk • contribs) 20:10, November 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is Dzrobertz's first edit. -- Perfecto Canada 00:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC) NOTE: "Keep" added to comment by Dburnsey43 (talk · contribs), who has 'voted' several times already.[reply]
  • Keep -It is a flawed argument by perfecto. Why must a "street" game be on google. People play this game. I was glad to see this page created. I cannot verify the records but I have heard Andrew Roberts' name when referring to this game.The Helsinski incident did happen. Please keep this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anr325 (talk • contribs) 20:17, November 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have seen this game played as well in oklahoma city, oklahoma. I find this page extremely interesting and you can check the external links at the bottom of the page. After reading this article i have started playing the game — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anr325 (talk • contribs) 20:28, November 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep I don't understand why you would delete this page. The walking game is one of the most popular pasttimes amongst teens in urban North America... it is important to show information about it. It is very popular in Toronto, Ontario as well as the locations already listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.84.246 (talk • contribs) 21:08, November 27, 2005 (YTC)
  • Delete as extremely non-notable. Turnstep 22:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Turnstep. Joyous | Talk 22:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless Bwithh 22:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:Verifiability unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of this article. --Allen3 talk 22:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this page; it is pointless to you because you have not played it. So why dont i say delete the soccer page if i dont play it. You are not the only person in the world. This article is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.241.128 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-27 23:12:29 UTC
  • Delete per Allen3 (you know, page looks like somebody trying to get a joke page in). Mark K. Bilbo 23:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anonymous and limited-contribution user(s): You've been shown by Allen3 the only thing that you can do here that will achieve anything, namely you must cite published works from multiple, independent, reliable sources discussing this game. I suggest that you learn from the experience of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NUGGET. The editors there made no effort whatsoever to actually cite any sources when asked for them, despite being shown by example what to do, but instead continued to argue in the very same way the you have been here. As a result, their article ended up being deleted. If, like them, you simply continue as you have been, the same will happen to this article. Furthermore, nominating an article with no references at all for featured article status will undermine other editors' assumptions of your good faith, and might even lead them to conclude that this article is simply silly vandalism. Uncle G 23:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to our verifiability guidelines. These socks are made for walking, it seems. The anonymous keep voters would also do well to follow the sage advice of Uncle G and Allen3 above. We need reliable third party sources such as newspaper reports, magazine articles etc in order to verify articles. Capitalistroadster 00:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have evidence from a newspaper that is not online. I work for The Riverdale Review and they have an article in the making about the walking game and how it is taking over the community of Riverdale, NY. This newspaper does not put its articles online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.241.128 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 28 November 2005 UTC
    • Comment Then you're saying this is not verifiable? That means per WP:V it doesn't belong here. Mark K. Bilbo 03:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am one of the Walking Game fans who helped write this article. I can 100% assure you that this is not a 'joke page' and it is not 'vandalism'. I strongly urge you to not delete this page as it is a legitimate game and many people wish to learn more about it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dburnsey43 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 28 November 2005 UTC
  • keep I have seen people play this game and although it is not common in my country, greece, I would like this article to stay online to share it's fun to the world. I can assure you this is no "joke page" assomeone said. i do not understand your distrust. if you are confident it is made up leave it alone because it is not and i think you are the ones playing the "joke"Mcr345 04:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • '"comment"' I work for the daily mirror in london and i work there as an intern at the sports section and have seen at least 5 newspaper articles about the game and andrew roberts. I even have a friend who has met andrew roberts. If the creator(s) would give me thier email address then i could send you an article on this popular game.Bettybesser 04:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I do not understand how come you guys twice disrupted me when it was Francs2000 who nominated the article for deletion. If you would like information on the game "to stay online to share it's fun to the world," then I recommend you register for free web hosting and create a website somewhere. In my opinion, it's much easier than going through the trouble you and your friends went through today. No one will argue with you. Do you think that this website provides free webhosting? No, it doesn't. Content here, of course, has to follow the rules here. Consider this, if you had a website and then one day a group of people deface pages and add pages and insert inappropriate information on it, how would you feel, what would you do? Thank you for listening. -- Perfecto Canada 05:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP That's not featured article but does not look like vandalism either. Please keep it. Much more interesting and fun than shoe polish. Vb 09:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Outstandingly non-notable, unverifiable, etc. Nuke it like NUGGET. - Randwicked 09:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete before it becomes an "established meme" due to its existence here. Cynical? Me? Perish the thought. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it needs some clean-up but it is very good. As long as they have one more source they should be allowed to keep it. Give them time to find locate a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.241.128 (talk • contribs) 12:34, November 28, 2005 (UTC)*
  • KEEP- Who cares if there is "verifiable factual evidence". It is an underground game and there are no books or pages written on it, that dosen't make it a false article... it is legitimate. This article is very important to many people and I strongly suggest you keep it. It is a real and useful article and deleting it does not accomplish anything other then showing how society is further trying to oppress the freedom and expression of our youth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.84.246 (talk • contribs) 14:39, November 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep- What harm is this page causing to you who do not wish to learn about the walking game? Compare that with the benefit it is giving thousands of youth that do wish to learn about this popular game. So why would you erase a page that does not harm you but strongly benefits others? Is wikipedias purpose not to benefit and teach? Well I feel that this page contributes to that goal of Wikipedia and therefore it should be valued and kept. Don Burns 14:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep- on one condition: Donald Burns or anyone else for that matter can create a third-party source. Andrew Roberts can make one for all I care. I jst need one more source. It can be an essay, article, blog, tv show......I need a little more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.62.116.254 (talk • contribs) 18:59, November 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Article in the making: rumor around the Riverdale Review is that there is soon to be a featured article on the Walking Game due to extreme excitement around the community. Therefore, definitely KEEP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.62.116.254 (talk • contribs) 19:09, November 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP THIS PAGE!!!!!!! I WON THE WALKING GAME INNER CITY CHAMPIONSHIP OF PHILADELPHIA IN 2002 AND MY LIFE HAS NEVER BEEN THE SAME! THANK YOU WALKING GAME CREATORS! ERIK RAHM IS MY IDOL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.62.116.254 (talk • contribs) 20:45, November 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 295 hits for "the walking game" on Google, no references supporting notability. -Silence 20:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you ignore the odd little campaign to keep the page, concensus is delete. WP:DP allows for Early AfD Closings and I'd like to suggest that this would be a good case for one. The supporters of the page seem willing to take up time and page space but don't seem able to deliver a single valid reason for keeping the page. Mark K. Bilbo 21:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable in an encyclopedia. It might also be noted that some of the supporters are anonymous IP users, who are shouting at us all! — Wackymacs 21:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me. I have plenty of reasons to keep this page: this is a real game that is played on the streets. It does exist. This is what urban youth does. Why not show other people that youth does this game. The public has the right. What is your reason for deleting it? It is not on google. Pshh... Not everyhting important must be on google...Keep this page; with one more source acoming your argument's days are numbered. User:anr325
  • Why not argue against writing an article about a gang such as the crips or the bloods. This game is almost as prominent witht eh urban youth today. Keep.
  • I sincerely apologize. I was wrong… I was wrong for having faith in the goodness of humanity. I was wrong to think that the organization of Wikipedia would let a few kids who were given nothing trying to make something of themselves succeed. About 10 kids from across the world tried to bring some structure to a relevant and ever-present game and were shunned ruthelessly by you all. Forgive me for thinking that an innocent and genuine article would be allowed to exist in a system that claims to value “free speech” and “equality”. If it satisfies your hunger for power then take our article away from your site, but just know that you have needlessly crushed our innocent dream. This article that failed to meet your superficial standards despite its service and benefit to thousands of kids apparently has no place in our society. Do what you will, just realize the consequences and poor morals of your actions.

Good Day -dburnsey43

Okay, I laughed... - Randwicked 02:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cry me a river, and take it to Everything2. JamesMLane 16:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't need to be on Google. All we require is that it is verifiable. As stated several times above. That could be discussion on a television talk show, an article in a magazine or newspaper, a book or an independant website. Above, someone claimed it was in several off-line newspaper. Providing scans of those articles would be one way of getting this verified. - Mgm|(talk) 11:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A candidate for Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Lisiate 03:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this game were as significant as the mostly anonymous commenters say it is, it would be easy to verify. Wikipedia is not intended for people, events, or activities to first come to the attention of the public. --Metropolitan90 05:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep...this game is significant but not to the general public. If you were a teenager you would know this game. Ask any teenager who is socially aware of his surroundings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.241.128 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP- this article and its events are provable given the means. Deleting would be silly. This game will probably be public very soon as pedestrians might get upset. If it's deleted wikipedia will look silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.241.128 (talk • contribs)
  • An article about this will be on Wikipedia by mid-December.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.241.128 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 30 November 2005
    • Delete. I don't think so. Come back when you've grown up.Daniel Case 04:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps the comment means that, after this article is deleted, the author(s) will re-post it, hoping that sheer perseverance will eventually overcome the community consensus for deletion. (Note to author(s): It won't. It'll only get you blocked.) JamesMLane 16:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Perfecto. Stifle 15:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but OK for BJAODN. JamesMLane 16:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has someone (ideally an admin, someone who does the maintenance at AFD) considered removing all these nonsense IP-posted comments that are saying "KEEP..." etc etc? They are really cluttering up the page, and the AFD page states that IP votes are not seriously considered when it is decided wether the article is kept or deleted. — Wackymacs 18:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? It's easy to tell which comments are nonsense IP-posted ones without deleting all the great dramatics. -Silence 18:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP...clearly not vandalism. Keep per dburnsey. Anr325 19:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC) User:Anr325's three edits not connected to The Walking Game have been quickly reverted.[reply]
  • Keep- what harm is it doing, it is relevant and legitimate and it can be sited within a few weeks. It is not "non-sensical" and it is not "vandalism" -Don Burns 00:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Don Burns, did you forget you had already voted earlier in this discussion? -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to be a well written article and does not appear to me to be a joke article.Dr. B 02:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • After looking at it again, I will state that, for now, it be left in place. However, I think that the part involving the 'Helsinki incident' be removed. If not the whole section, then at least the photo, as unless Erik Rahm is 13-15 years old, and helped develop the game (or was a pioneer for the game) as a child (not to mention that the photo is in black and white), that can NOT be Erik Rahm. Also, I think that a certian date should be set for when things such as Don Burns' Essay on "the social relevance of The Walking Game" should be published by before they are declared void or something.Dr. B 15:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another hoax. --Pamri • Talk 07:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Disclaimer admits non-notability. If "Helsinki Incident" were verified, this might be enough for me to consider it notable despite limited popularity, but a lawsuit over a game like this would certainly have been picked up by google. And it wasn't. Ferret-aaron 07:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn'tseem like a notable game, if it even exists in the first place. — JIP | Talk 13:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - legitimate, valid, verified, interesting. All that an encyclopaedia is there for. Zordrac 13:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it verified? The only external link seems to be talking about a walking game other than the one described in the article, and none of the articles referenced in this discussion are online for the rest of us to look up for ourselves. --Metropolitan90 14:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To add to what Metropolitan90 said, I get a grand total of 120 Google hits for "The walking game", and not one of the first twenty has anything to do with this. I'm getting tired of you voting to "keep" because something is "well known" or "verified" when no one else can find any evidence for it. In my opinion, your votes are not in good faith, and I am asking you to either stop this nonsense, or start presenting valid reasons. -- Dalbury(Talk) 19:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It WILL be verified shortly once the publication is complete. Please just take the "this article is pending deletion" notice off the article and give the article some time and more sources will soon be ready. Don Burns 16:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We won't do that. Once an article is AfD'd, the notice stays there for the full six days. — JIP | Talk 17:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason people buy encyclopedia's and subscribe to internet databases is to get information that they wouldn't be able to get simply searching in yahoo or google. Plus getting information from an encyclopedia is more accurate then reading someones weblog that comes up in a search engine. If someone hears something about, "The Walking Game", and wants more information, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to look it up in Wikipedia.Ognit Ice 21:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment They also expect that the information was verified. There's been no verification this game exists. Just promises that someday, somewhere, somebody is going to write something. Mark K. Bilbo 22:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have seen this game being played in Scarborough, a locale within Toronto. It is clearly not very well-known, but I expect it to gain popularity. There are plenty of other games, activities, etc. that are played widely, but have never been mentioned in essay, article, TV broadcast, etc. And mostly, it has a very neat fringe appeal. So while the case for the game's veracity is hard to make, the opposing argument is equally difficult to posit. I say let it ride out. Stephen Job 17:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I live in Dallas and many of my freinds and my older brother's freinds play this game. I wasn't even sure what it was called but sure enough it is called the Walking Game. This game is real and this page is great for learning about it. I'm sure if you let this page stay the writers could get more facts and more sources, please don't delete it! 216.185.84.246 19:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for pretty much all reasons above. Rampart 20:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or tag with cleanup-verify. - Stoph 21:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was pleasantly surprised to hear about this game being on Wikipedia when a friend stumbled across it. An article on the game was published in our school newspaper last month, which is when I originally learned about it. This game does seem to be gaining popularity and the article seems to me to be legitimate. The "Helsinki incident", mentioned in the article, was also mentioned in my school newspaper's report. I'll see if I can get a scan of it to help verify the article. Essentially this is one of those games that flies completely under the radar. I expect that pretty soon we could see some reports on the game on more mainstream media. Watch for it on your local news sometime soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.81.98 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superthread[edit]

A neologism. A couple of occurrences on google, but nothing of substance. The principal meaning of the term appears to be of a high tensile strength fibre. BillC 20:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. --BillC 20:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete forumcruft. This appears to be a conceit among the users of the Led Zep forum - whereas in places like uk.rec.sheds it is done quite unconsiciously and without the neologism. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep This is the only place I could find information on "superthread" for my internet technology class at Georgia Tech. My teacher mentioned it in a lecture today about international forums. -- TechStudent 24:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC) This comment and vote entered by User:72.147.100.54[reply]
  • Delete neologism MONGO 06:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dminor 06:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)This is the only thing on the internet I could find on "superthread". It is new internet slang that is widely talked about especially on international social network internet services. This is an imperative entry for Wikipedia.Dminor 06:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - per google hits with explanation here [13]. Its a real term in common usage. Note to admins: I am not the guy who wrote the other comments! LOL. Suggest possible manipulation of vote by falsely claiming sock puppetry. Zordrac 13:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Jaranda(watz sup) 03:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for closing admin[edit]

I suggest that the evidence supports these being the same user. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's a real term, referenced many times and searchable on the internet. But explanation of what it is is hard to find. Zordrac 13:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of the some 660 hits on Google, only a small fraction match the meaning given in this article. -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the contributions for the above users, they are only the article and this AfD. It looks like meat/sockpuppetery to me. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All but the first sentence of the article is about a specific thread in a specific forum. Is this the topic of the article, or is it about very long threads in internet forums in general? Moreover, the first sentence defines 'thread' (not 'superthread') as exists already at thread. The reference quoted by Zordrac defines the term as a global 'index' thread, which neither describes the thread in the Led Zep forum, nor the concept of very long threads. The Led Zep forum named in the article has a post asking for people to come to Wikipedia, and tells them how to register, edit and vote. --BillC 18:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 04:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anal_bleaching[edit]

Does not deserve a place in WP Goatrider 20:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: If at least one notable person has admitted to doing this, it's not a hoax. If verifiable content proves scarce, a merge to anus would be reasonable. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, it's verifiable and there is a decent ammount of media coverage of this. Even if it could be proven to be a hoax, given the ammount of coverage it would probably fall under the category of a notable hoax. This could possibly be merged to a body modification or similar article eventually, especially if it proves just to be some silly would-be fad that fades fast. --W.marsh 21:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's bizarre, or worse, but apparently verifiable and doesn't meet any of the criteria in WP:DP. Wikipedia is not somebody's idea of what's appropriate in polite company. --RoySmith 21:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Legitimate (if bizarre) cosmetic practice. --Kurt Shaped Box 23:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if it may be gross it's real and notable. Seano1 00:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Incredibly... there is a large sub culture for this. HackJandy 06:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep much as I hate to. Mind you, the "notable" proponent falls well short of what I would consider notable. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have to Keep this simply because there is no reason why it should not be here. Stifle 15:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability? Has anyone cited a place actually offering this to the general public, or any evidence other than watching a TV show (i.e. original research)? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - they had this on TV on A Current Affair a few weeks ago. Very topical and newsworthy. Zordrac 13:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't see why this should be deleted if it can be confirmed that it is a real procedure. The person who put this up for deletion should cite specific Wikipedia deletion criteria and elaborate on their reasons. m0nde 21:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

fart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.118.6.51 (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 21:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Rix[edit]

Not notable by himself. Merge with Kaiser Chiefs? Nv8200p talk 21:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain I personally don't think he is noteable enough for his own page, but each of the other band members has an entry too. For consistency -- either delete all or delete none. HackJandy 06:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all members to the main entry, just as we merge not-independently-notable songs into the album entries. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Having come to Wikipedia specifically to find out about the band Kaiser Chiefs I would have been ill served by this item's deletion. So if this item is deleted please make sure the information is available elsewhere, and is obviously navigable from the main Kaiser Chiefs page. Whether this means integrating individual band members into the main page is open to question; I believe that is short-sighted and would lead to people adding trivia about individual members to a page about the band (in which case the page is no longer about a band, rather individuals). Which does not make sense and is moderately annoying. For example I would not like to look at a Guns and Roses page, and find information about Axel Rose's contemporary life or his history outside of his major influences. Which is the kind of behaviour that would be encouraged by integration of trivia into a band page. If the information is not directly related to the band (for instance the colour of the players underwear, or high-school mathematics teacher, or in-growing toe-nails) it should not be on a band page, rather a page about the individual whom is a member of said band. I should add that notable is so relative in its English usage that I can barely bring myself to talk or interact with the kind of people that use it so frequently on Wikipedia. I would end up taking stomach medication.
  • Abstain - yes, the page is sparse, but his band the Kaiser Chiefs are big enough (as in Proper Top Ten Mega Hit Stars in the UK) and the others have pages as well. Plus, it isn't worth deleting all the members, they just need thier pages developing. Perks 21:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I think it's worth holding onto. Stifle 15:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Kaiser Chiefs are a very notable band, and their individual members will likely have other projects as well, so warrant their own pages. Zordrac 13:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond shadows[edit]

Very lengthy account of the trials and tribulations of a band that as of yet has just one release (label unclear or nonexistant) and doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Not listed on AMG, etc. --W.marsh 21:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most Yahoo! hits say nothing about the band, so I would delete this article. Encyclopedist (talk) 21:09, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Bondar Transient Marina[edit]

Reads like an ad Nv8200p talk 21:15, 27 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 speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bev Burger[edit]

Unverifiable, based on 0 related results on Google or Newsgroups. No useful context to help verify its existance, could be a joke (or even an odd insult page if we assume Bev Burger is a real person). --W.marsh 21:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no meaningful content. PJM 22:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and speedy as vandalism - anon creator's major effort thus far is this plus adding links to it elsewhere, since reverted. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. Stifle 15:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:43, 30 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. Owen× ☎ 04:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Places to go to in Dordrecht[edit]

Unencyclopedic entry - delete CLW 21:25, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 04:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World Record Pi[edit]

Self-promotion by Tom Morton using anonymous IP 195.93.21.*, who has also edited Blackpool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and West Looe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other articles to add himself. This article, as written, is badly titled and is not about pi world records. -- Curps 21:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not self promotion when I will be making history... -- unsigned comment by User:195.93.21.104

You got an online BBC article [15] and about your failed 1998 attempt to beat the world record (you memorized 15,000 places and the world record at the time was about 42,000 and is probably considerably higher today), and also a one-sentence mention in the Guardian [16]. You also got a 26-minute documentary about you [17] that isn't even listed in IMDB and was apparently only released as a bonus attached to another DVD. Fair enough, I'm not nominating Tom Morton or Tom, une mémoire prodigieuse for deletion even though I think your main talent is self-promotion. But could you kindly stop spamming links to your article and the film article in other pages. The Word Record Pi page, if needed, should be titled Pi memorization or something like that, and should be a general article, not yet another article about you. -- Curps 21:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have now created Whitesides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) also, which you created as yet another article about yourself. I have edited it. -- Curps 22:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 22:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vanity. He's created lots of other (dubious) articles to talk about himself, this one has nothing to do with the subject title. Ifnord 22:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as admitted vanity. Mark K. Bilbo 23:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity and non-notable (not even the first-placed person would qualify IMO) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Mark K. Bilbo. Stifle 15:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite article and keep - Should be a list documenting the world record, and possibly including attempts. I see no reason not to include Tom's attempt, but it shouldn't be the sole reason for this page. Zordrac 13:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per original author's request ("a hoax"). Owen× ☎ 23:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naz Baker[edit]

This person's notability is questionable. Does every popular high school teacher deserve an entry? --202.156.6.54 21:43, 27 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 USERFY to User:Spiderio. Owen× ☎ 04:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderio[edit]

vanity page. Jorge1000xl 21:46, 27 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 wasDelete, per Linuxbeak. --RoySmith 18:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tweeter (Nintendo)[edit]

Not notable nor verifiable, likely a hoax. Tweeter (Nintendo) 21:58, 27 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. Enochlau 09:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tiox[edit]

Delete or transwiki as this is a dictionary definition Lifthrasir 22:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary.Mudaguin 22:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - TiOx is an abbreviation for Titanium Oxide, so if this is a dicdef it will probably conflict with an existing and far more widespread one on Wiktionary. Actually I ran out of patience after six or seven Google searches and a few dozens of clicks trying to verify that this usage exists at all. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All I could think of was "Tiax rules all!" from Baldur's Gate. But of course this is Tiox, not Tiax, and its about something I've never heard of. So delete. Zordrac 13:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedied by myself as one of Wonderfool's test articles. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Javanais[edit]

I apparently made this a long time ago. And I don't think it's a real thing. The french for Javanese is javanais, but as for a slang time, I don't think its ver mainstream. --User:Wonderfool/sig 22:20, 27 November 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 Speedied by myself as one of Wonderfool's test articles. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spyguard[edit]

This is vaguely related to my uncle's work. He was telling me about this material, and how great it was. What I wrote was true and proper, but it may not be worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. --User:Wonderfool/sig 22:22, 27 November 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. Owen× ☎ 04:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Fretzak[edit]

A geek holiday in the tradition of Pi day, it seems, and according to Google attested only once, here. Pilatus 17:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No participation apart from nominator. Relisting. -Splashtalk 22:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "recently developed humorous holiday" (read: bored geeks with too much time on their hands). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sounds like things we did when I was in high school. Too bad we didn't have the Internet then. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, or speedy delete as patent nonsense if we can get away with it. Stifle 15:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though I had never heard of Pi Day before you mentioned it here. Was a good read thanks! Learn something new every day. Unfortunately, not from the St Fretzak article. Zordrac 13:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Hosker[edit]

An 18-year-old musical theater actor. Not (yet) notable enough for inclusion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No participation apart from nominator. Relisting. -Splashtalk 22:20, 27 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 10:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Fiji Book Flood[edit]

This article reads like it is a report on a previously done study. While the subject does exist, gets about 10 hits on google, as the article is presented- it is written like original research. Fallsend 18:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per Nomination. Fallsend 18:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No participation apart from nominator. Relisting. -Splashtalk 22:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with cleanup and a move to a better title. Yes, as written it is OR, but it documents an interesting situation. Countering systemic bias (for me anyway) tips the balance just about in its favour. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. It is OR. Surely there must be something that can be cited as a reference, even if it isn't on the Internet. -- Dalbury(Talk) 13:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no original research. Stifle 15:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly not original research per google hits. Needs some cleanup though. Very interesting topic. Zordrac 13:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 into Pyronano. I am not familiar with the subject matter, so I am requesting that somebody else (perhaps User:Stephen Day) do the actual merging of material, let me know when that's done, then I'll come along and finish cleaning up. --RoySmith 18:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thermogentech[edit]

About as non-notable as comics articles get. Minor background detail in a recent Marvel Comics miniseries. - SoM 18:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No participation apart from nominator. Relisting. -Splashtalk 22:20, 27 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 KEEP. Owen× ☎ 04:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pyronano[edit]

Non-notable background detail in a recent Marvel Comics miniseries, and as such doesn't deserve its' own article - SoM 18:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No participation apart from nominator. Relisting. -Splashtalk 22:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, very on the fence. PJM 22:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely undecided. Article as written is poor, concept is only borderline notable and if anyone can suggest a place to merge to that would be my vote. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep First I should note that I wrote the article in question. The Pyronanos are a unique artificial race in the Marvel Universe as published by Marvel Comics. They also have a connection to the Human Torch who is a historic character. Are they exceptionally notable? No they aren't, but they are notable enough to have their own article. Thermogentech probably should be merged into Pyronanos though. (Stephen Day 04:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak keep per PJM. Stifle 15:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep established character type. Zordrac 13:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 to make way for moving Robert Pack (athlete). --Carnildo 07:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Pack[edit]

Disambiguation page with a population of 1. Should be deleted and Robert Pack (athlete) moved to Robert Pack. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No participation apart from nominator. Relisting. -Splashtalk 22:20, 27 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 Speedied by myself as one of Wonderfool's test articles. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Puppies[edit]

I made this page when this band was quite small, and not warranting an article. For which I apologize to Wikipedia. However, since then, they've got bigger (maybe due in part to the fact that they've had an article on Wikipedia) (or their tour with Art Brut) --User:Wonderfool/sig 22:27, 27 November 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 Something was messed up with this entry, but it deserved to be Speedied as patent nonsense, so I did. --RoySmith 23:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PIIDB[edit]

This is an acronym important only to members of that forum. Delete. Lifthrasir 22:38, 27 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devon Hill

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore gamers[edit]

Badly written, unhelpful and generally un-Wikipedic. ThomasWinwood 22:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Everything stated above, plus Original Research. Leads one to wonder, however, how one would define Hardcore wikipedian --RoySmith 23:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The contents of this article aren't particularly salvageable, and whatever real definitions there are, could be easily covered on any other gamer culture-related articles. (Plus, the definition in this article is so very subjective. "Has beaten Nethack" would be an objective definition of a hardcore gamer, though. You can easily fit that in any related article.=) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable neologism, original research, POV, unencyclopaedic - a reasonable example of what WP:ISNOT, I'd say. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form or redirect (to Video game player perhaps?). There is a definite distinction between a 'casual' and a 'hardcore' gamer, that should be noted in some form - it is not a 'non-notable neologism'. Orange Goblin 11:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way is the dicdef of hardcore gamer distinct from the dicdef of hardcore bodybuilding, punk, drunk-driver or whatever? And does that stop it being a dicdef? (wiktionary is thataway ---->) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well established notable term used for gaming industry. Hardcore is far more prevalent in the gaming industry than anywhere else. Mentioned in PvP regularly, and in most gaming magazines as well. Zordrac 13:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, une mémoire prodigieuse[edit]

Non-notable. Not in IMDB, apparently never released on its own. Smells like vanity. Ifnord 23:00, 27 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 (3 delete, 1 rewrite/keep - 75% delete). --Celestianpower hablamé 23:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Update[edit]

Not notable, non-unique phrase used on a barely notable website Dbchip 23:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Friday Delete --RoySmith 23:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the website's page, if it has one, or delete otherwise. Stifle 15:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite the entire article and Keep - Friday update is used in a large number of different websites etc. Should be disambiguated as well. Its not just for 1 website, and implying that it is is rather insulting to the other web sites that use the same name. Zordrac 13:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hutley[edit]

Non-notable. Maybe self-promotion Nv8200p talk 23:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Very few google hits, mostly seem to be self-referential. --RoySmith 23:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete', vanity. HackJandy 04:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete or delete at least. Stifle 15:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - so what if he runs his own podcast? Like that's hard. Zordrac 13:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Even my pitifully rudimentary knowledge of Portuguese is enough figure out it's nothing more than a link to a sports team web site. --RoySmith 23:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fabril Barreiro[edit]

It is an advertisement (I think). It's also in a foreign language. Lifthrasir 23:29, 27 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 Speedy delete as copyvio - Lucky 6.9 23:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

K and K Motorsports[edit]

Spam. No claims to notability, simply an ad. Ifnord 23:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, the things I find when I coast through here anonymously. Speedy as a copyvio from the company's website. - Lucky 6.9 23:54, 27 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. Enochlau 09:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cdrinfo[edit]

Vanity/not noteable

  • Appears to just scrape through on the current proposal for WP:WEB. Alexa responds with 7,342, the forum has 167,589 members (although I can't vouch for how many active or individual accounts). Article could do with a hell of a rewrite, as any 'notability' is not evident in the article. Weak keep. Saberwyn 01:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain. I was looking at cdfreaks for some unknown reason. Ignore my previous argument. Saberwyn 03:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Non-noteable. Not within the wiki:web guideline of top 10,000 on Alexa. ([url]) HackJandy 03:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HackJandy. Stifle 15:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok Delete. but alexa is not the only reference for website because the website of unisef is in position 45,000. On the other hand, this website is the NO1 in DVD industry. We keep in wikipedia a street in Romania and we delete a website which is reputable by millions of people. We have terms in wikipedia which if you search on google you take back 30 links and for cdrinfo you take back 1,200.000 links at google for it.
  • Keep as important resource. Meets Alexa etc. Zordrac 13:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mondialito[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable Japanese band/singing group. AllMusic never heard of them and no tours are claimed. Also the text of the article is a direct copy (copyvio?) from the group’s website here. Recommend

  • delete. •DanMS 23:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Google doesn't turn up anything relevant HackJandy 06:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doubt its copyvio. More likely to be advertising. Zordrac 13:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_November_27&oldid=1081093208"