Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 14 February 16 >

Purge server cache

February 15[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 no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 00:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Gordon Lawrence[edit]

Tagged as db-attack, which it seems to do, but not without reason. Notability? Open to question. A difficult one. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 00:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy A6. Seems to disparage its subject as {{db-attack}} says. This article screams, "This guy is a freaking pervert who leads an awful life." Royal Blue 00:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A6. Same as above. Launch board for personal attacks and so forth. An apparently "sicko" article belongs in the local paper, not an encyclopedia. --Jay(Reply) 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Father Paul Shanley has a whole article on him, if Protestant pastor pedo articles are swept under the rug this will indicate bias on WP Ruby 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it will not. If an article about a "Protestant pastor pedo" who received the same amount of press attention is swept under the rug, then it will indicate the same thing. Like it or not, notability is a criterion taken into account for articles, and like it or not, individual cases of pedophilia, no matter how reprehensible, aren't reaching the levels of infamy achieved by the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal. I Google "Paul Shanley" and get 116,000 hits. I Google "Roy Gordon Lawrence" and get ... ten. The first of which is Wikipedia's own article. Plus... when you say Paul Shanley has "a whole article" on him, you're referring to two paragraphs and one external link. How many paragraphs are we devoting to Roy Gordon Lawrence? How many of them are merited? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, the lengths of the articles seems to be correlated to the number of offenses committed. Ruby 00:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point there, but the difference between Shanley and Lawrence is that Shanley was a little more notable, and was a "prominent figure" in a greater Boston scandal (and we just love scandals), whereas Lawrence, although according to allegations is as equally troubled, is a little less notable. It is the first I'm hearing of him anyways, and I'm close enough to Ottawa. --Jay(Reply) 00:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep delete and strong Cleanup. Needs some NPOVing as noted above, including axing a several-hundred-word paragraph. Appears substantially documented, but I haven't dug into whether effects and reporting were widespread, whether the case had important influence on broader investigations, and so forth. "Category:Protestant pastor pedophiles" is neither a reason to keep nor a reason to delete, and we should try to keep our own POV's out of the question. WP:V? WP:Importance? (During edit conflict, changed leaning-vote per Master Jay.) Barno 00:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I apologize if editing in wrong place) - my official notes were put in the Talk page for that article. JzG is correct in that this is a difficult one. There are some factual things here. Roy Gordon Lawrence was charged, and served prison time. Those articles did appear in the paper. Most of the history (as in things 10+ years ago), though questionable POV, are true... the biggest criteria of db-attack are the comments regarding recent history (that Roy Gordon Lawrence is going to reoffend, won't admit to certain things, unrepentant, that he formed his own church, etc.) These things are 100% POV. The author can make statements to back up his POV, but there are other POVs (contraty to the authors POV) which can be backed up. Bottom line... this has "future battleground" written all over it. I just don't see its value or place on Wikipedia. Even just looking at the history of Roy Gordon Lawrence --Does Wikipedia want to become a criminal records database? This screams of an attack page, under the guise of public informance. This isn't about pedophilia (and indeed such is horrible!), this is about creating a soapbox and trying to taint the image of people associated with Roy Gordon Lawrence today (10+ years after the crimes) .. which in this case includes a local church that Roy Gordon Lawrence attends. Surely Wikipedia is not the place for this? Andyru
  • Keep as notable.Blnguyen 04:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on his 1991 arrest as a police officer, which legitimately received signficant public interest and concern, with national media coverage. That alone made him a public figure and a notable person (not famous, not notorious, but notable). The 2004 Church stuff adds to his notability, and renews his status as a public figure. --Rob 05:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup unsourced assertions. OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup as the article is very POV and some of the grammar and syntax fall below the standards set for WP articles.  (aeropagitica)  06:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 08:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. Siva1979Talk to me 11:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: Perhaps an admin could delete the history of the article, to remove the prior attack text, and what looked like copyvio from newspaper stories. --Rob 12:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this personal attack. I know this guy and how hard it is for him to move on with his life. RandM, 15Feb06
  • Delete per nom... ultimately just not notable enough.--Isotope23 16:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Mccready 16:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this really nasty personal attack. This man is one of thousands who will find it impossible to get on with a rebuilt (normal) life because of vindictive articles like this. AndyB, 15Feb06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.103.172.9 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete this is malicious personal attack. Mr. Lawrence has not only paid his debt but met, and continues to meet, all the court appointed requirements. The change in his life should be an example to others who have been forgiven, who should forgive also, and let him live his new life. Feb 15/06.
    • Comment: If Saddam Hussein claims to have sworn off massacres and poison gas attacks, does that mean that Wikipedia (or at least Christian WP editors) "should forgive" him and therefore should delete articles about his verified past activities? I'm not saying this person's history is equivalent to Saddam's; I'm just saying we should use WP's standards of verifiability and importance, rather than deleting the article because its side effects may include the unhappy consequences of this person's own actions. Barno 19:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Point well made Barno! I would reluctantly admit that there is valid argument where the article could be kept to the "historical" elements of Roy Gordon Lawrence's past in a NPOV format. (Though, I do believe even that would result in a bit of a battleground with the Author.) The main reason this was tagged as db-attack is that this author is well known for the spreading of "dirt" on Roy Gordon Lawrence in many forums (distribution lists, letters, now Wikipedia, etc.). It is done under the guise of public informance (akin to a "sex offender registry" ... "who's in your neighborhood" ... "he current lives here" ... "he goes to church there" scenario).
      • Comment: Per WP:OWN, nobody except the Wikipedia owns an article once it's submitted. If you've correctly characterized the article's author, he'll have to accept the community's NPOVing cuts, or persuade editors that his alternative edits would meet all WP policies. ... However, if by capitalized "Author" you meant YHWH, the Father in the Christian Trinity, then I'm not prepared for "a bit of a battleground with the Author" unless He can post to the WP talk pages. Barno 23:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all. Ardenn 01:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The author is using this article as a soapbox to mount a savage attack on a man that he victimized. Granted, Mr. Lawrence has an unsavory past. However, the author is intent on using any medium as a soapbox to attack Mr. Lawrence with allegations about more recent behavior that are untrue and designed to destroy him. Even if the article is cleaned up, will the History page still show the original article that is clearly libelous? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kosiam (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment: I have moved the disruptive talk at the top of the page. If anybody wishes to partipate here, add your comments to the *bottom* of this page, and sign your comments. Don't rant at the top, please. --Rob 07:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the news coverage ensured inclusion to Wikipedia. Arbustoo 08:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Please do no remove large portions of this article while the discussion takes place. It is not fair and makes no sense to ask people to decide for or against deletion when they cannot read the article. (posted by User:Williamo1)
    • All uncited defamatory claims and bias will be removed during and after the vote. Let's be clear: the version you originally made will not be allowed on Wikipedia *regardless* of this vote. This vote is deciding whether there will be a fair and balanced article on Lawrence, or no article whatsoever (nothing else). The version filled with unverified defamatory information is not under consideration, and will never return (for long) to Wikipedia. --Rob 20:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...non-notable person, POV attack page. KHM03 20:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would ask you, or anybody, who sees any POV attacks in the article to promptly remove it from the article. You're free to vote delete if you wish, but any attacks you see can be removed with or without deletion of the article as a whole. --Rob 21:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as a person of interest he is one of Canada's more notable pedophiles - given he was a cop and then became a pastor (by covering his past) after his conviction, when all current pedophiles with more than one child victim are permanently under certain restrictions which wisely include not allowing them to ever serve in posiitons of authority - knowing his past - why would he train for and seek this carreer for himself? Pure motives? Then why start having children sleeping over in 2004 - and this is verified by numerous articles in the press - never challenged - and the press confirmed by quotes from Elders and Clerk of the new church where he teaches - that he did have kids sleeping over and these Elders told the reporter he was cured! KEEP and that he submitted to a court order and treatment in 2004-2005. Delete so he can get on with his life (doing just what) but what about the children getting on with theirs -and the court transctipts do indicate the judge UPPED his sentence (rare enough in Canada) from 5 to 8 years when it was revealed that he had admitted to molesting at least 15 more and refused to co-operate with the police in solving those cases - what about the children those - 15 (and God alone knows how many more) getting on with their lives...a wikipedia page is a small price to pay - AGAIN - almost all the deletes come from people currently listening to him teahc a three month series on "temptaiton". Go figure..? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Williamo1 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, not notable, not distinct, not interesting, no redeeming value. Ineloquent 23:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, actually this kind of thing is highly notable, and highly distinct. There was substantial national coverage of this (at least for the original crime). You may have no interest in it, but obviously media across the country have, and the public did (as an issue of public trust). Let us not pretend a police officer, who's convicted of these extraordinary offenses, is typical. --Rob 23:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This entry strives to connect Lawrence's pedophile past of 15 years ago to the present. It is clearly a personal attack by one person and Wikipedia has a more noble calling than to allow itself to be used this way. February 19, 2006

  • Keep there is interest on this list for the article. That bumps it from borderline to keep. FloNight 14:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 00:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longest streets in London[edit]

Proposed for deletion by 82.15.28.195 (talk · contribs) with the rationale "no sources, primary research must be repeated to verify, inherently and irretrievably WP:NOR, until such time as some reputable source publishes such a list, which we probably wouldn't be able to include anyway for legal reasons", also a case is made on the talk page. Kappa 00:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this article provides the best answer it can to an encyclopedic question, determining the length of a road from a map is no more original research than determining the length of a river in the same way. Kappa 00:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Bzzzt, straw man, and misleading too. Measuring the river on the map is also OR. Of course, other people have already measured the lengths of rivers, and published the results, so we don't even have to do the measurement in te first place. Also, street names are entirely arbitrary, so being the longest in London isn't in any way notable, particularly as some continuous routes may have more than one street name. Sorry, but there's nothing anywhere which mandates that we need to be the repository of all information ever. This list so fails WP:NOR and WP:V, and therefore also WP:NOT. If this is the best we can do, it simply boils down to te fact that in this case (as in so many others) the best we have isn't good enough. This solution is no more acceptable than simply copying a chunk out of someone's research paper because we don't know anything about the subject. If nobody else has published the lengths of these streets, neither can we. I urge any closing admin to bear this in mind before considering if this is simply "interesting". 07:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above. Royal Blue 00:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa . -- Mithent 00:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reason to delete (a.k.a. keep) There are many list articles on Wikipedia. In fact, there is a whole article devoted to listing lists. --Jay(Reply) 00:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. Besides, failing to meet no fewer than three of our most important content policies and blasting through the Five Pillars clearly isn't a reason to delete ...
    I am interested to see these examples of list article. Are they list of non-notable entries? If such lists are acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia, I will have to adjust one of my reasons for delete accordingly. -Lumière 03:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per Kappa. These are facts that can be determined from information in the public domain, and independently verified (though WP is not for original research) by following a route with a sufficient measuring method. A simple sort by "longest" isn't original research, and provides information which some people clearly find interesting. On the other hand, WP:NOT an almanac or indiscriminate collection of facts and trivia. "Longest streets in London" is awfully weak in WP:Importance, and I really don't want to see hundreds of inconvenient-to-verify, easy-to-vandalize "Longest streets in Foo City" lists. Yes, London streets have more history and more references in literature than almost any other city's roads; but they're noted for other things than their length. Barno 01:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would urge a change of stance, as UK mapping data is in the main not in the public domain, and verification requires repeating the measurement process, therefore it cannot be independently verified.
    • Despite tone of anonymous editor in other comments, I'm changing to no vote (WP:V in question pending a more specific source). Also would like to hear more (specific, not generalizations with outs such as "in the main") about the legal status of mapping data in general (as compared to some company's proprietary database built from national surveys, published satellite photos, but also their own added-value information or organization). Barno 23:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite as Notable streets in London and remove long non-notable streets Ruby 01:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps Longest notable streets in London? No, if this is kept at all, the redlinked streets should either be created (if there is some real notability for the street) or de-linked into plaintext. I can't imagine any neighborhood does tourism promotions "Sixteenth Longest Street in London!!" Is even the longest one widely noted for that fact? Barno 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to rename. Any entry in a list must be notable. We also don't say List of notable musicians/mathematicians/politicians. We only include the notable ones. - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Being among the 50 longest named streets in London is notable in itself. Not notable enough for separate articles in most cases, though, so remove the redlinks as per Barno. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not. Street names are arbitrary, and not an indication of status, thus a road cannot be notable for the length with which it runs with a given name.
  • Keep per Kappa. This is borderline as to notability but, y'know, it's fun and sort of inherently English. Why not. --Lockley 03:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and probably a few more too.
  • Keep, this is a good list, interesting. --Terence Ong 05:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Interesting" is not a valid inclusion criterion. "Verifiable", however, is a valid inclusion criterion (required, in fact), but this list doesn't meet that. In essence, until someone publishes a list in a reputable source, it is merely speculating at what the longest streets in Londin might be.
  • I think you're all missing the point here. Original research, people. Kappa's statement that this might belong here is provably false, since the list is indisputably original research (go on, just try finding some circumstance which makes this not OR). The one and only way of obtaining this data at the moment is to do the measurements yourself, and the one and only way of verifying this data is to repeat the same measurement process. Thus, the article is unavoidably OR, and cannot be verified independently of the original data.
  • Keep. Notwithstanding the anon's argument above, I don't see any OR here. In fact, if there is one thing that should be fairly easy to list it's street length. Although instead of measuring it myself, as suggested above, I'd depend on an established reference such as [1]. Furthermore, if this anon wants to root out some more OR he might want to start tagging List of rivers by length, List of tallest buildings and structures by country, List of tallest churches, List of longest novels, List of lightest stars, List of highest mountains- to name a few. I mean who measured that stuff anyway?-- JJay 08:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your vote is evidently misinformed, because your reasoning is patently false (no offence). If you don't see any OR, it is either because you don't know what OR is, or it is because you're deliberately ignoring it. Your suggestion of using the A-Z is still OR. Wikipedia thrives on source-based research, but excludes original research. To summarise WP:NOR, OR is any research that introduces new information, SBR is any research that uses only existing information, though you are allowed to present this information in a different way - what's important is that nothing is done to the information. For the list of rivers, we are taking the already widely-published figures for various rivers, and arranging them by length. We're doing nothing new (Google for Nile km and you'll see what I mean). For the list of London streets, the data is generated by measuring using maps, or by physically measuring the route itself. In either case, we get raw data that we didn't know before - this is new information, therefore it is original research. Follow? What matters is not whether or not it has been measured, but who measured it and who published it. Since it appears that Wikipedia is the first to publish the fact that Western Avenue is 11.8 miles long to the M25, this is OR. The fact that this page is OR is not even up for debate, as it is indisputable fact. One deciding factor is its value to Wikipedia weighed against this fact. It is my opinion that, because nobody has WP:CITEd WP:RS (forgetting for a moment that this being WP:NOR means that no WP:RS exist), and that it can't be WP:V, the very little value this list provides is not worth setting the dangerous precedent of essentially allowing OR into Wikipedia.
  • I am offended. Your continued badgering is becoming old information. Stop hiding behind your IP to make attacks, Change your tone and get a user page. Follow? -- JJay 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the whole process of discussion and argument (remember, AfD is a discussion, not a vote) is to examine and attack your opponent's position. I am not attacking your character, but your position that it's not OR when the fact is that it clearly is OR. Read the article, read the talk page, then re-read the arguments for deletion. Re-read WP:OR if necessary. The fact (for it is a fact) is that this list is OR, and anyone who cannot already see why is missing something big somewhere along the line, probably a misunderstanding of what OR actually is. Of course, you could just stop hiding behind your username to make attacks, and actually explain why you think this is not OR, so we can see at what point our opinions diverge (discussion, not vote, remember?). 02:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Re-read the part above about old information, your tone and badgering. Then re-read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion particularly point V and VI under AfD etiquette. The fact (for it is a fact) that you have an opinion about this article was noted with your original statement at the top of the page. There is no reason to keep repeating your position. -- JJay 03:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and finally mocking the format of a previous comment is WP:POINT. Please retract. 03:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I cite one wikipedia page and that's how you react? You have called me "misinformed" with "patently false" reasoning and accused me of "deliberately ignoring" policy. You cite 10 wikipedia pages- itself a violation of NPA, AGF and CIV as far as I'm concerned- and claim I'm trying to make a point. The only point I'm trying to make is to get you to tone down your rhetoric. If this hasn't already been clear, I am not interested in being lectured by you or in debating you. Your opinion has been noted. -- JJay 04:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but find sources from which the evidence accrues. An excellent list but it needs to have sourcing. We can't require all other articles to have sources and not require this one. MLA 09:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no sources. This data simply does not exist in the UK in any form that Wikipedia could use. That it might be a good list does not change the fact that it is pure OR.
    • The data could exist - where data is taken from maps then those maps exist and are sources - they should be quoted. MLA 10:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It could, but it doesn't. There is no map or document which shows the length of these streets. For what must be the third time already, no source exists to be cited. This has clearly involved using the maps to produce new primary data. Get it into your head that THERE ARE NO SOURCES FOR THIS DATA. Whatever maps were used did not contain this data, someone had to take measurements using the maps. Data exists such that these numbers could be calculated or measured, but it doesn't get you all the way to knowing Western Avenue is 11.3mi long to the Greater London border without doing things which brings you into WP:OR. Remember, Wikipedia is about producing a reliable secondary source, and this is primary data. How many times do I have to point out that this data is original, and therefore "keep" is not a valid option regardless of who suggests it?
  • While we're at it, do some of those taking part in the discussion here not even realise that by even suggesting the possibility of keeping this article, you're smashing through no fewer than three of the Five Pillars?
  • Keep per Kappa. Siva1979Talk to me 11:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, Kappa's statement is both flawed and factually inaccurate. That, and we can't keep OR. I am shocked and appalled that people are seriously suggesting we keep material which has been proved beyond dispute to violate three of our central content policies, and knock out three of the Five Pillars.
    Which three? It seemed to me that it is consistent with all of them. Sandpiper 23:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this list is not encyclopedia material (particularly due to the OR). 2: Where are our sources? (clearly not the maps, since the numbers we're looking for aren't there). 3: Wikipedia is free content. OS licence terms may have been breached since the OS limits this data to personal use, and A-Z restricts commercial use. Until an English solicitor has reviewed all the facts carefully and given us the all-clear, we should not assume that this list is copyleft-safe. 09:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
that all seems to be a question of interpretation, not smashing through any rules. This is pretty lighthearted information to cause such a serious debate, but no reason why an encyclopedia should not be amusing as well as informative. Absolutely no reason why this information should not be presented in a neutral way, but again I don't see anyone actually seriously challenging the accuracy of this information, so it becomes a bit absurd to demand sources. As to copyright, it is not clear that this is copyrighteable information, since the same information exists in many different works. Sandpiper 01:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until decent sources can be used for research, which would also remove the ridiculous self references currently on the page. JPD (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps the editor who feels strongly enough to backchat every vote on this page (presumably "82.15.28.195") should learn how to sign his/her comments? Looks dumb and harms the credibility of your keep campaign. Also, it would appear that the measly technicalities you're relying on to get this page deleted are pretty shaky. I personally think every redlink needs to be deleted immediately and the info is pretty useless but I'm not bothered about OR and to say that pillars are being smashed isn't accurate. If you look at the edit histories of some who have voted here you'll see plenty of editors who know what WP:NOR, WP:V etc. are all about and don't have a problem. My advice is to find a new pet peeve. ++Deiz 12:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • In defense of 82.15.28.195 I think the OR concern is arguably a legitimate one, not a "measly technicality", but also not a clear-cut case. I believe it is possible for reasonable people to differ in this case, although not everyone seems to agree... Kappa 13:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well sure, people can have legitimate viewpoints on either side of a debate, that's why this page exists. That comment is a little out of step with your vote at the top of the page though, which seems like an assertion that there is no OR issue here. Of course, thats just my interpretation... ++Deiz 14:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Let's turn this discussion on its head. Assume for the moment that there is no OR issue here. If this were not OR, there would already be a list somewhere in a credible and reputable publication stating literally the lengths of the various streets in London. Reputable sources for this would include OSGB, various map publishers, and perhaps academic research. A trawl of OSGB turns up no such list. Google for the top five on the list as it stands produces only three pages of entries, including some lists of streets by name, none of which contain lengths. There are some documents related to TfL describing traffic schemes, but nothing giving the total lengths of all of these. Restricting the search to .ac.uk yields no results. Thus, there is no list, and as such the statement that the list is not OR cannot be true. Add in the fact that the talk page actually contains the methodology and confirms that Wikipedians have been applying it, which as stated is clearly aimed to produce new primary data; this reinforces the fact that it is undisputably OR. The clinching factor in deciding "Is this or is this not OR?" is this: according to the map sources, what are the N longest streets in London? If they can't tell you, then they're not the real source of this information. When you have taken the measurement from the map and recorded it somewhere, the map is not the source of that data, your records are. As for this: "Perhaps the editor who feels strongly enough to backchat every vote on this page ...", perhaps Deiz needs reminding that AfD is not a vote, but discussion. WP:AGF - what you might perceive as "back-chatting the votes" (TINAV), is actually engaging the "voters" (TINAV) in the discussion about their reasoning, particularly to establish what they think, beyond "per X", to see what we agree on, where we differ, and where our views diverge. 03:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment re: nominator: The user had only some 55 edits to Wikipedia at the time of his latest edit to this afd - of which nine edits were here and a handful of others were on other AFDs. Earliest edit was two days ago, yet we're having policy and the "five pillars" quoted at us. Sounds a little suss to me... Grutness...wha? 23:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you check the talk page, it's someone who gave up their user page, rather than a new user. Kappa 23:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a book of records. Bobby1011 14:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an interesting one, but it does not figure in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not or did I miss something?
  • Delete. Unless there is a reliable source for the data it is unacceptable to include the information. Under the verifiability policy I could legitimately remove all material from the article that doesn't have a valid source. I won't however advocate that just yet in order to avoid being disruptive. - Taxman Talk 16:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Google™ --Avi 17:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThis is one of the clearest violations of WP:NOR I can think of right now. If it could be sourced, then the idea itself is probably worthy of an article. However, right now, it's not worth keeping.
  • Delete unless the article lists its source(s) (i.e. WP:RS and WP:V). There is also the problem as to what "London" means: the article states "London" extends out to the M25 motorway, which is not Greater London (the region governed by the Greater London Authority). Sliggy 19:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list of arbitrary geographical features in arbitrary city meeting arbitrary criteria, without reliable sources. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this fails numerous Wikipedia policies especially verifiability. --Coolcaesar 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This would appear to be original research and therefore unverifiable. RicDod 21:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crystal-clear violation of WP:NOR, which is firm policy. When someone else reputable publishes this list, it can come back with a citation to the source. To be clear; measuring off a map is original research; interpreting such a measurement as representing one of the 100th longest streets in London is original research. These actions fall outside the bounds of editorialization; they are original research. ikkyu2 (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, although I agree with points of anonymous who has been bespattering this page, I would urge him not to be a dick. ikkyu2 (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepJcuk 22:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Point of interest about a far from "arbitary" choice of city. Why do you think this has been done for London, but not for Chichester? Merchbow 23:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Because someone with too much time on their hands got bored? *shrug* 01:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG. Stifle 23:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This is an exceedingly esoteric topic, and could lead to a proliferation of similar topics for other cities, unless long roads in London have some other special interest such as being mentioned in literature or the news. Although it is clear original research, they're not putting any special interpretation or point of view on the data, so it's really more like data gathering. I'm sticking with delete only because, unlike a proof of a simple mathematical theorem, this is impossible to verify without access to the streets themselves. Deco 00:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am changing my vote to Weak keep on the basis that this information was derived from a map of London and could be easily verified by casual measuring of any other similar map of London, artifacts which are widely available even though the streets themselves are not. Deco 06:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not verification has to be independent of the original source material, or it's not verifying the facts stated. In any case, where on the A-Z of London does it say that Western Avenue is between 11-12mi long? 09:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There are several elements of OR here. One is there had to be decisions made on starting points for the streets. How to handle curved streets. What was the algorithm used to verify the measurements on the map are correct? How were they measured at all. Having none of this available is exactly why we have a policy against original research. - Taxman Talk 16:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, if it helps clear consciences slightly, the data on the page is entirely new and previously unpublished. Some may also want to be aware of a potential issue with copyright. The list itself may not be copyrightable, however, this does not mean that they can be freely generated from copyrighted sources against the licence conditions. I've made a longer note of this on the pump. Key point being that even if your results cannot be subject to copyright, you still need to make sure you're allowed to obtain your results in the first place. Unlike many other countries, the work of government agencies in the UK is not PD. With some further inspection, it seems that the restrictions on things such as [A-Z maps include "For private, non-commercial or educational use only" which I believe means we can't use them, or any original research work directly derived from them (since one of the principles of free-content is "commercial use allowed too") 01:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't personally believe it's reasonable to refer to a list of distances calculated from a map as a "derivative work" - there is no copyright issue here. Don't waste your time arguing this point, there's better deletion reasons to focus on. Deco 04:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you have two options. Either it's derived from the map, in which case OS copyright policy means we can't include it, or it's original, in which case it falls foul of WP:NOR. No third way here, I'm afraid. Either way, keeping this will be a somewhat dangerous, since it would involve blatantly disregarding the unchangeable and unignorable rules, namely that of copyleft-safety, and original research. 09:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete clear-cut original research: there is no reasons to believe that the author's measurements are correct. mikka (t) 04:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Applying such a high standard of OR would invalidate many, many articles here on Wikpedia. It comes down to one pillar, verifiability. Can this information be verified? Yes. Would the person who feels so strongly about this they feel compelled to make repeated comments please consider signing using ~~~~? It's not one of the pillars, but it is a common courtesy. Turnstep 04:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it's a bedrock and very important policy. All articles need to meet it. - Taxman Talk 16:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is an aspiration. Most wiki articles are not verified and absolutely should not be deleted on that basis. Sandpiper 23:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is that without actual numerical data, independent verification of this list would be impossible. 09:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can this information be verified? Well, yes and no. If you take any item on the list, e.g. "10) 3.60 miles: Purley Way" This comprises of two pieces of information. One, Purley Way is 3.6 miles long, and Two) Purley Way is the tenth longest street in London. Item one can be checked from the map, although that has accuracy issues — if I reference the original source given and get a different answer to that published, can you truly say that it's a verifable fact? Item two is not verifable, to verify it was item 10, I would have to measure every street, and hope that I hadn't missed the same streets as the original author. That to me, is research, so the fact that the original editor is doing the same thing, looks clearly against WP:NOR to me. So, in summary, street lengths itself is iffy (I'd not remove that data is it was in an article about a street, for example), but ordering them is original research. Since this article is focused on the ordering, I'm afraid it really should go MartinRe 10:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article would be improved (and should be given the chance to improve) by excluding guesses and "measured by ... car" and referencing the maps used (either generally or individually by street. To me, measuring the length of a street on a map is no more OR than reading words in a book. Thincat 14:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No actually it's firm policy. You can't set it aside just because it's convenient. Please spend some time understanding the relevant policies before voting. - Taxman Talk 16:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because someone disagrees with your view doesn't mean that he doesn't understand the relevant policies. Reasonable people may interpret borderline cases differently. So get off your high horse and show some respect for differing viewpoints. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I replied to your message on my talk page, I'm sorry if I offended you. It's not because you don't agree with me that I said you don't understand the policy. It's because your statement is directly at odds with the policy. Turnstep's was even farther out, and you said you agreed with his statements. - Taxman Talk 17:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've responded on your talk page, so I'll stick to the subject at hand here. For example, what part of What is excluded? is violated here? I'm not proposing that we waive NOR willy-nilly, but that we recognize that some types of content lie on the border of NOR (for example, plot summaries for books or films). If the street lengths in this article come from measurements off a map (and if so, let's get the cite for that map), then is that original research, or just reproduction of published data, since the map is published and the street lengths are on the map in a non-numeric form? I can see both sides to that argument. I take the view that if the map is published, then the measurements are not original research, and they're verifiable. If the article contains measurements made by some guy with a tape measure or a really long piece of string, then the article still stays but needs a {{verify}} tag. Deletion isn't a good solution in either case. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is true that any policy requires interpretation, which is perhaps what some mean by "needs to be flexible", but we must do the necessary to correctly interpret it. -Lumière 17:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See my comment below. I see no problem with OR because it is one of the objective of a map to allow users to find distances. Some maps have distances written on them. Of course a published map, ideally with written distances, should be provided as a reference. However, the most serious problem is notability. Just being "interesting" does not make it notable. Lumière 17:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the only way for a reader to check the veracity of the claims is to do the measurements himself, it's a violation of WP:NOR. If on the other hand there are maps that note the length of these streets, those should be cited as sources, and they haven't been, making the article a violation of WP:V. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm sorry, but to claim that a map of roads does not contain accurate information as to the exact length of each is ridiculous. Any map which does not contain that information is pretty worthless. This argument is entirely analogous to a table published in French, which someone translates into English and still cites as a source. Just because some people are unable to read distances off maps, just as some people are unable to read words out of a book, does not condemn us all to map dyslexia. Locating visual facts on a map sheet is no different to locating particular sentences in a book and including them in a history article. In fact, it might be rather easier to see which is the longest road than to find a particular mention of something. The only thing which writers of an encyclopedia do is collate information. This requires people to organise data and present it in a way which is useful to readers. If editors are not permitted to do that then someone might just as well pull the plug on all the wiki servers right now, and save the elctricity. Sandpiper 00:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few components of original research in reading street lengths off of a map, and an additional one in trying to list the longest streets in a given area. There are a number of problems to contend with that make the issue much different from reading text. For one, what measurement tool is used? If a ruler by hand, then the scale of the map greatly influences the answer that will be had from the measurement, but so does the ruler used. Different measuring tools will come up with different answers for the length . How is that accounted for in the results reported? Some rulers have greater accuracy than others, even the thickness of the lines on the ruler will affect the result. How are curved streets handled? Are they considered at all? The choice of what to consider as one street is a problem. Where does the measurement stop if the street changes names? What precision is to be reported in the answers and how did one arrive at that confidence level? If the map is electronic, what tools are used to measure the lines, and how does the algorithm work? All of these items are judgement calls that are innapropriate original research. And no, ignore all rules cannot set aside any of the major content policies. You can't have a POV article just because you want to ignore the NPOV policy, and no "consensus" can do that. - Taxman Talk 03:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulties you suggest in translating the data off the map are really not quantitatively different from the difficulties anyone faces when trying to prepare an article from different sources. It is my experience that different sources disagree with each other, and editorial judgement is needed to choose which versions to include in an article. I have also seen the result of someone who plainly does not understand a source then trying to write an article. Articles do not get scrapped because people make mistakes interpreting, they get corrected. Normally when editors have a difference of opinion over content, they fight it out and a consensus on the correct interpretation is reached. Just so here, though I have yet to see any real suggestion that people are arguing the factual content is incorrect. I am sure there are many wiki editors who have the source material on their own bookcase and the necessary ability to read a map to check for themselves that information here is correct. I regard the existence of such an accessible method of checking as making this article very much more readily verifiably than many others which might have a long bibliography which is however not immediately to hand. I remain of the view that a strict interpretation of NOR as suggested by some people would mean that this encyclopedia should totally be deleted. It is not possible to create a synthesis of data without doing original work. That is why such a synthesis is specifically permitted, indeed last time I read it, was mandatory.
As to major policies. A perceived violation of a policy is not grounds for deletion of an article. It is merely grounds for initiating a debate over whether such an article should be deleted. This is an important distinction. Sandpiper 23:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being a violation of WP:NOR. Tuf-Kat 04:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. MartinRe sums up the main problems nicely. Verifiability should be, at least, reasonable, and having to reproduce the original data from scratch in order to verify claims is most definitely NOT reasonable. --Calton | Talk 06:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Calling the determination of the length of a street from a map for "origianal research" is stretching it a bit. I mean, if the map is available, the work can be checked, and hence such info can be made verifiable. London is a large city, and information on the longest roads is alright. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To check the length of any street, you can check the map for that street and measure it. That is bordering between OR and verifable due to accuracy in remeasuring, but could be seen both ways. However, to check that street is the 10th longest, you have to measure every street in London, hope you were accurate, and hope you didn't miss any. So, to verify fully any one item in that list, you have to do everything again. The latter problem, to me anyway, is what make this not count as verifiable. MartinRe 09:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not changing my vote (yet), but that's the best pro-Delete argument I've seen. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I found this one not so convincing because it relies on the amount of processing and expertise required. I think that we should expect that in some cases a lot of expertise and processing is needed to understand how the sourced information is supported by the source. I find the argument of Neigel von Teighen given below much more convincing and decisive, unless we cite a map that provides all required information. -Lumière 18:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not serous: it's a leave an open gate for POV (e.g. when a street changes its name in a certain point, it is the same street or a new begins? If a street begins a private property and then becomes a public way, where do you start measuring?) and for OR. --Neigel von Teighen 15:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, this is another important issue. Where are the beginning and the end of a street often cannot be determined from the map irrespectively of the amount of processing allowed. A formal criteria could be stated in the article, but the information required by the criteria (such as what is private or public) might not be available. This alone is a strong case for original research: the sourced information is not uniquely determined by the source. -Lumière 15:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Do we actually know what the map in question is? Is it a single map? (I think it should be, or it has zero verifiability.) Is anyone sure that the data here comes from a specific map? I'm troubled by the lack of sourcing on the page, but that in and of itself isn't cause for a delete vote. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's somewhat beside the point. If you can't point at the source showing the information you need, it's not the source of the information. In this case, you can't point at a London A-Z or OS Landrangers of the area that states categorically the length of Oxford Street. We've heard plenty of reasons why this is OR, but what I (and others) would desperately like to hear before some admin mistakenly closes this as a "keep" (IIRC, they're supposed to weight the reasons, not the votes) is the reasons why people think it's not OR, in relation to the list itself (i.e. not excuses such as "if this is, then everything else is"). Particularly, why they believe that it's not the measurement that makes it OR. 09:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. What a strange debate. It seems sooooooo obvious to me that a map is a published source capable of verifying the length of a feature marked on it, and that using that information is not original research. I'm astonished other users feel differently. AndyJones 11:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My preferred reasons for delete delete are
  1. The required information is not on any cited map: where a street begins and ends, for example when the street changes name, cannot be found on the map. Often one would need to physically go on the site or rely on local non-published knowledge.
  2. It's either a list of non notable entries (and thus against What Wikipedia is Not and possibly against copyright policy) or, if you think it is more than that, it is against No original Research.
Reasons for delete that I don't like:
  1. It's difficult to measure with good accuracy.
  2. It's a complicated process to list all streets and order them.
I don't like these reasons because they assume that it must be simple for anyone to see that a sourced information is supported by the sources, which is not a policy requirement. For example, translation from German to English is not against NOR. Also, to see that a scientific statement is well supported by scientific sources might require a level of expertise that only a few expert-editors have. -Lumière 11:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please not bold your second delete here. Thanks. -- JJay 12:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:. While my vote is still at delete (not bolded, JJAy :) I want to mention that I don't think it is appropiate to remove the guts of an article — basically deleting it — while it is still under offical discussion for deletion. (I haven't reverted the removal, as if the result is keep, it will be done anyway, and if the result is delete, it would be pointless.) I don't see anything explicitly forbidding it in the Deletion policy, but the afd notice does ask people not to blank the article, and taking the majority of the text is going against the spirit, if not the letter of that policy. MartinRe 13:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, since its not really clear where I should put this point which has cropped up repeatedly above: no source of information is exact. Tables of scientific values all have limits to their accuracy. Arguing that a map is not a suitable source because of the inherent inaccuracy of obtaining data from it is not a helpful way to decide this point. All it means is that there is a limit on the accuracy of the data. Again, if all data subject to errors was deleted, there would be none left on wiki. A more interesting question is whether this use of the maps violates the copyright of the originators. I am sure that the aim of the map makers copyright conditions is to prevent other people making copies of their maps, which is certainly not what is happening here. Also, if I pick up a text book and use information tabulated in it, then I would not expect to be taken to task by the authors for using that information without permission. As I understand it, the information content is not copyright, only the actual presentation of it? What is presented here is only exerpts from the total of information, and is not unique information as many companies have independently gathered the same information.Sandpiper 00:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Would an article that simply list all the streets in London with their length, assuming that everything is verifiable, be acceptable in Wikipedia? This question is not about the verifiability issue, but about What Wikipedpia is not (this section in particular). One of the comments above says that entries in a list must be notable. This kind of answers my question, but which part of WP policy says that? -Lumière 02:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lumiere, i don't think it helps this debate that you go through and change things which you have written and others have already responded to. It makes their responses nonsense, which is unfair, and retrospectively does not allow them to respond to your changed comments, which is also unfair. Please stop doing it. I can see that you have corrected your own arguments where you have found them to be mistaken, but instead of changing them, just continue by stating your changed position.
I would interpret noteablity as being a relative as well as absolute term. it means what is worth including, as well as what is widely accepted (as distinct from what is widely refuted) The wikipage you cite suggests that a sense of proportion is needed. So a complete list of all street lengths in London would be unacceptable, but a list of noteably long ones would be includeable. On the other hand, wiki is not paper, which is say it does not have the same space constraints as a conventional encyclopedia. In a paper volume there is a real sense that if one article goes in, another must come out. That does not apply here. So wiki can afford to include articles on relatively minor topics. Wiki resources are creaking at maintaining a free service, but I think the issue is numbers of people wanting to read it, not the still relatively small volume of information which makes up the encyclopedia. Sandpiper 10:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, with regard to your first paragraph, nobody as far as could see had made any reference to the comment that I deleted. Really, I felt that it was somehow totally ignored. I will check again, and if I see that some had made some reference to this comment I will be happy to put it back. I think I respected the spirit of the guideline which says that we should not modified our own text in a talk page if it was superceded. IMO, if nobody replies or makes reference to it, it is not superceded. -Lumière 13:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear violation of WP:OR. — ciphergoth 13:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a source is cited with this information, it's original research. --W.marsh 00:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this could change and not be true. Who would know? FloNight 14:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A suggestion. We could create a sub-page in which pro-delete and neutral editors would agree on the main reasons for delete, the best way to formulate them, etc. and a new section below in which these reasons will be copied and all editors could comment on them and try to obtain a consensus about whether or not these reasons are valid. If we succeed to have a consensus on only one reason for delete, then the article should be deleted. If, for every proposed reason for delete, we obtain a consensus that the reason is not valid, then we will keep the article. Otherwise, I guess that we will continue to seek a consensus until the decision will be taken by whoever is in charge. My feeling is that only a few main reasons for delete will be proposed, and this will focus the discussions around them instead on around individual votes or comments. I know that I am not very well known, and already I am attacked as a troll, spammer, disruptive, etc. by a few (and also for making many modifications to my own comments, but this one is well deserved), but I still propose this idea for what it's worth. -Lumière 16:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Traitors[edit]

Non-notable (I believe) band. Article is... interesting. moink 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a hastening of the inevitable, and because this article is more pollution than information Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why al-Qaeda chose the date of September 11[edit]

Original research. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mkg eu (talk • contribs) . Mkg eu (talk · contribs) is the article's author.
  • Delete per nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV and original research. Snurks T C 00:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, complete bollocks. Royal Blue T/C 00:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. Makemi 00:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless author comes up with good sources for this (re: Talk page), which seems doubtful. -- Mithent 00:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV essay. Zarquon 00:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Where do I begin. (1) It begins with first person pronoun. (2)The definition of POV. (3) Is there any rule about facts on Wikipedia? Because if there is, the article is more of an argument, barely theory, than a factual account. --Jay(Reply) 01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete O.R. unless the author is a high-ranking member of Al-Qaeda Ruby 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Jay --lightdarkness (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Besides, I have a theory about this that's far better than this one. I'm sure a lot of people do. Grandmasterka 01:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Allen3 talk 01:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. --Jelligraze 02:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and send to BJAODN as "One of the worst articles EVER." Batman2005 02:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the first words of the article say, "I am sorry"... but this is all the problems already mentioned above. --Kinu 03:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Many problems with this. --Lockley 03:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per original research. Basicially a very badly written editorial.-Jersey Devil 03:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. Cnwb 04:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR.Blnguyen 04:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research, Wikipedia is not a blog, original research etc. Capitalistroadster 05:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as orignial research. --Terence Ong 05:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. Sbohra 06:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research and atrociously-written research at that, too. Article also inherently POV, so WP:NPOV violation.  (aeropagitica)  07:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research ComputerJoe 08:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 10:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR, personal theory. Mgm|(talk) 10:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG SPEEDY DELETE Wikipedia is not a soap box. Neutral POV. No original research. Bobby1011 14:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. Avi 17:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and maybe there should be a speed for 20+ deletes from existing editors vs no keeps (other than the author).--Isotope23 17:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as bollocks. You know, the Battle of Plattsburgh also took place on 11 September, why can't that be what was being referenced? Ergot 18:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you kidding me? Delete. This fails WP:NOR so clearly that it seems to actually want to. WP:NOT a soapbox. There are other wikis with more relaxed rules, but we are an encyclopedia, not a free weblog service. Or you could always spare some dosh and get a real, personal webpage. JIP | Talk 19:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this one please we are really not a soapbox Yuckfoo 19:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting it now since even Yuckfoo, who can find the nugget of gold in the cruddiest rock, can apparently find nothing to redeem it. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plexus Scientific[edit]

Advertisement. Zarquon 00:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 14:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Classic clatant advertising, should fall under {{db-nocontext}} outside of trying to make money. As well as {{nn-bio}} of a company. Avi 17:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable advertisement stub. JIP | Talk 19:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. FloNight 15:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rail-rocking[edit]

Non-notable and non-verifiable TMac 00:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete TMac 00:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice try at an article; though it was interesting. BJAODN. Royal Blue T/C 00:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the article: "Although generally shunned and considered idiotic and dangerous, it has begun to accumulate" ... delete votes. Not much

for BJAODN. Barno 01:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not notable + unreferenced + poorly written + contradictary + original research + made up one day at school = Strong Delete Bobby1011 14:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete {{nonsense}}, dangerous, unencyclopædic, WP:NFT, vancarlimospacecraft, absolute idiocy, moronic, immature, infantile, and just plain stupid Avi 17:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 01:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Dogbreathcanada 20:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not verifiable, likely test article FloNight 15:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jascolio[edit]

Original research, author seems to be reinventing Esperanto OscarTheCattalk 00:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP:NFT. Royal Blue T/C 00:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Yet another Test article. --Jay(Reply) 01:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy, or as you say it in Jascolio, esto fututus. There are many sites that would welcome a project such as this. Smerdis of Tlön 01:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Classic WP:NFT --lightdarkness (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NFT. Hey, WP:NFT rhymes.... ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Blnguyen 04:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research (userfication is fine too). OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. This article isn't encyclopedic in scope or content.  (aeropagitica)  07:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NFT and WP:OR (assuming there was any serious research of linguistics put into this, of course). --Kinu 07:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I doubt I'm the only one who thought the title referred to an unsanctioned knock-off of the Great Cornholio. --Kinu 07:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notable or not (which I doubt), this page looks pretty much like a personal website to me. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 08:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and WP:NFT. --Terence Ong 08:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't userfy! Allowing this to remain in the userspace would counter the idea that Wikipedia is not a free webhost. NFT and OR makes a big fat delete. Mgm|(talk) 10:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete is this a hoax? Bobby1011 14:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete "I am creating Jascolio..." Enough said. WP:NOR Avi 17:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a free webhost. DenisMoskowitz 19:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of title tracks released as singles[edit]

Needed? Would surely be a huge list? OscarTheCattalk 01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Good idea, but wrong approach. Something like categorizing each song that one comes upon on Wikipedia as a title track released as a single, if it meets such criteria, would be much better. --Jay(Reply) 01:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a basically limitless article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Listcruft. Stifle 01:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmanageable list. Royal Blue T/C 02:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above -- Astrokey44|talk 02:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless and potentially endless list. Cnwb 04:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I enjoy some lists, but this one is pretty pointless. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely pointless list. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft of the cruftiest variety. The author should have also created "List of title tracks not released as singles" for completeness. --Kinu 07:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless listcruft. How would the article be considered complete & authoritative?  (aeropagitica)  07:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. --Terence Ong 08:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- listcruft. Why are these crufty lists always lists of songs? Reyk 10:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The creator already said it. "The list, by its very nature, will be incomplete." It would include pretty much every title track in existence as a LOT of them as released as singles. Mgm|(talk) 10:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft. Bobby1011 14:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft, WP:NG Avi 17:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft, WP:NG. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C)
  • Delete - I'm a big fan of lists, but this goes over even my line. Turnstep 05:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Apologies for voting twice and thanks to Turnstep for clearing the second vote. Stifle 20:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Listcruft DamianFinol 02:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Fusion[edit]

Possibly not notable or even hoax (I haven't researched). Creator of the article participated in some later silly editing of it. -- Curps 01:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "Noy notable enough." Fix your spelling please.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Badger Syndrome[edit]

Possible hoax. The description of this medical syndrome makes it appear as a possible play on Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease or Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease). A Google search does not find anything that matches the description given in the article.[2] Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of this article. --Allen3 talk 01:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is possibly a hoax to promote http://madasbadgers.com/ Ruby 02:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I strongly suspect that this is a hoax. NoIdeaNick 02:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as hoax unless author can provide citable sources to back up claim from Talk page. Jaxal1 03:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Blnguyen 04:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. {{hoax}} article.  (aeropagitica)  07:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kind of funny in a weird sort of way... more so than some of the BJAODN candidates we've been getting lately... --Kinu 07:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it existed it would've Googled. Mgm|(talk) 10:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax Bobby1011 14:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax; why is it called Badger Syndrome if it's spread by squirrels anyway? -- Mithent 14:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{hoax}} and tagged as such Avi 17:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename mad squirrel disease. Peter Grey 04:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 20:27, 16 February 2006 MONGO deleted "Travis, The White Horse" (article about a a real person or group of people that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7))

Travis, The White Horse[edit]

Insufficiently notable horse

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Walker, Texas Ranger. Royal Blue T/C 02:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Royal Blue Ruby 02:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likezoinks (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Note comment previous to mine was article author. Batman2005 02:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to be a hoax. Crypticfirefly 05:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I am against redirect at this time since I can find no proof that a horse of this name appeared in this episode of the show. --Kinu 07:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can proof be offered that this horse is the same equine that appeared in Walker, Texas Ranger? References should be provided for other claims such as the death of three cowboys. The article also needs to be cleaned up if it is to be kept.  (aeropagitica)  07:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like a hoax to me. --Terence Ong 08:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and somehow the phrase "insufficiently notable horse" struck me as quite funny ;x . Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, have tried to work with the author get him to provide sources; but first he provided two dead links, then when I told him they were dead he gave two obviously completely different links, both apparently irrelevant (a site: Google search for "Travis" on the websites turned up nothing.) All of the references were straight links to the websites without any attempt to link to a specific article on the horse. Have to agree that this looks like a hoax. --Malthusian (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as is not notable or hoax. Bobby1011 14:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This is a {{db-bio}} candidate. If this horse were a person, would it be notable? Avi 17:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2624[edit]

A year in a game - misleading and not worth keeping as a number.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Royal Blue T/C 02:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom... even though "2624 is the maximum number of pieces a torus can be cut into with 24 cuts" [3]. :P --Kinu 03:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, until about 2620 AD. Cnwb 04:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Blnguyen 04:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-encyclopaedic article. Can be mentioned in the game article, if required.  (aeropagitica)  07:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. FloNight 11:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "mechanical mechs to kill humans or something." not very encyclopaedic. Bobby1011 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom and non-encyclopaedic. Retrieve information into the game's page ComputerJoe 16:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Unencyclopædic, WP:NG Avi 17:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A future year where no notable real world stuff is going to happen is non-notable. I don't care if the entirety of Civilization V takes place in 2624, if real events don't, then it should be deleted. JIP | Talk 19:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2624 times over. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 22:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.. I merged the material into 27th century which has a list of such stuff. Herostratus 08:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. Ifnord 03:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Resource Management Application[edit]

Insufficiently notable website - 69 Ghits

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sub-page of Linspire.com with 15,053 rank on Alexa Ruby 02:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Endomion. Royal Blue T/C 02:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ruby. --Terence Ong 08:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Linspire; it's notable, but doesn't require its own article. --Zwilson 08:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Zwilson; Linspire isn't long enough to split out such a minor website. Melchoir 09:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per Zwilson Nick Catalano (Talk) 10:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the text was cut and pasted from the official page. Bobby1011 14:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh, and those images should probably be deleted too. Bobby1011 14:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Linspire after a healthy dose of non-copyvio-ing. Ziggurat 23:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ruby. Siva1979Talk to me 16:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCDe✉ 05:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irani slave trade[edit]

Possible attack page - homayon ghassemi is an athlete. Unsourced, unverifiable.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superherohype![edit]

Tagged for prod but the tag was removed. Nonnotable website, vanity, spam, and all that. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hind bint Awf[edit]

Being the father of someone (even if they are notable) is not inherently notable Ruby 02:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep ffs, i wrote i was working on it! can i please have more than 20 minutes to do reaserch? --Striver 02:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, take all the time that you need. And when you've finished, come back with an actual article. Until then, delete. --Calton | Talk 02:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A1 and A7. Royal Blue T/C 02:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Guys, I see how you are arguing. Your view that this people can in no way be notable only being the relative of somebody. In most cases, that is true. But in some cases, it is not. This is one of those cases. First, Muslims places so much time and effort on the the genealogy of this people, that only being related makes them notable, in a Muslim POV. There are entire books that list this people and gives entries on what is known about each. Second, there is also the problem of research. Much of the information on this guys are in Arabic, meaning its hard to google them out, since they havent been translated. And when they are translated, they are transliterated in different way, making it harder to track them down. And some times, they are not even named, only refered to as " the mother of x did this and that". This results in taking a lot of time to create articles. And third, we have the problem of where to put information, if not on her own article. For example, Hind bint Awf is connected to 5 people. Am I supposed to repeat everything I find on here in each of those five articles? Every single bit of information on this people are of very high significance, where they live, who long, when they married and so forth...
I beg you to take a look at Sahaba's ancestors and Non-Muslim interactants with Muslims during Muhammad's era. Take a look at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html and try searching some hadith. Look at this list Shia view of the Sahaba. You see? Please don't decide that this person is not notable, unless you have a good understanding of this topic. Would I bother to write all of this if she was really of no intrest? Its not like vanity or commercial for anything, and its not like it makes Wikipedia look bad for having it. Give the articles time to grow.... --Striver 02:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the daughters are notable, send us down an article about the daughters. We don't have articles about the parents of celebrities no matter how famous their children are. Ruby 03:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy? Just sayin' Crypticfirefly 04:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that we already have articles about his daughters. Kappa 03:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for removing the personal insult. We do if they are the mother of five celebrities , mother in law of a super celebritie and grandmother of yet another celebritie , dont we? --Striver 03:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Kappa 02:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The notability claim here seems to be that one of this lady's daughters married Muhammad the Prophet, three two other daughters married early followers of Muhammad, and she is the grandmother of a major early Islamic theologian. The sheer number of people significant to Islam among her progeny makes her notable. Besides, if we can let Jeanne Marie Cossanges hang around for a year, we can give this article a few days to develop. Crypticfirefly 04:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being one famous person's parent isn't notable; having so many of your children end up in such significant marriages is a different thing altogether. From what I've read so far, fascinating, but the article needs to be improved a lot. Georgewilliamherbert 05:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Georgewilliamherbert that improvement/expansion is needed. I'd like to see the dates when this lady lived (even if approximate), an explanation of what happened to husband #2, an indication of what religion she followed, and some discussion perhaps of what kind of work her various husbands did and what work she did. Also, did she have any other children? And if alternate spellings of her name is a problem, they should be listed. Crypticfirefly 06:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and expand I think this easily meets WP:Notability. Give Striver time to expand it -- Samir ∙ T C 06:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, i found some more. Is the article safe now, can i focus on other article now?--Striver 06:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can work on whatever you'd like, but why not do some more work on this one before going on to the next one? You could add references to whatever your source of information was, for example. Crypticfirefly 03:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd normally agree with Ruby on parentage but despite that and my own POV, this article does appear to be about a notable person as the lineage here is notable. MLA 09:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Very notable. Siva1979Talk to me 11:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 16:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs significant work, but the person described seems notable enough based on her daughters subsequent marriages Avi 17:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this article is an attack on the holy religious values of Islam and must be eradicated. No, I mean, keep, notable historical and religious figure. JIP | Talk 19:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please agree with what Georgewilliamherbert Yuckfoo 19:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient notability of family. And Striver we do appreciate the articles you create - they help to counteract some of the inherent imbalances in wiki. Dlyons493 Talk 21:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Geneaology of the Hashemite dynasty, including the prophet Mohammed, is of great interest to students of Islam, a notable world religion. I agree that the current article falls somewhat short of WP:PERFECT. ikkyu2 (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important early islamic figures. 129. 23:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — Feb. 23, '06 [00:34] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Lincoln Park Trixie Society[edit]

Delete not encyclopedic, and who knows what else. Aaronw 02:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, POV vanicruft. Royal Blue T/C 02:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Royal Blue. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, joke page. Bad ideas 04:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn joke. Blnguyen 04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This might be a joke, but it is a long-standing one (going back to at least 2000) and it gets semi-regular coverage in the Chicago papers. As a result members of a certain social type in Chicago are sometimes jokingly referred to as "Lincoln Park Trixies." I may put in some references later. Crypticfirefly 07:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete joke page. If Crypticfirefly can make clear the encylopaedic nature of the article as per the above comments then the article could stand.  (aeropagitica)  07:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not exactly a joke page. The "Society" is more like an online version of the Official Preppy Handbook, except its creators organized social events like pub crawls (and it is just a Chicago thing). Like "preppie" and "yuppie," "trixie" describes a particular type. Crypticfirefly 03:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC) I should add though that I don't have the time or interest to save this article, especially since Boinger, who created the page originally, is on hand. Crypticfirefly 05:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Crypticfirefly having added refs; the article itself is still a joke but presumably fixable. Melchoir 10:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 14:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While not a 'real' club, it is an oft-referenced 'pseudo-club' in both media and general culture. It is not a "joke", in the sense that the subject matter is false in and of itself -- that the 'club' aspect is noted as satirical is sufficient, I feel. Just search for 'Chicago trixie' on Google - 1.7Million results? Definite Keep. boinger 15:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try. No place quotes around the two and see what you get 871 results of which most of those are not referring to the subject in question (notice the judicious use of commas in the search results). -- Avi 17:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But you do get 864 if you search for "Lincoln Park Trixie" and most if not all of those do refer to this subject. Crypticfirefly 03:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NG, Vancarlimospacecraft Avi 17:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gerard Foley 21:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As a resident of Chicago and author of Chicago Tribune article using the term, the LPTS is a valid sub-group within the social strata of Chicago. A LPTS woman is to Chicago what a "Valley Girl" is to Los Angeles, irrespective of being an actual society, club or organization.--anth 23:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(first of three edits by "anth" a.k.a. User:Gargiulo, disregarded, — <fon>)
Indeed, Valley Girl has a wiki page. boinger 15:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe terminology is certainly a common part of the vernacular of 20-somethings in Chicagoland, and a real part of the culture. Just because this term is one of a satirical nature does NOT make the entry false or a "joke page". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.100.237.186 (talk • contribs) . (Third of three edits from this IP address, disregarded — <fon>)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to List of neologisms on The Simpsons. Mailer Diablo 00:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homersexual[edit]

Complete nonsense of a page, edits by two new users, most likely the same person or two friends. Entry is completely unencyclopedic. I don't think it qualifies for a speedy, but certainly delete. lightdarkness (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I maybe trouble you to elucidate that statement? :) Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-encyclopedic. Probably not worth redirecting to list of neologisms on the simpsons. Bad ideas 04:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree, but it already appeared there, so hey. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Integrative Manual Therapy[edit]

Big glob of an infomercial Ruby 02:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete atblayantyay adyayervayisetayentmay. Need I say more? Royal Blue T/C 02:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. I mean, at least attempt to veil thinly the advertisement as a legitimate article. --Kinu t/c 03:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... or for a fun time, redirect to masturbation. (I wasn't going to say it, but per AKMask's comment below, I decided why not, since I'm not the only one.) --Kinu t/c 06:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an infomercial. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Blnguyen 04:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising under the guise of an article. The huge blocks of text are also offputting to the reader, in addition to being non-encyclopaedic.  (aeropagitica)  07:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wiki is not free web space. Bobby1011 14:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Blatant Advertising, WP:NG Avi 17:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and add new entry to the 'Slang for Masturbation' article (At least that's what I thought when I saw the name... ;)) -AKMask 00:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autonomic Nervous System Templates for another article by same author. AED 06:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Marudubshinki. - Bobet 12:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vowel Productions[edit]

A "production company" operated by a group of high-school students. Currently no outside sources to demonstrate verifiability. CDC (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. We should make that a redirect. :-) Royal Blue T/C 02:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable Tawker 02:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VSCA and WP:NFT. Pretty much seals the deal on non-notability if your webspace is .cjb.net or on xanga. (Alternatively, redirect to Bowel Productions? Yeah, that was mean, I know... ah well.) --Kinu 03:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sample of the "corporate" "website" of Vowel "Productions" -- "This page will contain archives of old videos and old updates...once we get enough" Ruby 03:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanispamcruftisement. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Bad ideas 04:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Blnguyen 04:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 16:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Side Down[edit]

Band does not assert notability. Article has been around a while so I brought it here. Results on google for "This Side Down" refer to a DIFFERENT band from newe orleans in 2002. No assertion of notability by means of any albums or performances. Non Notable. lightdarkness (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. --lightdarkness (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps Speedy A7. Royal Blue T/C 02:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Four Google hits in context. Fagstein 03:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On their way to domination but didn't quite make it Ruby 03:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete delete per nom, got 4 Google hits. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A7. Nothing on there to assert notability; they say they're a band, but don't have information to back it up, per darkness. --Kinu 07:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{db-band}} candidate, no albums, singles or notable members as per WP:BAND.  (aeropagitica)  07:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity page. Not notable. Bobby1011 14:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 00:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Across the Road[edit]

Similar to Vowel Productions - a hobby video production group, unverifiable. CDC (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overwhelmingly mighty mondo-keep: Do you see that this is something being taken seriously? That this is an attempt at a career? Now I don't particularly like N*SYNC. I don't think those fellas are particularly talented and I'm far from interested in anything they do, but it's important to somebody. Dismissing this because you don't like it, don't understand it, or don't think it deserves popularity would be like opting for the deletion of N*SYNC's Wiki. The page seems dumb to me, but I know it's important to someone else, and it may help someone find the information they desire. If you oppose this page on the grounds that AtR is unpopular, keep in mind that creating a Wikipedia listing is a way of generating popularity and spreading knowledge of the existence of something. By the way, this is not, as banned by Wikipedia, a fad from a school or an inside joke. It is a film company, albeit a low-budget, unknown, modest one, that happened to be formed by school chums. If you are at all familiar with entertainment groups, you will know that many began as an idea begun between school friends that eventually took off. I'm not saying that Across the Road will ever be a well-known success, but humble beginnings, even without definite endings, are no reason for deletion. Is it really that big of a problem for you that someone wants a bit of recognition? I see no harm being caused, and vote overwhelmingly for a mondo-keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tougi (talk • contribs)

  • Wikipedia articles are not vehicles for creating notability - we write about things that already are notable. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Sorry - please don't take this personally. CDC (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overwhelmingly mighty mondo-Delete per nom. -- Wikipedical 20:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 20:37, 16 February 2006 MONGO deleted "The Beards" (db-band)

The Beards[edit]

This is an article about an undistinguished band/sideproject but I think it would be kicked back from a speedy nomination Ruby 02:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Also delete Kim Shattuck. Royal Blue T/C 03:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Siva1979Talk to me 12:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 14:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Why would it be kicked back from a {{db-band}}? It sure looks like one? Avi 17:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Kim Shattuck was a member of The Muffs a band notable enough for Wiki by virtue of multiple album releases. Ergo, The Beards are notable for her being a member according to WP/Music Jcuk 22:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete history and redirect to Mafia Rd232 talk 09:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mob boss[edit]

  • Delete. Seems to be a pretty clear hoax. Superm401 - Talk 02:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax; wholly unworthy of BJAODN. Royal Blue T/C 03:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. No BJAODN. (I would say to redirect to mafia, but the capitalization is all wrong anyway.) --Kinu 03:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax Ruby 04:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a it is a hoax. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Blnguyen 04:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mafia. (Mafioso does; why not mob boss?) Defintely a hoax; Richard J. Hughes is a former governor and supreme court justice of New Jersey. "Hughes Crime Family" gets 0 google hits. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly-written hoax article.  (aeropagitica)  07:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mafia per Dbtfz after deleting the current content. No reason why a hoax should be retained in the history of a redirect. Mgm|(talk) 11:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to organized crime or something similar. Bobby1011 15:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete {{db-attack}}, {{hoax}}. One of the two is correct. Avi 17:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Lake[edit]

  • Delete: Appears to be a hoax. I know - it's a lake --- but it still appears to be a hoax. Google searches on the lake show nothing. Google searches on most or all of the towns mentioned show nothing. Google searches on the fish hatchery and the book mentioned in the talk page - all show nothing. Two anon's assert its existence though so I brought it here instead of prod. The article mentions a 3-mile long bridge on I-95 and the talk page mentions I-95 mile marker 105. But here and here show pictures of Exits 102 (bottom, far left) and 105 (right of center) in N.C. ---- I see no lake and I see no hint of a 3-mile long bridge or a need for one. This lake is supposed to be over 25 square miles which would take up the entire TerraServer page mentined above! I can't imagine the purpose of the hoax or what mix up there could be but I do not see a lake. To make matters more strange, the original anon's IP address is registered to the government of Frederick County, Maryland! Making a hoax about a fictional lake 300 or 400 miles away! —Wknight94 (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete this weird, entertaining hoax as non-verifiable. "McBratney", 0 Google hits for town name. Same with Briehl, Shawmut, Shawnville, and Kathleen Lake. Neither lake nor those towns show up on printed AAA road atlas. "North Carolina Experimental Fish Hatchery", 0 Google hits. "Kimberly Kathleen Foster", 0 Google hits. "Foster's baby boy lived to become lieutenant governor of North Carolina in 1891"..... as it happens, the lieutenant governorship of NC was occupied by Thomas M. Holt, then vacant, in 1891. --Lockley 03:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm not even sure what the purpose would be. Is it funny somehow? Does a gov't computer's involvement mean it's somehow more sinister? Some crooked politician selling fake property on a fictional lake? I don't get it. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Lockley. Pretty thorough research on both accounts! I find nothing myself either... it makes zero sense. --Kinu 04:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wknight94 and Lockley. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 05:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable. I don't quite see how this is supposed to be funny.  (aeropagitica)  07:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Straaaaaaaange! I feel like saving it just so we can find out how this came to be. Could it be in a work of fiction, somewhere? Grandmasterka 08:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Done and done. Another thing, the anon on the talk page mentioned his brother driving for "Libbey Washington Birthing Gowns". I can't find any sources for that either! I think we're either being laughed at or someone has some schizophrenia issues. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Points of Issue:
    • 1. Where is *Brideham Lake* and *Brindle*? Apparently, Brideham Lake is next in line in size after Kathleen. I can't find Brideham Lake anywhere in my NC Atlas and Gazetteer.
    • 2. If Kathleen Lake is home to one of the biggest fishing derbies in the south, why does a Google search on "fishing derby" "Kathleen Lake" return bubkis?
    • 3. Call me crazy, but I don't think *Kimberly* was a fashionable name for a woman who was likely born in the 1830s or 1840s. Does anyone know of any references to Kimberlys from that time period? It seems to me that the name Kimberly is a child of the latter half of the twentieth century, rather than antebellum times!
    • 4. If the Union soldiers beat Kimberly to death as she gave birth, who delivered the baby? This article makes it sound like the baby just popped out on its own and ran off to Raleigh to run for office (which was apparently vacant in 1891!) You beat up a pregnant woman and there's a pretty decent chance you kill the baby along the way.
    • 5. What is a "mosquito density" test? Do they weigh mosquitoes or something? That line sounds Monty Python-esque.
    • 6. A 3-mile bridge span costs way more than $65 million.
    • 7. An artery as important as I-95 would never be allowed to be breached until 2010. If this bridge couldn't support truck traffic, NCDOT would be replacing it as we speak. What, do we flag down trucks in the middle of nowhere and have them exit before crossing the bridge? The Wilson Bridge in DC hasn't even taken that long!
    • 8. If I-95 was built in the 1960s, but the lake was extended in the 1970s, how did they extend the lake? Did they dig under I-95?!
    • 9. These people that are "fishing" in Kathleen Lake...hmm, I guess they live on oceanfront property in West Virginia.
    • 10. This whole thing reminds me of an episode of Family Guy when the other fisherman play a prank on Peter Griffin and tell him to go to some longitude and latitude supposedly in the Atlantic Ocean - but it turns out to be at the middle of a temple where a Jewish kid's having a bar mitzvah. "Yeah, there's some great fishing in the middle of I-95!"
      • It's a fascinating article, and an interesting scavenger hunt, but it doesn't seem to belong here. I'd love to know why the original writer created this article - it seems like it has some significance. Does Ricki Lake have a sister named Kathleen? ~~LynnW
  • Strong delete hoax. By the way, the LG for NC in 1891 was not named Foster but Holt [5]. Sheesh. Avi 17:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I live near Bethany, North Carolina and have traveled the entire length (180 miles) of I-95 in North Carolina and as far as I can remember, there are no lake crossings of this size. This would be an even bigger crossing than I-85 over Falls Lake, NC, so it would be noticeable to say the least. Now I do believe there is a Kathleen (or Katherine, or something similar) Lake in the neighborhood of I-95, but it is far smaller than 26 square miles, and I believe it's close to Lumberton, North Carolina, which would be about 90 miles south of the purported Kathleen Lake in this article. 67.35.30.80 03:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yassmin Alers[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable stage actress. Has a few credits at ibdb.com but lots of others I've found with similar credentials don't have articles either. WP:BIO doesn't mention anything about stage-only actors and they don't register as notable in my mind anyway. The one list there is:
    • Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
    • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
    • An independent biography
    • Name recognition
    • Commercial endorsements

I don't see where any of these apply for this actress. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Royal Blue T/C 03:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite the internet culture, theatre and Broadway still count for something. Furthermore, I'm offended by a blanket statement dismissing stage actors as non-notable. Ms. Alers has been in a number of major Broadway shows. This article needs some expansion and clean up- not removal and condescension. -- JJay 03:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: To me, actors who never get into imdb.com are like baseball players that never make the Major Leagues. WP:BIO seems to support that as well. Doesn't make them bad people - just unencyclopedic. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I understood what you meant when you wrote "stage-only actors...don't register as notable in my mind". Let me be clear, in my opinion if the Bio page does not address the stage then it should be revised if not completely trashed. I would certainly not use it as any kind of yardstick for judging the achievements of Ms. Alers. That is my opinion. I would ask that you do not use the word unencyclopedic as an assertion of fact when you are really just stating your opinion. -- JJay 04:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Commment: It's a given that everything here is opinion. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's also a given that we treat the subjects of these articles and their chosen profession with a certain amount of respect. -- JJay 04:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Saying someone is unencyclopedic is a show of disrespect? I don't remember reading that in the Afd guidelines. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your nom dismissed an entire profession as "non notable". You then compounded it in your second comment. That is your opinion, but it would seem to make you poorly placed to judge a theatre person's accomplishments. -- JJay 04:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • So if there was an article here for a janitor and I brought it here for that reason, that means I have no respect for janitors?! Come on... If WP:BIO said "all stage-only actors are in", I wouldn't be typing this now. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wp:Bio is a set of extremely inadequate guidelines. It does not address the stage and it does not address janitors. Based on your own statements, you have very little regard for stage actors. Your nom has neither examined Ms. Alers' standing within the theatrical profession, nor explained why an actress who has appeared in a number of Broadway shows- the major leagues of her profession- should not have an article here. -- JJay 05:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Again, you're equating my saying something is non-notable to me having little regard for that thing. My mother isn't sufficiently notable for Wikipedia - that doesn't mean I have little regard for her. You seem to have little regard for the WP:BIO guidelines which I think is more germaine to this argument. Here's a reason she shouldn't have an article. All these people have as many or more credits listed at IBDB.com and are red links: Stephen Lee Anderson, René Ceballos, Gilles Chiasson, Aiko Nakasone, Jarrod Emick. Every similar person I found who did have an article also had numerous television and/or movie credits. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All that shows is that very few people write articles on stage actors. We have a similar lack of articles on child actors for which very few would argue their notability. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm going further and saying no one writes articles on stage-only actors. I didn't find a single counterexample except this one. I stopped after five examples out of boredom. With Wikipedia now having been around this long with this many contributors and this many articles, I think that shows a clear pattern. Even if someone starts writing articles about stage-only actors, it doesn't sound like they should start here. All but one of my examples above have IMDB credits so they're more deserving of articles first. There's more chance that the billions of people outside of New York City may have seen or heard of them - that's just a fact, not disrespect. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've been very clear about my opinion of the guidelines. The use of the qualifier seem is not required. In the same way you have been very clear in stating that you do not believe that stage actors deserve inclusion here. I have disagreed. Ms. Alers has been in the casts of a number of Broadway shows. I have confirmed Rent and Capeman. That is good enough for me. There is no point in debating this further. -- JJay 05:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Being an understudy is good enough? --Calton | Talk 07:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • In some ways I would argue it is better. She was an understudy with the original cast of Rent, which means she played almost all the female roles at one time or another in front of a live audience. She then had a marquee role with the first touring company. She was also in the original cast of the Paul Simon show Capeman. Those are the only two I tried to confirm but there may be more based on the list on her website. -- JJay 08:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Of course stage-only actors can be suitible Wikipedia topics! But I'm not sure that this lady is well-known enough because I don't have enough of an interest in the genre to really judge. If she had a major part in the original production of Rent rather than being an understudy, perhaps-- but then she did have what I assume was a major part ("Mimi") in the touring production. And she is verifiable. Crypticfirefly 05:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 05:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of course stage actors, lack of film/TV credits notwithstanding, are well-suited to have articles. Being an UNDERSTUDY on a Broadway show: not so much. --Calton | Talk 07:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Calton. Of course stage actors don't appear in the IMDB, they don't have tv and movie credits. That doesn't mean they are inherently non-notable, though. On the other hand, being an understudy/ensemble member without any major roles is a good reason to delete. Mgm|(talk) 11:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Crypticfirefly Siva1979Talk to me 12:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete She has Stage, TV, and Band credits. Yassmin Alers Not famous in any area, though. FloNight 12:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep somewhat notable. There is an under-representation of theater on Wikipedia. I wouldn't want to compound the problem. Bobby1011 15:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just having a job (actress) does not make one encyclopedic. If she starts getting major roles and attracting lots of attention as an actress, that's another story, but I don't see that this happened yet. Friday (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This AfD is just a display of aggressive ignorance; asserting that stage performances alone cannot provide notability is astonishingly foolish. Alers' Broadway credits are certainly substantive, if not stellar, as shown in the IBDB; a comparable entry in the IMDB would with next to no dispute satisfy the Wikipedia notability requirement. (A "swing" performer is not an understudy, as several of the comments here dismissively suggest, but one who is prepared for most if not all of the relevant non-lead roles in the program, and appears fairly regularly as a substitute performer.) Wikipedia has scores of entries for women who perform on stages with poles [6], particularly women who have had attention-grabbing (if not outright deforming) cosmetic surgery and perform on stages with poles [7]. There is something creepy about the way so many editors believe that being an open participant in the commercial sex trade is inherently notable, while being an above-average working artist is not. (The average New York City actor never appears in original cast of a major Broadway production in any capacity, as Alers did in The Capeman.) Monicasdude 16:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Monicasdude, while I agree with you that many of the women notorious for their plastic surgery and complete disregard for the use of various undergarments should not have articles either, that is no excuse for having this one. Why don't you nominate those other "dancers" for deletion as well? -- Avi 18:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's an exercise in futility; the community seems to have a settled position on this point. [8], [9], [10], and, on the male side, [11]. With the notability bar set that low, there shouldn't be any question here. Monicasdude 19:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "Astonishingly foolish". Let's try to be civil please. Wikipedia has a million articles or so and almost none of them are stage-only actors so I guess that's a lot of astonishingly foolish people. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wknight94's peculiar standards notwithstanding, the answer to the lack representation of notable stage-only or mainly theater actors (not an oxymoron -- the TV/film industry isn't the end-all and be-all of acting notability) is NOT to lower the bar to pad out Wikipedia's coverage, but find and include the headliners who aren't represented, the likes of, off the top of my head, Kristin Chenoweth, Cherry Jones, Sara Ramirez, and Sarah Jones (who all, checking the "Show preview" button, have articles). Lots of red links, though, on the various Tony Awards pages -- actors and actresses whose names actually appear on the marquee and not in the back of the Playbill. Wikipedia's coverage of porn "stars" is ridiculous, but two wrongs don't make a right. --Calton | Talk 01:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good points, but can we please lose the "stage-only" bit from the discussion? The proper term is stage actor, theatre actor, or thespian. "Stage-only" is a further slur against an art that not too long ago was the only game in town.-- JJay 02:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don't see how we can. It's 2006 and whether a person has television/movie experience is a totally relevant criteria. Calton seems to have found in Sarah Jones the only other person with IBDB credits and no IMDB credits that has an article on Wikipedia. If that standard is so peculiar, then why isn't anyone here adding similar articles? If I can somehow drag this discussion back to the original article here, there appears to be dozens or hundreds of actors that are in IBDB and not in IMDB that would be more notable than Yassmin Alers but don't have articles here. How can that not be relevant? It's like making a list of all notable American cities and starting with Palisade, Nebraska --- and then giving up after that one. If I saw that, I'd guess the list wasn't too impressive to begin with. (Okay, now many people from Palisade have I offended?) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't give up, do you? I said above there was no point in debating this anymore. I merely mentioned a point of semantics. "Stage-only" does not exist. It is a term that you have invented. -- JJay 03:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Call the phenomenon whatever you want. Until I see all the thespian fans here adding dozens of articles that fit the same criteria, I'll call it "un-notable". —Wknight94 (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm dubious about the accuracy of this article. It says that she has "appeared in many commercials nationwide, and can be found in many movies and television shows." I only see one TV credit and she has no IMDB entry. But she did do a national tour and does get a lot of google hits. However she doesn't appear to have the bona fides of a notable broadway actress just yet. So I'm stuck in neutral on this one. :) — RJH 16:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable Broadway actress and roles make her notable enough for me. It seems we have work to do on our coverage of theatre as opposed to other forms of entertainment. Capitalistroadster 17:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While stage actors are no less notable than film actors, a perusal of her resume on her own site demonstrates that she has always been an understudy, in the ensemble, or had some other unnamed part. She may be a wonderful actress in that role, but that is not inherently notable. Avi 18:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep' please a notable and verified broadway actress Yuckfoo 19:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've never so many people complain about the coverage of an entire subject - but do nothing to actually increase the coverage of that subject! If there were a hundred other similar articles, I'd think it was a standard and leave it alone - but no. Instead, we just leave this one article drifting out on its own and then call me "astonishingly foolish" when I start playing "one of these things is not like the others..." No one knows how to create new articles on this vaunted genre? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So let's make this the first of the hundred. A single article is how all genres start. Turnstep 14:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep HasNoClue 19:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepJcuk 23:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable, has had important roles. Also, recommend that JJay bring the discussion of criteria for inclusion of stage actors to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 06:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Very good suggestion. Then we can avoid the serious wounding that has apparently occurred here. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a strong public notability, but certainly notable in her field, which is as always the important criteria. Turnstep 14:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Others here seem to disagree even with her notability within the field... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: subject is weakly notable but is minimally notable. Mangojuice 22:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I absolutely agree that a stage career can make you notable. "Swing/Understudy" in "Rent" though? Check her out here and you find a professional jobbing actress, no doubt talented and hardworking, but not yet doing anything that justifies an entry in an encyclopedia. While I'm here, though, I endorse AdelaMae and Wkinght94's suggetion, above, to bring this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). AndyJones 11:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we should discuss this on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Stage actors: I'm going to start the discussion there with a proposal: I don't think we need "votes" to start a discussion. Mangojuice 13:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though barely. The arguement we should exclude stage-only actors is utterly absurd. The nominator has confused bias with policy. We don't have articles on many communities in certain parts of the world, that doesn't mean its policy to exclude them. It means we lack Wikipedians with an interest to do so. Wikipedia should strive to cover more then just pop culture. One should never confuse "notable" with "stuff I care about" or "stuff everybody already knows". --Rob 14:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "Utterly absurd" is awfully strong considering this many die-hard stage fans have been around Wikipedia for this long and almost zero such articles have been added. That sounds a lot more like "stuff no one cares about". We have teenage college debate competition runner-up's covered like a thick blanket but these "thespians" have been ignored here for years. For about the fourth time, I'll say put your money where your mouth is - spend less time attacking me and more time pumping out some articles on people whose notability is apparently obvious to everyone but me. And BTW, don't say "stage-only" for Godsake or someone here will blow a gasket! They choose to never get widespread media coverage or fame. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why should I spend "...more time pumping out some articles on people whose notability is apparently obvious to everyone...", when you wish to delete those very articles. The fact we've undercovered stage-only actors is all the more reason to have more articles on stage-only actors. Also, I'm going to call your bluff here. Please cite some examples of people who's sole claim to fame is being a "college debate competition runner-up", that have articles. I suspect every such article has been speedy deleted a long time ago. --Rob 17:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wouldn't delete those articles if there were more of them. I'm going by precedent here - and by the fact that WP:BIO's guidelines seem to come nowhere near including this person - so I don't understand why everyone else is saying it's so obvious that this career choice is notable. The college debating comment was in reference to Erik Eastaugh whose Afd also has a lot of people saying he should obviously be kept. (I voted delete there on a different precedent that more notable competitions - like Speeling Bees that I've even seen on TV - get nowhere near as much coverage here). He's linked from at least one article that seems to link to a bunch of other college-level debaters. Regardless, my point is when you start adding a new category of info, you start at the top ---- otherwise it looks like cheesy vanity to the outside world. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. per Crypticfirefly. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personality of Superman[edit]

Listed at copyright problems, not a copyvio (the other site copied from Wikipedia). However, it's clear original research; see WP:NOR. Delete. Chick Bowen 03:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Royal Blue T/C 03:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:NOR ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless heavily sourced from reputable sources. (NOR) Mgm|(talk) 11:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too much effort for something that must simply be deleted. Bobby1011 15:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 18:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCDe✉ 05:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Karmafist 02:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)tally on talk page[reply]

Kitchen distribution[edit]

Poorly written and un-wikified, one of three edits by IP address 24.51.38.241. Google search for ""kitchen distribution" buffalo" produces 120 results. Delete. Joel7687 08:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like it is an ad or similar. Bjelleklang - talk 08:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert or review of nn local business. MCB 18:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ad complete with directions. Devotchka 00:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Recreated 8 Feb 2006 - Delete again Still (again?) poorly written and pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.145.168 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy G4. Royal Blue T/C 03:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per prior AfD Ruby 03:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above Fan 04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per WP:SNOW and because we really do not need political diatribes from problem users in the main space Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean safe nuclear energy[edit]

Delete. Four words in an SOTU is not something to title an article on. Will duplicate material covered elsewhere. Article created by User:Benjamin Gatti to "Document Bush's propaganda", so little chance of NPOV treatment. --Robert Merkel 04:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • These specific four words can be traced to the NEI - a Lobbying organization, and have been previously ruled to be false and misleading advertising. The President choose these four words to sell the public on an adjudicated lie. Deserves to be documented individually. Benjamin Gatti 04:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, NPOV issues, WP:NOR. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article would fit right in on Err America Radio Ruby 04:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The claims made above are misleading. The use of the phrase dates back at least as far as 1988, when it was used by George H. W. Bush during the Presidental debates, according to this PBS transcript. No evidence has been adduced, thus far, for the NEI's coinage of the phrase at so early a date. The decision made by the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus in 1998 (the "adjuticating" body referred to above) speaks generally to the juxtaposition of "clean" and "nuclear power"; this specific phrase does not appear in any of the coverage of the decision (I cannot find a copy of the decision itself). Having researched all this since the article (which I originally proposed for deletion with Template:Prod) was moved to AfD, I stand by my original assesment: the article is NPOV and of little value, and none of its contents merit an article separate from nuclear power. Choess 04:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you meant "POV", above. --Calton | Talk 07:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherent POV. Blnguyen 04:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see any potential for an NPOV article out of this. pstudier 05:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV article. --Terence Ong 05:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hopelessly POV. Georgewilliamherbert 05:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of course. —wwoods 06:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An obvious propaganda vehicle by User:Benjamin Gatti, and arguably a violation of his week-old Arbcom case. --Calton | Talk 07:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NPOV violation. Political comment rather than encyclopaedic.  (aeropagitica)  07:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV propaganda with no redeeming content --DV8 2XL 09:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , User:Benjamin Gatti still thinks Wikipedia is the place where yelling his own POV. --Cyclopia 10:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Calton, and see this also. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and maybe inform some sysops about Gatti's breaking of his ArbCom case terms. Batmanand 13:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as both POV and redundant (nuclear power covers health risks and politics already).
  • Delete concur with hopelessly POV. Inaccuracy doesn't help. Simesa 14:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with something like Bushism or whatever. Failing that, Delete. Bobby1011 15:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV by nature with no hope of a NPOV version... I did learn something though: Carter was a Nuclear Engineer; and here I thought he just grew peanuts.--Isotope23 17:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page has to go ! It is a dire assault upon my senses with its POV (I think that the text is so bad that the only way to deal with such a page is to get rid of it and start again, much of it is either POV which has no place here or is already present somewhere else.). The idea of how clean nuclear power is (or is not) should be subject to a rational and sensible debate not this soapbox treatment.Cadmium 17:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G5, A6 (article serves to attack its subject, which is "clean, safe nuclear energy". Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopædic, WP:NPOV, Avi 18:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malakora[edit]

Seems like a hoax article to me. -Mikereichold 23:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was improperly listed for AFD, listing now, no vote. --lightdarkness (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. Reliable sources list Vatican City as the smallest country in the world. —ERcheck @ 04:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Royal Blue T/C 04:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ERcheck Ruby 04:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, per ERcheck. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Blnguyen 04:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. -- Wikipedical 05:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. --Terence Ong 05:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. -- Mithent 15:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable, possibly fictional micronation. Bobby1011 15:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete We should have a speedy category for this too. {{nonsense}} sounds good Avi 18:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kamyar Cyrus Habib[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable bio. Only possible notability is being a Rhodes Scholar and apparently being blind. Few hits on Google. Seems like he's just the most popular kid on campus. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencylopedic. Royal Blue T/C 04:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 04:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom... vanity? -- Wikipedical 05:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Mr. Vernon 07:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 07:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Siva1979Talk to me 12:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Bobby1011 15:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. Being a Rhodes Scholar is in and of itself notable. Being a blind Rhodes Scholar from Iran, written up in the New York Times as an example of the sort of recipient who contradicts Rhodes' goal of recognizing a new white/Anglo aristocracy, and whose work as a disability rights activist has been recognized, is certainly notable. [12] It's worth noting that Playboy Playmates are generally regarded as notable, even though their principal social role is to serve as masturbatory objects for adolescents and sexually frustrated males, and their career paths typically involve, at peak, promotional appearances at auto and boat shows, as well as appearances in exploitation films and softcore and occasionally hardcore pornographic projects, as well as work for more expensive "escort services" and "gentleman's clubs." While this almost unblemished record of achievements apparently towers over the records of achievements by Rhodes Scholars, as shown here, [13] , the notability of Rhodes scholars should not be so casually dismissed as the editors here do. Monicasdude 16:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is a notability discussion, not a morality discussion. And, for the record, your "...written up in the New York Times..." is actually the following sentence fragment in a 2002 article about a different handicapped Rhodes Scholar: Among the other winners announced today are Kamyar Cyrus Habib, a Columbia University student from Kirkland, Wash., who is a black belt in karate, a downhill skier and a published photographer — as well as blind;... [14]. The other things you mentioned were not in the NY Times. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Userfy. Not notable yet. Avi 18:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sayeeda Warsi[edit]

A failed election candidate (lost easily 41% to 29%), who also has had a few public servant jobs, none of them as notable bureaucrat leaders. Blnguyen 04:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Notable enough, "first Muslim woman to be selected..." This page of course needs added material, but otherwise she seems notable enough as a valid entry. -- Wikipedical 05:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedical. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedical Mgm|(talk) 11:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedical. Siva1979Talk to me 12:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's not often that the conservatives in Britain elect a muslim person. Bobby1011 15:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per wikipedical Yuckfoo 19:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, some of the public service jobs sound pretty significant.Bjones 19:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep/merge. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Close[edit]

Does not really assert notability. Delete. (I would have speedy deleted it if I were completely sure that it's not notable.) --Nlu (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Just because a page has little content does not mean it should be deleted. After assessing its website, I find StayClose to be a relevant organization. Its Wikipedia page needs added content, not to be deleted. -- Wikipedical 05:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, the notable organization that is behind the campaign. I don't see any reason for the campaign to have its own article, esp. when the PFLAG article is little more than a stub. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm amazed the PFLAG article is so brief. Hrm. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Bobby1011 15:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to PFLAG. Seems more of a campaign than a separate organization. Turnstep 14:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karmøy Unge høyre[edit]

Untranslated at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for two weeks. Discussion from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 05:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish? No idea what it's about! Tonywalton  | Talk 13:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not Swedish - it's Norwegian. It's about the Karmøy branch of a political group (party?) called Rogaland Unge Høyres, which I think means 'Rogaland Young Rights' (Right vs Left, not rights vs duties). I may have Unge wrong though - I wonder if it might not be 'New Rights' (like German 'Jungendstil' for 'Art Nouveau'.
It says KUH is the third largest branch of RUH, and lists its officers. Probably not notable on its own, but should maybe form part of a RUH article, ColinFine 13:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's in Norwegian, and about the local chapter of Unge Høyre ("Young right", not 'new'), the youth organization of Høyre. It's basically a short blurb on how they're the largest political youth organization in north Rogeland (see? you can always be the best with enough qualifiers!) who are fighting for diversity and equality, and then a list of the board members. Given that the Unge Høyre doesn't have an article (just a single paragraph in the one for Høyre), I don't think this warrants its own page. It's vanity. --BluePlatypus 02:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Untranslated after the required period. eople with a better knowledge have told us above that if it was in English, it wouldn't meet our notability standards. Capitalistroadster 05:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --Kinu 06:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. I can read it and verify that it's not noteable at all. Amphis 07:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all these people who speak Norwegian (OK, so it's not Swedish!) Tonywalton  | Talk 11:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable whatsoever. Norwegian language riddled with spelling errors. Punkmorten 17:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 18:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if it was worthwhile someone would have translated it by now. Stifle 23:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cercanías Madrid lines[edit]

Delete un-needed sub-article of Cercanías Madrid, content is already in main article Aaronw 05:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't even work out what they're talking about. City lines? Bobby1011 15:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless anyone has anything to actually write about the lines. -- Mithent 23:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete, cc to BJAODN. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sitting U.S. Vice Presidents who have shot people[edit]

This was originally speedy deleted by Bbatsell, but several editors asked for it to be undeleted so they could see it and BJAODN it. Also, there can be a bit of encylopedic merit on the article, if it is cleaned up. By the way, I don't mind if it is speedy deleted again. No vote. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • BJAODN the fake bits, not sure how much value there would be in the rest of the list. --AySz88^-^ 05:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whichever idiot came up with that page should be beaten with a bunch of bannanas. And then forced to listen to Glen Stephani spelling "bannana". A.J.A. 06:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol. BJAODN the whole thing and award Tito a pat on the back for a worthwhile rescue. ENCEPHALON 06:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are only two VPs to have shot someone and it would be nice to have a page to discuss the events. Especially considering the Hamilton duel is an often cited American example of courage and honor. Remove the false stuff. Arbustoo 07:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They may cite it that way now that Cheney shot someone, to make him look bad in comparison, but I always remember the story of the duel being viewed negatively. The pride of two men leading to the death of a Cabinet member. It was romanticized to the extent that duelling is often romanticized, but mostly I think it was seen as tragic or discgraceful.--T. Anthony 10:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN --Terence Ong 08:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha ha haaaa!!! BJAODN this, it might be another 200 years before a third person qualifies for the list. Grandmasterka 08:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJADON MLA 09:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJADON; Arbustoo, Hamilton-Burr duel already has more than enough on this. Melchoir 10:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN- buahahaha! Reyk 10:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN Anyway, there is nothing in the article to indicate that either of the two men were sitting down at the time of the shooting. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as encyclopedic, notable, expandable in the event of further gun-related unpleasantness, verifiable, and ... other stuff. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless there are other less known examples that can be added. (I could believe Calhoun shot someone, but I don't know he ever did so)--T. Anthony 11:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite Notable events, but 2 entries don't make a good list. Mgm|(talk) 11:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And rename: Shooting incidents involving United States vice presidents? = Mgm|(talk) 11:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite Siva1979Talk to me 12:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN, isnt worth having a list with only two examples. already mentioned at Vice President of the United States -- Astrokey44|talk 14:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • BJOADN Comment I think that the size of the list is a strong contributor to the joke's value. MLA 15:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN, although the J and D are all that really apply, as it was funny, clever (althought entirely unencyclopedic), and not nonsense. youngamerican (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Entertaining, but not really the sort of thing most people would need a reference for.--Elkman 17:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN until a 3rd VP shoots someone. Then you'd have a list! It made me laugh though.--Isotope23 17:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • bjaodn this for now please unless there is third one Yuckfoo 19:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two categories for this "information" are already listed on CfD. This "list" isn't any better. Pavel Vozenilek 19:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep HasNoClue 19:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 21:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of course; the similar categories (now up to 3 of them) are up for deletion as well. Carlossuarez46 22:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a BJAODN, obviously. Stifle 23:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: The tragedy is this article is a sympton of how Americans care more about what their political leaders do as private citizens/celebrities than they do about how they do their jobs. If not delete, the sensible thing would be merge with a trivia section under Vice President of the United States. Peter Grey 04:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This does not qualify as a speedy delete. Wikipedia has specific rules about that. Turnstep 14:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article, and the categories. Turnstep 14:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN Well, I found it amusing at least... I thought it was gonna be partisan junk but it's clearly intended as pure humor. --W.marsh 15:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article, merge anything useful to Vice Presidents .... Perhaps there was something funny in earlier edits, but now its only two entries (useless as a list). --William Allen Simpson 07:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The funny edit was this one, for future reference. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Humour is so difficult to categorise - I strongly disagree with Tito's comment and think that it's the two entries version that has comedy value. MLA 09:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We could BJAODN both versions, I guess. Melchoir 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • So long as we don't BJADON the newly expanded version which wouldn't qualify under the J. MLA 10:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make into category and delete.Septentrionalis 04:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too little real material to make into either a list or a category. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 11:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak Keep - who cares?- Puss'nPurpleBoots 19:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC) - Puss'nPurpleBoots 00:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I expanded the article.
  • Are these events notable in and of themselves?
  • Well, the Burr-Hamilton incident happened 202 years ago, and it is still being talked about today. So, I would say that is a big yes.
Under what circumstances would this topic come up for discussion? I wouldn't even try to guess.-Puss'nPurpleBoots 22:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wikipedia has an article on Dan Quayle's famous misspelling -- potatoe. Is that more important than Cheney shooting a guy, and then delaying the arrival of the Police long enough that his blood alcohol level would have returned to normal if he had been drinking?
  • Various other contributors have argued here that there shouldn't be a list because only two VPOTUS have shot people. Actually though these are the only VPOTUS shooting incidents that are well known. I have an open mind as to the possibility that there were other incidents which aren't well known. I am sure I am not the only one who wonders how many known incidents there have been. The proper place for that info is not the Dick Cheney article or the Aaron Burr article. -- Geo Swan 20:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to make a point for keeping this article or are you soliciting information?-Puss'nPurpleBoots 22:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) I think the article should be kept. (2) I would like to know if there were more than the two incidents. -- Geo Swan 15:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I have a brilliant idea! I'll start a List of U.S. Republican Presidents named "George Bush". Sure, there are only two entries, but maybe someday there will be more! And maybe there have been Bushes in the past that I don't know about! Melchoir 22:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that is a brilliant idea. I think it is a disrespectful attempt at sarcastic mockery. Did you even read my rewrite of the article? I did you the courtesy to take your contributions seriously. I strongly urge you to show the same courtesy to other wikipedia contributors.
  • The question of whether other sitting VPOTUS shot people is not a ridiculous one. Duelling used to be popular. Lincoln was the first POTUS to have a security detail. It is quite possible that earlier VPOTUS engaged in duels that weren't publicized, maybe because no one died. Most duels were not fatal. -- Geo Swan 15:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it was funny in earlier versions, its not now. Too boring and unnotable to keep. Can be re-created if and when US VPs start shooting people regularly, which may not be as far off as we think. Herostratus 17:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best Friends...Different Personalities[edit]

Complete nonesense and a hoax. Airing on Disney in 2008? Google picks up no matches. Vulturell 06:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Vulturell 06:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yes, I'm sure that a show that won't air until 2008 already has a time slot... *rolls eyes*. --Kinu 06:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a crystal ball.  (aeropagitica)  07:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. I'm also sure they don't shoot a show to air in 2008 two years in advance. Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it is verified. Bobby1011 15:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 21:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wild and implausible speculation. -- Mithent 23:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though it is amusing User:Coinman


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. android79 15:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Elite Roleplaying Awards[edit]

This seems to be a non-notable list of roleplaying awards (within one group) that consists mainly of questionable copyright images. No at all encyclopedic. --Martyman-(talk) 06:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-encyclopaedic vanity violation.  (aeropagitica)  07:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, now images are gone there's even less there. -- Mithent 15:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by MacGyverMagic, csd g1 (patent nonsense). - Bobet 12:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sudha[edit]

Obviously not a legitimate entry. What is this article talking about? JackO'Lantern 06:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trigamy[edit]

Unsigned band, dead website, article is trash. Zambaretzu 06:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable, WP:MUSIC-failing, and WP:VSCA-ousness. Same goes for the vanity "mad f0t0sh0p p1cz0r" of themselves. --Kinu 07:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{db-band}} candidate. WP:Music violation - no albums, singles or notable members. One demo does not a notable career make.  (aeropagitica)  07:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, tagged as {{db-band}}, and article image tagged as lacking licensing info. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thaloc (mythology)[edit]

Looks like a hoax. No online information on the critter that is not copied from Wikipedia, and no apparent offline sources either: I got here from this discussion. Amphis 07:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete [15] seems to indicate "Thaloc" was an aztec temple. Tool (band) makes a vague reference to "Thaloc teardrops" on there page in reference to a trip to aztec ruins. This use of the word does seem to be made-up. I know some off-the-beaten-path subjects are hard to find on the net, but we need some sources to prove it's validity. Otherwise, it's a wiki-hoax on the 10 different mirror sites I found. ---J.Smith 07:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a mispelling of Tlaloc--Mr Fink 16:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - deliberate hoax, very minor occult reference (some individual occult groups have very personal views about their favorite mythologies) or fiction masquerading as real-world mythology. Unverifiable at the very least - Skysmith 12:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverified -- Astrokey44|talk 14:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a hoax, I've never heard of the "thaloc" until today, and I've never seen any Egyptian art featuring foxes, let alone foxes with wings. That, and Egyptian mythology, pardon, "religious superstition," never mentions angels or devils. --Mr Fink 16:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The letter 'c' is seldom used in either current standard or E. Wallis Budge's transcriptions from ancient Egyptian. Suspect it may be misspelled for Tlaloc also. Smerdis of Tlön 16:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 21:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tlaloc is an Aztec god, but this article isn't about Tlaloc - it's about a nonexistent Egyptian god. "Thalocian", in particular, has zero Google hits that aren't Wiki mirrors. Zetawoof 23:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it sounds more than a little Mary Sueish, in my opinion. And general consensus seems to be that no one's heard of this thing before. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 01:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was after discounting sockpuppet votes, no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjutsu (Naruto)[edit]

A massive, wholly unencyclopedic list of every single jutsu from a long-running anime/manga series, complete with overspecific descriptions and an utter lack of context. While Naruto is notable, this list of every single jutsu from the series is pure listcruft. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote I can't get worked up over this, but check out the rest of {{Naruto info}}. Melchoir 10:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep perhaps it could be edited down and sorted to resemble List of Pokémon attacks (which sorts attacks rather than just giving their type within the entry). Needs serious cutting, though. Mgm|(talk) 11:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mgm. Siva1979Talk to me 12:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I may not find it interesting, but someone who wasted about four hours of his life on it must think differently. Bobby1011 15:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft... "wasted" is right.--Isotope23 17:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete with extreme prejudice. I have no idea why this is encyclopedic. "verbose" might be a more apt term. aa v ^ 21:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NG, vancarlimospacecraft Avi 21:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mgm. WriterFromAfar755 23:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Avi. Stifle 23:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Avi, and suggest that the author try Geocities Ergot 00:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I hope that this doesn't come off as too defensive or hostile. To those who think it's not encyclopedic, what makes it not so (besides being very long and fictional)? I (and probably most other frequent Naruto editors) realize that there's a problem with article length, but nobody has a good, efficient solution other than splitting up the pages. --Pentasyllabic 00:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'm very new to Wikipedia, but I've read through the guidelines for deletion and I don't see anything that applies... could someone explain the issue here? What is 'listcruft'? What makes self-acknowledged list like that in Baby_of_the_House acceptable and this one not? I'm not a Naruto maniac, and I found this (via Google) while I was trying to make head or tail of it... i.e. it was somewhat useful and also as noted clearly represents a lot of work. Why does it need to go?
  • KEEPKEEPKEEP Why should anyone delete this?! This is a TON of EXTREMELY useful information in regards to Naruto! It's just plainly unfair to tear it down after so much work has obviously been put into it!
  • Strong Keep It may need a bit of organization, but that doesn't justify deleting the whole thing. A ton of work was put into this, and you want to destroy it seemingly because you don't care. SA9097
  • Strong Keep I'm currently working on reorganising. Besides, I think it's very useful for those interested in Naruto. --JadziaLover 11:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Information worthy of being kept, as part of Wikipedia being a resource for people trying to learn more about popular culture. ~GMH talk to me 16:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I might be willing to go along with those saying it's listcruft if there were a Wiki resource for anime similar to what Memory-Alpha.org does for Star Trek, but there isn't that I've seen. Plus I have found this article useful when trying to refresh my memory on what occured in remote backissues of the manga, and having it here was much better than having it at an ad-laden, inefficiently designed website like NarutoFan. Plus it exemplifies one of Wikipedia's strengths: a traditional encyclopedia would have a very weak main article on Naruto, if any at all. Articles like this strengthen Wikipedia's position as a reference of note for popular culture. Istewart 01:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's really informative if you are a fan of the series, and you will not find all this information compiled in this way elsewhere on the Internet. It also explains the translated names of all the Jutsus, wich is really interesting. I see no pourpose of deleting this. Mark the Echidna 15:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP What's the freakin point scrubbin' the list of the techniques?! Just now I'm using reference from this to make techniques of my own (like, inspiring it from them or taking their Kanji symbols). If this is gone, all the signs will point at you Man in Black... You should consider looking at the Naruto characters page! Datavi X 12:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - Great information for those interested in this subject! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.45.141.63 (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. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thaloc[edit]

It's a "disambiguation page" linking to one other article, and that article looks like a hoax. See the AfD page for Thaloc (mythology) [16]. Amphis 07:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This looks like a hoax that's been spreading around wikis. G-search reveals almost only wiki-mirrors. ---J.Smith 07:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Seems like a word/name used by a few people for various things, but I can't substantiate its meaning. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. I can't believe I worked on this disambiguation page. I should've known that first entry was a hoax. - Mgm|(talk) 11:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable Bobby1011 15:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:V. Ikkyu2 20:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 21:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my vote on Thaloc (mythology). Zetawoof 23:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 03:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Freedom Coalition[edit]

Unnotable group. A google search for "American Freedom Coalition" brings 950 hits, including Wikipedia articles. It contains only one source discussing the the groups view on communism. If this is a large group of like minded people, it isn't asserted in the article or on google. Any relevant data should be merged with Robert Grant, the rest of the unsourced should be deleted. Arbustoo 05:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arbustoo 05:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, group was founded by several notable people in American politics. Bad ideas 08:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Its first activity, orchestrated by direct-mail expert Richard Viguerie, was a massive fundraising effort for the Nicaraguan contras and Oliver North ..."[17]. Notable enough. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe someone should consider adding that to the article... If true that would indeed be notable and strong grounds for a keep... but right now there is no case for notability in the article(I personally reject the assertion that notability is confered by the fact this group was established by several minorly notable people).--Isotope23 20:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bad ideas. All that name-dropping makes it notable. Melchoir 07:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 07:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 09:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. Its founders make it notable enough. Mgm|(talk) 11:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bad ideas. --Craig Stuntz 13:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep somewhat notable Bobby1011 15:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Adrian, Bad Ideas. Monicasdude 18:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is notable Yuckfoo 19:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable back in the day. -AKMask 03:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. – Sceptre (Talk) 12:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for Religious Freedom[edit]

One sentence article of unnotable and no longer existing front group. A google search for "Coalition for Religious Freedom" "robert grant" bring 330 hits (includes Wikipedia articles). This organization should not be confused with "International Coalition for Religious Freedom," which brings up thousands of hits. Arbustoo 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arbustoo 05:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Grant is an influential figure in American politics. Bad ideas 08:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grant is, but this group of 330 google hits isn't. Merge any important information (the whole article is ONE sentence), delete article. Arbustoo 20:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Notable organization. Keep and expand. --Jason Gastrich 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who let the trolls out? --Chuck Hastings 06:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is suspected that User:Chuck Hastings is a sock puppet of User:Jason Gastrich. See talk pages. Arbustoo 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is suspected that User:Chuck Hastings is a sock puppet of User:Jason Gastrich. See talk pages. Jason has a long documented history of trying to sway AfDs. Arbustoo 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notable people, non-notable group. After deleting this, this info ought to be merged into lehaye and grant pages. -- Pierremenard 23:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn group. --Terence Ong 07:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Oh, and your allegations only need to be said once, Arbustoo. ---J.Smith 07:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to International Coalition for Religious Freedom (as soon as the article actually gets written) (I don't know when I'll have time.) Grandmasterka 08:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as a nn organization --TBC??? ??? ??? 10:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Two non-redlinked founders and defense of a controversial outfit seems keepable to me. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep somewhat notable. Bobby1011 15:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to...? Arbustoo 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I removed the tag not NPOV because I don't see how the 2 sentences which currently comprise this stub are not NPOV. I also removed the tag Clean up because it is already listed as a stub. Bobby1011 15:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Grant may be notable, but his defunct front organization from the 80's is not.--Isotope23 17:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Organization appears at least minimally notable, and google searches are not terribly effective in identifying newsworthy events of the 1980s. Monicasdude 18:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be notable? In what way? Arbustoo 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is a notable organization agree with adrian lamo Yuckfoo 19:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why. Arbustoo 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23. Stifle 23:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Needs to be expanded, not merged. There's more information that can be added. -AKMask 03:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article gives no evidence of verifiability. --W.marsh 15:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to A Christmas Album (Bright Eyes album) Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Christmas Album[edit]

Delete. This article should be deleted because the correct title of the album is A Christmas Album and there is already an article for it. Andland 07:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FN P90 in popular culture[edit]

Listcruft. A list of every single time a particular object (in this case, a firearm) has appeared in any piece of fiction, no matter how minor that appearance. As such, this is an arbitrary list that cannot ever be complete, making it inappropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NOT and the deletion policy.

The introduction is the only vaguely encyclopedic part of this article, and that text already appears in FN P90 (the article this was split from, so no merge is necessary). As merging this into FN P90 would be to the detriment of that article, this article needs to be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-encyclopaedic list; there appears to be no research value to the page, as it could grow to be huge without ever being complete.  (aeropagitica)  08:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Question Over the last couple of months, entries on popular firearm articles listing popular culture (game, movie) appearances have gone from minimal to common and voluminous. I am beginning to feel that a formal policy discussion needs to be held regarding how much of that sort of info is appropriate; right now, I know of no WP standards on the matter, and I fear creeping listitis will overwhelm many articles' other content. Feedback here or my talk page on where this sort of discussion should/can be held to try and get a consensus, or info about similar policies elsewhere, appreciated. Georgewilliamherbert 08:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This page seems to me to be noteworthy, if the items of fiction listed are noteworthy. If the FN P90 is iconic, then examples of its iconicness seem to me to be noteworthy. Anthony Appleyard 10:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. List is encyclopedic, as there is discussion on how the use is notable, and how use of the FN P90 is iconic and seperate from the majority of firearms. Unencylopedic entries should be removed from the list to improve the article as a whole, but this is not grounds to remove the whole article. --Barberio 11:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 14:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep worthy of an article. Bobby1011 15:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nonencyclopedic, unverified and in many ways unverifiable. Isn't deciding which appearances are "authentic" and which may be lookalikes original research? Monicasdude 18:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no P-90 lookalikes. There are airsoft pellet gun replicas, and stage gun blank firing props, but no other actual firearm looks anything like a P-90. The list given merely lists what name the weapon was used under in the movie/game in question, which is often not "P-90" for reasons of fictional license. Georgewilliamherbert 19:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with comment the pop culture content is a stain on Wikipedia, that much I agree with. However, pages like this are necessary - to delete them is to court disaster. I hope I need not remind MiB of the furious arguments and revert wars (Talk:FN P90) that occurred the last time we tried to do this. For those who don't know, all the cruft formerly quarantined on the Pop Culture page ended up spilling over into the serious article at FN P90. It required careful monitoring and maintenance as a result. People from both sides of the argument would revert constantly, and it took weeks to stabilize the situation. Let's not open the flood gates again. --Tronno (talk | contribs) 19:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopædic, WP:NG Avi 21:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as the list is fairly fairly sizeable and has some good detail, as this one does, then I think its worthy of keeping. --O.F.Fascist 22:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are standardized and relevant part of firearm articles. Many firearms do not have any film/game use at all, so the ones that do are especially notable among firearms. When these sections get to long, they are moved to a sub-page such as this. Ve3 03:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is interesting to read about, and many other firearms have their own sections in popular culture Aznfurball 05:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the firearm had a noticable effect in popular culture, there's no doubt that the topic is worthy enough for a seperate article by itself. Besides, the content looks good too, I see no valid grounds for deletion. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 18:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was del WP:CSD A7 "vanity" mikka (t) 09:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron David[edit]

Delete - is this noteworthy? Kukini 07:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per A7. Article makes no attempt to claim notability. Vslashg (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why? delete this is useful for some people in the philippines. though it may not be a national issue but im sure it help me a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.177.230 (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy Delete. Not notable. eLNuko 09:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All has fallen[edit]

Non-notable band. Was originally tagged as prod, but was contested by Michaeljones. See talk page for his case. Cnwb 08:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn band. --Terence Ong 08:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:Music--TBC??? ??? ??? 10:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability error, try again later. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bobby1011 15:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and WP:MUSIC... Talk makes claims to WP:MUSIC notability, but provides no evidence to support these claims.--Isotope23 17:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{db-band}} candidate. "Their first studio album is set for release in the summer of 2006"? WP:Music violation - two albums with a major label or one with a notable Indie label; no singles or notable members.  (aeropagitica)  17:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen 02:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • this band was the key factor in the street metal music scene and its origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeljones (talk • contribs)
  • many other reasons were posted in the admins talk to me thread, sorry for not signing earliar, im new to this all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michealjones (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. — Feb. 23, '06 [00:45] <freakofnurxture|talk>

CDO2 Limited[edit]

Advertising. Not notable. Sleepyhead 08:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete does not appear notable. Fagstein 08:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP; Google test inspires no confidence in notability either. Melchoir 10:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No discussion regarding notability of company or product, WP:CORP violation.  (aeropagitica)  17:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added an initial version of this entry because the existing entry for CDO2 I discovered was even more obscure. The neutral tone indicates no advertisement intended. - Unsigned comment by 217.196.234.93. User has edited only this and linked articles.
  • Weak keep Links to independent articles added to provide some depth. 213.55.29.237 19:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC). User has edited only this and linked articles.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — Feb. 23, '06 [00:45] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.[edit]

Not notable as per WP:CORP eLNuko 09:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, per ~800 Google results and recent media coverage[18] -- again possibility of non-English information that we're not seeing. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn-corp. --Terence Ong 11:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen 02:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lingobit Localizer[edit]

Advertising eLNuko 09:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hosseign Feghhee[edit]

del nonverifiable vanity by anon. No traces of such prominent person in various spellings, with the notable exception of "Hossein Feghhi, undergraduate student". mikka (t) 09:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, vanity--TBC??? ??? ??? 10:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If we WP:AGF, there might be non-English evidence that we're not picking up on Google. Unfortunately, the author seems to have a dynamic IP, so there's not much hope for easy clarification. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, vanity. --Terence Ong 11:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a not-verified tag. If the article is correct, it should stay, and perhaps someday someone will verify it. RIPE says 213.217.41.11 is from an ISP in Tehran, so I'm thinking the author and/or subject is not a UCLA undergrad. Melchoir 11:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you start doing this, wikipedia will be flooded with "nonverified" hoax celebrities from Burkina Faso and Mongolia. mikka (t) 17:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 15:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless information is verified. Where is the proof of the recent investigation that demonstrates the subject knows more than one million words and idioms?  (aeropagitica)  17:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam's apple (disambiguation)[edit]

Disambig pages with only two items are essentially meaningless, particularly when there's little chance of it ever being enlarged. Nothing currently links to it. Vicarious 10:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but this probably should have been prodded, if not speedied. Melchoir 11:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what prodded mean, unless you're referring to bugging an admin to just do it. As for speedied I'm not familiar with the process, and I have a knack for thinking things are useless and people disagree. Vicarious 11:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that's "prodded" as in {{prod}}, Vicarious. See Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per my nom. Vicarious 11:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Page has been expanded. Vicarious 19:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 12:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  17:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I thought disambiguation pages were meant to differentiate between two or more articles that had the same name...Jcuk 23:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're missing the issue. Yes disambig pages are a generally good thing but when there are only two pages listed to differentiate between it's significantly more efficient to automatically go to one page (the more common one) and add a note at the top of it about the other page. This has already happened, and in fact the disambig page is not even linked to at the moment. Vicarious 00:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix links. It's true that disambiguation pages are supposed to have at least 3 links. Vicarious has raised this on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation and everybody is in agreement that there's nothing inherently evil with disambiguation pages with two links, and they should be left in place where they are created by historical accident. Moreover, "Primary topic" pages are supposed to be infrequent, and only after consensus building. They are currently less than 3% of disambiguated topics. --William Allen Simpson 18:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everybody is not in agreement. First off, only 5 people (including you and I) have even commented, so at the very least 20% (me) disagree, and secondly you're misreading some of the other people if you think they're opposed to the idea. There's a lot of caveats to most of their arguments and at least one person hasn't picked a side. Irregardless I did not use a nonexistent policy in my arguments to delete this page and I think it is inappropriate of you to use a nonexistant concensus to decide this page be kept. Vicarious 19:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heck, a simple search found an album and a couple more songs, and there should be a "See also" to Forbidden Fruit (which has a reciprocal "See also"). That is another good reason for not deleting such pages. --William Allen Simpson 18:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although I find several of the additions to the disambig page dubious that's not an issue for this page and in light of there no longer being only two items I withdraw my vote. Vicarious 19:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vicarious, you came late to the discussion, made up a "precedent" that 2 article disambiguation pages should be deleted (although there is no guideline anywhere that proposes or permits that action), and were wrong about whether "there's little chance of it ever being enlarged." Clearly, you didn't even search for existing references: missing several songs, another album, and a horse. --William Allen Simpson 06:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • First off, you said I made up a precedent and then said there is no such guideline which are very different things, but I did not claim either of them. In my nomination I did not say, delete as per so and so example, or delete as per so and so guideline, I simply gave my reasoning for why I thought it should be deleted. In case you I haven't been clear thus far I'll spell it out, I have never claimed any precedent or policy because neither of them exist. As you pointed out on the disambig talk someone is using this case as a precedent but I have no part of it, and before you said something had no knowledge of it.
        As for the additions you made to the disambig page I find all of them dubious. Especially the album you refer to, which doesn't yet exist so you put up a red link for it (the article not the album). I made a point of not reverting all your additions because I feared it might seem like I was being petty but I truly think that page only has two legitamate links. Further discussion of those links belongs at that page though, see you there. Vicarious 12:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — Feb. 23, '06 [00:51] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Marvel Database Project[edit]

The article notes itself that "just over 27% of the Database Project's traffic comes from Wikipedia". This is hardly surprising given most of JamieHari (talk · contribs) contributions are inserting links to it across the wikipedia, and he is the site owner and editor in chief, as well as main contributor to this article. The article Marvel Database Project has been the subject of a deletion debate where consensus was delete and has been speedied twice since. The page is vanity, spam and fails WP:WEB. I would speedy again but the page has grown and so can't be thought of as a simple recreation, given User:Xaosflux's comments on the talk page. Delete. Hiding talk 10:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep somewhat notable in its field. Bobby1011 15:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious; how so? I'd certainly never heard of it before. Where has it been covered in the comics press then? Hiding talk 16:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's trivial coverage, to be fair. It's not coverage of the site as a resource, which is something one could reference in an article on the site, it's just a link to the site. Hiding talk 20:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that the article isn't about the MDP project, but IGN is very much a trusted news source in the comics industry and would likely not link to the Marvel Database Project if they felt the resources were inaccurate, out-of-date or the site itself could pose some controversy as a cruft-site.
  • Sadly, per WP:WEB those mentions are trivial. When Marvel Database Project is covered in feature articles, feel free to come back. I'll even help you write the article. Until then, I'm sorry, but it fails notability. As to the two ign articles in question, they're written by someone using a pseudonym, I can find no bio details of the author, it's entirely possible the author is a user of the site, and ign would fall into the dubious portion of our reliable sources guidelines. I don't want to rain on your parade, like I say, get the coverage to be included here and I'll welcome you back. At the moment, it feels to me like the site is using Wikipedia to get a leg up, something I hope you will agree is bad form, and also against policy. Hiding talk 14:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and page protect it this time. I'll probably check it out and it is a cool idea, but that doesn't make it notable.--Isotope23 17:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't yet see any evidence of it being important enough for an article. If in the future there is verifiable evidence of it being important then it can have an article, but only after that evidence is presented. As it is the article is full of original research. - Taxman Talk 20:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cruft.Blnguyen 02:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; vanispamcruftisement ergot 02:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very very sympathetic to reference sites, (the notion that they should be subject to WP:WEB as with any other site is one I do not agree with) and don't consider low Alexa rank (this one seems to have about 172,000?) as an argument to support a vote against a reference. But what I am not seeing in my searches is evidence that this site is regarded as a reference by others. If a link from official Marvel sites (more than just a fan link) were evidenced, it would help. If the articles had sourcing (for example Captain America, an article you'd expect to have depth (it does) and sourcing (it does not... all the facts in the bio have no ties to particular issues or sourcing of any kind), it would be more likely to be a scholarly reference. I think there is a great deal of work put into the site by the users (considerably more than Yellowikis, which I voted Keep for) and the article here shows a good deal of work, but it's by one person. And the community has come to consensus that it should not be kept, more than once. So, with some considerable regret userify. If it was a reference site that's referencable, I would have advocated keep. I am glad this was not speedied so it could be discussed. ++Lar: t/c 04:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lar, thank you very much for looking more deeply into our site to see our value. We have worked really hard, but not all of our pages are completely polished yet. The information is still there, but some typos exist and some pictures and sources are missing. I, too, have watched our Alexa rating, but it seems to make no sense... We were at about 80,000 4 months ago, but our rank keeps falling. I have traffic analysis software that says our traffic has since doubled. I think Alexa is a VERY poor indicator of success. We are more well known than Hiding would believe, I have 'chatted' online with several folks I just met, who knew about our site before I even told them... (It was a nice feeling...) --JamieHari 15:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to an acceptable recreation. I sympathise—I can see that a lot of work has gone into writing the piece. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and like all encyclopedias has certain editorial standards. I agree with Taxman that in this instance they have not been met; specifically, there is a lack of external verification to indicate the subject's notability. Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and verifiability have deliberately been set extremely low—far lower than for any other serious encyclopedia, to my knowledge. But they are standards, nevertheless. When MDP is sufficiently noteworthy that people independently write about it in reviews or critiques in reputable publications, I think most WPns would be glad to have a referenced article. I also note the point that there are articles on WP which, like MDP, do not meet articlespace policies. This however would seem to be a reason to improve them or delete them, not to allow other articles of a similar nature to join them. Regards ENCEPHALON 04:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ENCEPHALON, You certainly make good reasoning for the policies that exist. I certainly agree that the level of standards should remain as high as possible without excluding too much content. My contention is that the MDP IS more notable than has so far been shown. Here I have added a few examples of notable and independant sites that have indeed written articles citing our project as a reference. IGN, a long-standing and trusted resource surely should count as one vote for our notariaty. Similar articles have surfaced in other major internet publications as well. I will continue to hunt for them and add them to the list. Hopefully, this will shed more light on the subject of our notariaty. --JamieHari 05:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for that, Jamie. The IGN link is promising, isn't it? However, it seems to me that it does not talk about MDP, which is what one would hope for from an external reference that is meant to "do a lot of work", so to speak. I'm rather afraid it doesn't materially change my assessment, Jamie. But don't worry, WP will probably be around for a long while, and the moment you have the required refs... :-) ENCEPHALON 19:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, JamieHari, you are quite right about Alexa. There are (too) many folks who seem to regard Alexa rankings and google hits as some sort of indicator of "encyclopedicness". This is incorrect and unhelpful, for reasons others have written on more elegantly than I. The test of encyclopediability, if one may call it that, is compliance with the article space policies WP:V (and related guidelines), WP:NOR, WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. A page that meets them should not be deleted even if it had no google hits. A page that doesn't shouldn't be kept even if it had a million hits. ENCEPHALON 04:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, even pointless, empty websites can get a million hits if the populace gets wind of it as a new fad. I merely intended it to bolster my arguement that I am not the only member of my website. he he he... --JamieHari 05:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The deletion of the MDP page on Wikipedia.

Keep.

I thank you all for not speedy deleting and for the chance to discuss this further. I would certainly like to apologize for adding the page myself. I didn't, at the time, realise it would go against the applicable policy. This time when I added it, I waited until our site was of more substantial value to the community at large. Our site has now had over 55,000 edits and nearly 2.5 million page views. It is not even a year old yet and has already made it to Wikipedia's list of largest wikis at 72nd place.

I had seen the Memory Alpha page, a similar wiki-site about Star Trek. When I first added the Marvel Database Project, I was probably wrong to do so. Not that it wasn't a valid page, but that I was too eager and the project was not YET worth a Wikipedia article. I believe the situation has changed with our recent efforts. The Memory Alpha page was my inspiration to make our page, I figured wiki projects held a special place in the heart of Wikipedians. Their site, too, was added by their (co)founder. User:MinutiaeMan / MinutiaeMan userpage on Memory Alpha.

I assure you our Marvel project is not cruft. We are growing at a very good rate. We have new editors all the time and we have worked very hard to build a respectable database.

I emplore you to reconsider your delete votes and consider other projects of similar nature that have their own articles. The damage was done when I created the article myself, but I believe the value of our project still is there...

Thank you,

--JamieHari 07:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Has this project been featured by a major source? Nifboy 05:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had nominated this for CSD, and it was deleted back in 2005-11-24. at the time the article consisted of nothing but a logo. In interest of this debate only I have speedily restored all prior versions back in to the page history. This does NOT mean that I endorse these versions, and have placed a talk page notice that they are not to be reverted to. In this article's current form I vote Don't Speedily Delete, but don't really have a specific keep or delete opinion. xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Whore was suggested, but male prostitute makes more sense to me. In any case, that's an editorial decision beyond the scope of AFD. — Feb. 23, '06 [00:56] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Manwhore[edit]

Dic def Delete -Doc ask? 11:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn slang dicdef and Melvin Manhoef doesn't have an article to move it into. MLA 11:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable slang. Edgar181 13:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn slang. Whore is an equal opportunity term and covers enough ground, thank you very much. PJM 14:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn slang. --Terence Ong 14:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to whore. No objection to the deletion of article first (Note:this is not a delete vote). youngamerican (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite The term is certainly notable and has different conotations to the generic term whore. The article is, however, wonderful. Bobby1011 15:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to whore per above. This article is great, though. Doctor Whom 16:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to male prostitute. --Malthusian (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to whore. 64.192.107.242 18:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Consensus that this should not exist as a standalone article, but no consensus as to whether it should be merged and redirected or outright deleted, so default action is merge and redirect. Babajobu 08:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EMeta Corporation[edit]

Advertising. Not notable. Do not meet WP:CORP Sleepyhead 11:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, article is blatant self-promotion written principally by Emeta marketing ( as the username, Emetamktg, implies). The whole article is POV fluff - revolutionized, leading provider, honored, accolades, provides the only - and on and on it goes. — Graibeard (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article certainly is an ad now and I have flagged it as such. But WP:CORP includes "The company or corporation is listed on ranking indexes, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies." Does the Red Herring listing not count here? I'm leaning towards keep and stub, but willing to consider other arguments at this point. --Craig Stuntz 13:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although a Rewrite would be ideal, I don't think anyone except paid employees of the company would be very interested, so Strong Delete. Bobby1011 15:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Emetamktg just added the following to the article: "On February 15th, 2006, Macrovision Corporation (Nasdaq: MVSN) announced that it will acquire eMeta." --Craig Stuntz 19:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge although I'm hesitant becuase of notability issues. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Angus Glaum[edit]

Zero google hits, zero Nexis hits, zero ABI/INFORM hits. This guy is either fake or non-notable. Either way, he shouldn't have a page here. Uucp 11:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 13:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable bio, most probaly a hoax. --Terence Ong 14:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete not really notable. Bobby1011 15:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original submitter has a history of copyvios and nonsense, so likely a hoax. --Doco 00:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katabatik[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — Feb. 23, '06 [00:59] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Contact-field microscopy[edit]

Delete. Hoax article. Midgley 04:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find any non-Wikimirror Google hits, and even if this were a real thing this particular article is just unsourced OR. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoderick Gates[edit]

Rhoderick Gates is a vanity page with verifiability issues.

I also nominate Meblourne Socialist Brigade by the same author. The organization is

Unknown, except that it was led from 1997 to 2002 by the Labour Party activist Rhoderick Gates...

Zarquon 12:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong 13:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as nn. --Craig Stuntz 13:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as nn. -- Mithent 15:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as being somewhat notable in Australia. Bobby1011 15:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable in Australia with 0 Google hits for Melbourne Socialist Brigade? Delete. Punkmorten 17:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could be vanity, could also be {{db-attack}} material, looking at the biography on show. In either case, the subject is non-notable.  (aeropagitica)  17:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rhoderick Gates is supposed to holding a press conference in Edinburgh this Friday at which the UK Socialist Worker's Party will be sending people to ensure attention. The Socialist Worker will soon be advertising his activities because the SWP wants activities in Edinburgh covered and Stop The War Coalition will be sending anti-war demonstrators there as well. I suggest you wait and see what happens, the mainstream press doesn't report everything.User: Merlov 6:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as nn ergot 03:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn abakharev 10:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CPDA[edit]

Advertising eLNuko 12:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 13:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 15:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 00:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skitz O'Fuel[edit]

Delete. The article relates to a member of a band that was recently successfully nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thick (band)) due to failing the WP guidelines for notability. The person in question has no other significance, as far as I can see. Google delivers 100 hits ([19]) for "Skitz O'Fuel", most of them related to Thick, with the recently deleted WP-stub appearing among the TOP10. Johnnyw 12:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ananta Das Goswami[edit]

Unverifiable [20] Delete -Doc ask? 13:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um you have to google for "Goswami" [21] as well as "Gaswami". http://babukishan.com/lineage.htm is the best-looking reference, but it doesn't really look like a totally reliable source. Kappa 13:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 13:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because I, an American, can't easily verify the career of a 300 year old Indian musician doesn't mean he isn't notable. However, the author had several months to beef up the article and did nothing. So, Weak delete based on this version and the author can try again another time. Thatcher131 15:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep probably notable in his own field and nation. Bobby1011 15:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No discussion as to notability of subject or of contributions to music or philosophy, all assertions that require factual verification to be substantive content on an encyclopædia.  (aeropagitica)  18:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without independent verification. Gamaliel 18:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This doesn't seem to be vanity or something. The author of the article (User:Krishna.Bandi) has not indulged in any kind of vanity creation. Creating an article on a baul of Bengal born in 1700 doesn't help the author in any way. The article Music of Bengal (which was never edited by the author) also mentions this baul - "Other Bengali music, shared by West Bengal and Bangladesh, is from the poetry and songs of Ananta Das Goswami, Kabir...". Give the article benefit of doubt. May be Merge with Music of Bengal or Baul? utcursch | talk 11:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC). Doc's arguments have convinced me to change my vote to Delete - delete it because it cannot be verified. I searched all available resources yesterday, but couldn't find anything about this baul. The few pages that Google returns have taken their content from Wikipedia - so, we are actually doing some harm by spreading possibly wrong information -- probably this man never existed/author typed in his name by mistake... utcursch | talk 06:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have miessed the point. This isn't about vanity but verifiability. WP:V and WP:CITE do not permit us to 'give the benefit of the doubt'. If anyone can verify this, I'm happy for it to be kept. --Doc ask? 12:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the verifiability issue is affected by the fact that most wikipedians are young white males (I read somewhere). This results in WP content being shaped by the inherent baises of its editors (virtually no articles on stage actors/actresses but dozens of articles on Star Wars, for example). I agree that in a perfect WP an editor would post more information, like influences that carry through to today's Indian music. I worry that by deleting things be cause "we" don't know about them, "we" (who are not very representative of humanity as a whole) are creating a biased result. Thatcher131 12:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most subjects on wikipedia I know nothing about - and I don't nominate for deletion. This has nothing to do with the subject matter or my skin coulour gender or (lack of) youthfulness. If this article cannot be verified it should be deleted - if it can, then if shoudl stay. --Doc ask? 12:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although WP is supposed to be a collaborative medium, applying that standard means that if an author writes an article about an obscure subject that can't be readily googled, he has to get it right the first time or else. I voted above weak delete because the article hadn't been edited in months, but I think we should be open to the possibility that the article standard and AfD process will sometimes reinforce systemic bias. Thatcher131 15:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for combating systematic bias, and I'm great believer that Google isn't the be all and end all of verification (a citation from a book or reputable journal is good too). But, what are you suggesting? That we shouldn't require the verification of articles on 'obscre' subjects, or that they should hang arround for weeks waiting for someone to verify them? That way lies hoaxes. Indeed, it is procisely where the subject is obscure and few wikipedians would recognise errors and inaccuracies that we must be rigourous in demanding authors verify and cite. --Doc ask? 16:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article in its current state needs Expansion, not deletion. Google, and any other Internet search engines can't be considered the *only* tool for verifiability, not all cultures/issues of the world can be googled. The article should be expanded with references to books. Systemic bias is difficult to counter. Thanks. --Ragib 16:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another reference, though it sounds quite like the Music of Bengal sentence. --Ragib 16:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point again. The choise is not beween expansion or deletion, but between verification and deletion. You say 'the article should be expanded with references to books' - and that google is not the only source, I agree, but can it be, and are there other sources? If it can be verified, then keep it, if not then delete it for now. Systematic bias is not the issue - the reliability of information is. --Doc ask? 16:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article deserves more time to have a knowledgeable editor to add the information. This article is not vanity, nor promotion. By the definition of verifiability, a lot of stub articles would face the axe. But many of those initially unverifiable articles have later been expanded. Let the article expand. Thanks. --Ragib 18:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A knowledgable editor can always recreate it. It has been here unverified for almost 6 months, how much longer do you suggest? --Doc ask? 19:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Officially that's true. Unofficially, such an editor must also be knowledgable in speedy deletion and beaurocracy of DRV. As any new article, of a deleted name, stands a good chance of being speedy deleted. Even if you contest it successfully in DRV, you may have to wait a week before being "allowed" to edit the article again. --Rob 06:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Also keep the verificaton tag on. In point of unfortunate fact there are many unverified articles on Wikipedia. The solution is sometimes to tag, not delete. Tagging both alerts readers to be especially careful in considering the article's contents, and puts the article on the road to eventual improvement. Patience. A researcher, armed with nothing but the name, will come here someday and use the extra info provided to further his search -- and then, hopefully, return and footnote the article. Herostratus 17:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice theory, pity it hasn't worked after 6 months. How much longer would you give it? 6-12-18. And your theory only works if there is verification out there to be had (there isn't at the moment). What if the article is a hoax, or the guy is truely nn, then nothing will happen and we might be left with an unverified and potentially incorrect article indefinately. I'd say 6 months is long enough when there is no corroberation at all. --Doc ask? 17:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have "no corroberation at all", we have at least one independent and reasonably notable-looking source. Kappa 18:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nice theory is quite possibly true, but you could always find a few hundred exceptions if you look hard enough. Tintin (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete It's been here since last September. If no one has come up with a source by now, I think we should let it go. The fact that there are many unverified things on Wikipedia can't become a rationale for keeping things. I hate to flush things that might be good too, but it's gotta be verifiable. If someone finds sources in the future and can make a solid case, they can always recreate it. --Shadow Puppet 01:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was replace with #redirect [[Curtain Call: The Hits]] {{R from song}}. Note that anybody could have done that. — Feb. 23, '06 [01:03] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Fack[edit]

Delete: Completely non-notable stub. The article on Curtain Call repeats almost verbatim what's here - and I don't think there's much else to be said about the song. Suntiger 13:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen 02:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Curtain Call. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OfficeDebo[edit]

Advertising eLNuko 13:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, advert. Incidentally, it's a super-lame concept for an RPG; for this place and time, anyway. Perhaps the citizens of Middle Earth would find it intriguing. PJM 14:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fold, staple, spindle, and Delete: advertisement for an online game lacking evidence of notability. WP:Importance. Barno 14:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is advertising then HoboWars is as well. How come you let that one slide for so long? --InsanityCrisis 15:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability... and echo PJM. Who the heck wants to RPG their life? "OK, roll a D10... 5, you get 5 extra goals to complete before your next employee review." -or- "Can I multiclass Java Developer and Requirements Analyst?"--Isotope23 16:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very few Google hits Gerard Foley 21:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 08:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HoboWars[edit]

Advertising --InsanityCrisis 13:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising -- ODogg

  • Need to be rewritten. Bobby1011 15:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've a little problem with this nom because the nominator seems to have done this in retaliation for the AfD of OfficeDebo... This was also done after the nominator blanked and vandalised the HoboWars site. AnonIP 82.38.91.15 engaged in a little vandalism too, as well as what appears to be a puppet vote. Alexa ranking for OfficeDebo is 136,505, lower than the 35,064 for HoboWars. I'm not convinced HoboWars is in anyway significant in the realm of online games, but this seems to be a bad faith nom. No vote right now, though I've slapped tags on HoboWars because the article is a mess.--Isotope23 16:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I may be wrong, but I think I've seen this on AfD before. TMS63112 20:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A little crufty, but no worse than World of Warcraft. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. — Feb. 23, '06 [01:08] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Monkey Tennis[edit]

Delete. Fictional game created by fictional character. Monkeyman 14:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Feb. 23, '06 [01:10] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Mudlen End Studio Pottery[edit]

Advertising. Not notable. eLNuko 14:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, someone's written a book about it [23] Kappa 14:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the book is "collectors guide with prices" - which suggests it isn't an independent publication.Blnguyen 02:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would it not be independent? Those won't be the original stock prices, they will be prices in the secondary market for collectors. Kappa 03:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This looks like a listing in preparation for some kind of auction Ruby 03:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — Feb. 23, '06 [01:10] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Healthconnect[edit]

Advertising. Posible copyright violation eLNuko 14:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based on a quick google search this is a project by Kaiser that has attracted some detractors, including supposedly an insider at Kaiser. [24] It might be useful to have a good nonbiased article describing both sides of the issue. Suggest rewrite. Otherwise advert and NPOV. Thatcher131 14:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 14:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement, smells like a copyvio but I can't find the original text. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert. PJM 12:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slipknot (original band)[edit]

Delete nn band. Released only one EP (Slipnot (orignal record) / Slipknot (original record) - two identical articles), then faded. If the band article is deleted, the EP articles should be deleted too. Bruce1ee 14:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nn. --Johnnyw 15:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not WP:V and doesn't meet WP:MUSIC to boot. I'm not sure how to couple up an AfD, but I'd carry that delete over to the EP article as well.--Isotope23 16:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be verified. It's on the Revelation Records site and is available for download on the external link.

er both EP articles...--Isotope23 16:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.Blnguyen 02:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article had more on the famous Slipknot than this band who fails to meet WP:NMG. It could possibly be added as a line in the Slipknot article. Capitalistroadster 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one EP and then pffft Ruby 03:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's think about bands that released one EP: Siege and Neanderthal, both important to the creaton of the power violence and grindcore genres, Last Rights, notable for ruling hard and being the last band that Choke from Slapshot was in that was good, Negative Approach barely released anything more than that, Straight Ahead, Antidote really only released one. The EP is the main format for hardcore punk, and it's common for bands to release only one before breaking up.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 17:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tzouannis[edit]

This page is a repeat of Nikos Tzouannis Deville (Talk) 15:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Nikos Tzouannis. PJM 15:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took the liberty of doing the redirect. If anyone disagrees just go ahead and revert my changes.--Isotope23 16:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was transwiki and delete. — Feb. 23, '06 [05:15] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Quicksort implementations[edit]

Wikipedia is not a code repository. This article is not encyclopedic content; it's useful, but belongs somewhere else, like the Great Compiler Shootout or Sourceforge or maybe Wikisource. bmills 15:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd go better on WikiBooks than WikiSource, since most of it isn't sourced. --bmills 17:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My understanding was that this was largely a defensive measure to deal with people constantly wanting to add a implementation of quicksort in their language of choice to the quicksort page - users are deflected here rather than deleting implementations off the quicksort page, and potentially righting revert wars over it. "somewhere else" is a good sentiment, but I would suggest it would be useful to figure out where exactly. Leland McInnes 17:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WikiBooks might provide the best fit — maybe there needs to be a "Programming examples" book there or something. I don't think it's useful to move inappropriate content to back alleys and dark corners of the encyclopedia; if people keep adding non-encyclopedic content, we need to point them toward Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, rather than toward articles with lower standards. --bmills 17:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so much defending its inclusion on Wikipedia as suggesting that finding a suitable alternative will make the whole process smoother and easier. Wikibooks sounds like a good idea. Perhaps we should pursue that. Leland McInnes 19:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to WikiBooks — Wikipedia is not a code repository --Allan McInnes (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete to let it wander off and die where it will, per poster, Allan. If this goes to WikiBooks, fine. If people have to do their homework themselves, rather than copy it from Wikipedia — even better. :) --Mgreenbe 19:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The argument against X implementations pages is that anything interesting about the algorithm is already in X; anything interesting about the languages of implementation is already on respective pages. So all that leaves is a bunch of code: Wikipedia is not a source code repository.
    I agree, however, that some code is useful: in infinite loop, buffer overflow, and pointer, viz. this code with concrete, unambiguous semantics relevant to a particular point has this meaning. But implementations are reiterating what has been said in general in pseudocode.
    For example, the C in-place implementation of quicksort is interesting, but what is interesting about it is that the work is done in place; put it on the main page. Functional versions which make naive allocations are relevant to FP; the problem of aliasing and other optimizations of functional code should be mentioned there.
    Lastly, the copyright and licensing implications of posting code from a non-GFDL-compatible project make implementation listings a terrible idea.
    I think the existence of "defensive measures" is fairly silly. If we can keep the day and year pages free of vanity, we can keep implementations out of Wikipedia. --Mgreenbe 19:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. WP is not manual for a programmer. All similar "articles" has been deleted so far, AFAIK. As of its use as defensive agains constant adding: it doesn't improve Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 19:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Per Mgreenbe, and the GFDL isn't even compatible with the GPL:
Incompatibility with the GPL. It's GPL-incompatible in both directions. This means that you can't legally extract text from a GFDL'ed manual and put it into integrated help strings in a GPL'ed program. And you can't extract code or comments from a GPL'ed program and put it into a GFDL'ed manual. (Without getting explicit permission to relicense from every copyright-holding contributor, that is.) [25]

One of the fundamental principles of human/computer interface design is: Don't surprise the human. (Don't do the unexpected.) Here, the idea that Wikipedia content is "open and free", yet at the same time cannot be integrated into "free as in speech" GPL software due to license incompatibility (the two licenses being from the same organization, no less) goes against what most rational people will expect. Source code does NOT belong in Wikipedia. —Pradeep Arya (Talk | Contrib) 21:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete as per others above. I had hoped some form of compromise, such as putting all such content on Wikibooks, could be worked out to ease the process (as this policy should logically be enforced on several other such pages) and help avoid protracted debates. It now looks unlikely that I will be able to muster sufficient support for such a policy, especially in light of the GPL/GFDL issues. Given that such a policy is unlikely to be established, let's speed things to their end here and start on the other similar pages. Leland McInnes 22:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wikisource (or books). Absoulutely do not delete. It would be preferable to keep & cleanup the page than to do that (it could be suitable to leave this as a main article under the already-detailed Quicksort article, but it may be too much of a fork). I think a transwiki is appropriate. --Karnesky
  • Transwiki, e.g. to wikisource/wikibooks. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-20 13:10Z
  • Transwiki. Although not meant for an encyclopedia, the information is valuable. -- Evanx(tag?) 04:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 08:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Street Burying Ground[edit]

Non-notable graveyard? ComputerJoe 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, do we need WP:CEMETERY guidelines now? Reading through the article, the only thing I could think of that would confer enough notability for a graveyard to be listed would be if several very notable people were buried there, or the graveyard was the site of some historical happening, or had some sort of general historical significance. Otherwise mention of it could simply be made in individual bios (i.e. person A is interred at graveyard B). Based on that, I think Salem Street Burying Ground falls short of those criteria, unless there are more nationally or internationally recognized historical figures interred there than are mentioned in the article.--Isotope23 21:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, old by USA standards but practically new compared to the range of British and European graveyards. Not much indication of historical significance. Only indication of notable burials there are one governor and one "war heroine" who doesn't appear in Wikipedia. I agree with Isotope23's reasoning. Barno 00:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article itself isn't written all that greatly, but it does seem to have some significance aside from just the people buried there. Peyna 20:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per Isotope - Hahnchen 13:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A "registered historic place", old for being an American cemetery (and even quite old compared to many European ones), has a grave for an old Massachusetts governor and a Revolutionary War heroine Sarah Fulton (whatever that actually means). Seems notable enough. u p p l a n d 16:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the category this was placed in, I could find no evidence this is a "registered historic place". I've added a verify tag because much of this article isn't sourced.--Isotope23 20:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[26] with the appropriate subpage implying it met federal historical preservation standards for block grant use. And if every subway and train station in the US qualifies as notable, I think Revolutionary War cemetaries would qualify, too. Monicasdude 20:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
Link should probably be placed on page if article is kept... gives it some sourcing/verification. I still don't think it's notable, but then again I don't think every subway, train station, and school in the US qualifies as notable either.--Isotope23 21:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The good thing is that notability is not an inclusion standard, especially for things. Peyna 22:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to verify the NRHP claim and have posted the info on the article's talk page. I couldn't find a link suitable for a reference. Peyna 22:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 08:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman K. Kovalev[edit]

Delete. Not at all notable. Stop submitting articles on people who happen to have a PhD and write for magazines. KNewman 07:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment fixing AfD.--Isotope23 18:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD A7. I specifically refrain from any assertion that Mr Kovalev isn't notable or that he doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria. However, this article doesn't assert notability, making it eligible for speedy deletion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; encyclopedia entries explain why you are reading about their topics, and a bibliography by itself is not an assertion of notability. Ikkyu2 21:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now: Keep the article in its current, improved form. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • del unless his notability is elaborated upon. --Ghirla | talk 08:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He's written a pile of books, that's good enough for WP:BIO. I can't vote delete on that basis, but I'm not voting delete either. Stifle 13:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. He's had a few works published in notable journals (such as this, which claims itself as a leading English-language publication in its subject, and I'm not quite sure about the notability of this one. I also have something by him in a publication by the Archaeological Society of Finland as well as [http://www.ttk.gov.tr/data/2002/aema12.htm other work here of uncertain notability. I'm just a little uneasy deleting him, as his works seem to cross over into several different languages, and seem to be in various subjects that don't always google well. It might be worth noting that we reference one of his works in our Khazars article. If we delete him, should we remove the reference? Ultimately, I've tried to decide if he's worth keeping, or if he's simply not notable at all. It's been very frustrating. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Publication record sufficient to demonstrate notability. Monicasdude 18:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Where's tons of books? I see nothing on Amazon. Doesn't meet professor test IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seven days and still no one explains his notability. A list of books satisfies WP:BIO but notability still needs to be asserted somehow. I say speedy A7 him; if an editor who actually knows him to be notable comes along, there'll be a nice big place in the namespace just waiting for the encyclopedic article that this isn't. ikkyu2 (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Has someone claimed a list of books? I see a list of journal articles. One person on this Afd has claimed a list of books but that's a mistaken assumption from what I've seen so far. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. --Khoikhoi 06:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Convinced by Briangotts. ;) --Khoikhoi 22:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This person is a rising star in the field of Eurasian nomad studies. He has written a solid array of articles. The article has now been updated to reflect his work on the Spilling horde coins, the most comprehensive to date. He has been instrumental in understanding Eurasian steppe economics and history. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems notable enough for me. Is it really preferable to have his name as a redlink? The burden is on those who insist on delete (or even speedy delete) to explain what is the hurry. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Glad to have somebody who was able to find more information. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 22:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient evidence. Seems to be often referenced. And all the arguments above. --Stux 22:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tim Rhymeless and Ikkyu. Tomertalk 23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. gidonb 23:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain: Well, I'd still like to see a connection between the claims in the new paragraphs and which articles they come from - and maybe some commentary from other experts on how Kovalev discovered these things - but I'll change my vote to abstain for the hard work put in. Keep it up!  :) You have to admit it's a lot nicer to have actual clear explanations here of what he has achieved as opposed to a giant list of journal contributions that I'll never look up. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems that Googling for Roman K. Kovalev reveals that he is a notable academic. IZAK 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough to me, as arguments above and Google test indicate. Jayjg (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shining Soul: Helen Keller's Spiritual Life and Legacy[edit]

A classic case of using wikipedia for advertisment. The contributor's username is even User:[email protected]. Delete. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete more blatant marketing adcruft.--Isotope23 16:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article is purely advertising a video/DVD that is for sale. Sliggy 00:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn marketing.Blnguyen 02:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrolean purple dye[edit]

Delete. The information on this page is better served at Tyrian purple, and the title of this page is misleading (Tyrol is not Tyre). Magda 15:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sherazard (video game)[edit]

The video game this character is from doesn’t have a page, so why should the character? It’s not notable enough for Wikipedia. Hera1187 15:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.Blnguyen 02:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 03:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, pushing the boundaries of speedy A1 by rather less than the article pushes the boundaries of WP:VSCA. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN 0877854742[edit]

More advertising from the Swedenborg Society. Delete Tonywalton  | Talk 15:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete ad ad ComputerJoe 16:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatent adcruft... speedy if possible.--Isotope23 16:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy) delete - and in the unlikely event of it being kept, it really needs a different name :-) —Whouk (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising. Who on Earth is going to search for an article about a book on WP with its ISBN number?  (aeropagitica)  18:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete please we are really not ad space either Yuckfoo 19:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 19:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I really don't think you can advertise more blatantly than this :-D --lightdarkness (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public forum Israel and Palestine[edit]

POV forum discussion of the mideast situation, completely inappropriate for WP. It was prodded; I wanted to speedy it but I couldn't find a category. I figured if I posted it on AfD an administrator would speedy it without waiting the five days for prod. Thatcher131 15:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as POV from head to toe. Not sure if it's speedyable, but that'd be even better. bikeable (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely a POV rant.Kukini 16:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a webhosting solution for discussion forums.--Isotope23 16:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — that minor middle-east squabble is way over-covered already. Delete POV discussion. — RJH 16:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STrong Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope Ruby 04:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see a way to speedy it, bt it needs to be speedied, it's the definition of WP:WWIN. ikkyu2 (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Chairboy. Punkmorten 19:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Chopine[edit]

Delete as it seems to just be nonsense Kukini 16:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - Patent nonsense. eLNuko 16:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not patent nonsense, but CSD A7. Deleted and protected from recreation. Punkmorten 19:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:Friday (as personal attack) --Nlu (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japa-the-short-dicked-gay[edit]

a personal attack Kukini 16:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, default action is keep. Babajobu 08:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amerax[edit]

There seems to be almost no references to the existence of Amerax, other than wikipedia itself. Tc61380 16:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It appears that it does exsist, but I don't think enough people speak it, or even know it for it to be notable enough for Wikipedia. --lightdarkness (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn conlang. Stifle 00:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has an Ethnologue entry? Keep. Wiwaxia 06:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wiwaxia. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 09:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it has an Ehnologue entry -- although I'm not too nuts about the relative lack of ability to expand the stub. There must, however, be more material on this somewhere even though it may be off-line (yes, there is such a thing as information that is not on-line!). So an expansion is possible. Herostratus 17:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 02:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No-brand[edit]

Delete - apparent non-notable band. I found no google hits except the Wikipedia article itself. delldot | talk 16:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - It's a non notable band, which is speedy criteria, I've tagged it as such. --lightdarkness (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete {{nn-band}}. Stifle 00:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete non-notable band. Sliggy 00:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junior! The Wendy's Guy[edit]

Minor school movie about a minor server at a minor campus restaurant. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Stifle 16:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I wouldn't say it's a classic NFT, but it's a student film that's being screened at a non-notable film festival (which itself doesn't have an article on Wikipedia). Perhaps if the movie does well in a mainstream audience, and gets media coverage, it'll be notable; but I'm afraid the article doesn't assert notability. --lightdarkness (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.Blnguyen 02:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There Is No Plan B[edit]

Non-notable and unverifiable EP from a barely notable band. Stifle 16:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Army of Me (band)[edit]

Band with one song getting local airplay. No albums, no indication of touring [27]. Punkmorten 16:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Dinar[edit]

Tagged for speedy, explanation on Talk is: This ist pure - excuse the harsh word - bullshit. The Islamic Dinar ist no Buillon and this text is only a copy of the Website which sells these coins. I just wrote the text in the german wikipedia (de:Islamischer Dinar) an not one word of this here is true! User:Dickbauch. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 16:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this article needs to be cleared of copyvio, wikified, fmted and merged with Gold dinar. I would have done it anyway, but now that the article is in AfD phase, I think it isn't appropirate.
    • Gold Dinar is way better. Dickbauch 09:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Islamic Dirham had the same problem and was salvageable. --Stlemur 05:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Note to Admins: Do you mind letting this AFD run for a few more days, please? It would be nice of you not to close it at the moment, as Calton has raised a significant objection which, while not persuasive to me, may find support from others. It would be hasty to close this now (in particular with a delete decision), before participants have had a chance to re-consider their view of the article. New views might also be forthcoming. Regards ENCEPHALON 06:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted, debate will now close on Feb 20. Babajobu 16:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Babajobu. That was nice of you. ENCEPHALON 14:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 02:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Daisey[edit]

This seems pretty clearly to be a vanity page. Jrauser 03:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity. First sentence reads like a resume --† Ðy§ep§ion † 03:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete extreme nn vanity.Blnguyen 04:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant vanity. Royboycrashfan 05:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete oh total vanity. pschemp | talk 06:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- vanity. Reyk 06:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdraw opinion. Reyk 07:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It should be noted that "vanity" is not a deletion criterion. So called vanity articles are frequently deleted, but an article written by its subject is not, per se, a deletable offence on WP (if Bill Clinton had written the article on Bill Clinton, we would not delete it, although it would probably be heavilly edited to remove a non-NPOV). The reason many "vanity articles" are deleted is simply that the subject is usually not notable and there is a lack of reputable sources on him/her that may be used as a basis to write the article and satisfy the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS. As is clearly the case in this instance. ENCEPHALON 10:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...there is a lack of reputable sources on him/her that may be used as a basis to write the article...as is clearly the case.... Google is your friend: 67,400 hits for "Mike Daisey" (in quotes), 2 from Google Books (though one is from one of those damned Chicken Soup for the Soul collections), and 9 from Google Scholar -- and a Google Ads link to buy audiobooks by Mike Daisey from Audible.com. So "clearly the case", well, isn't. --Calton | Talk 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete {{userfy}} or speedy, as no notability apparent Avi 15:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it was created by an anon. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 16:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Until WP creates a code restriction to prevent anonymous users from creating articles, it is rediculous to delete due to anonymous creation. This nonsense is likely one of the reasons why WP editors are widely reputed as a cabal of elitist snobs. -- Randomgenius 10:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The relevance was, vanities created by logged-in users can usually be userfied, whereas those created by anons can't. But I'm changing to keep as rewritten anyway. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly nn self-promotion & vanity. Mikkerpikker ... 17:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Article states subject was featured in a number of magazines and on BBC radio. If these can be verified, then he might be of some minor notability and I could be persuaded to change. howcheng {chat} 19:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said I could be persuaded to change, and look at that, I am. Keep per Calton's research. howcheng {chat} 07:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Author, playwright/monologist. Known for working at Amazon.com and creating a one-man show (21 Dog Years based on the experience (the book version, ironically enough, [available through Amazon. Performed this show at the Berkeley Repertory Theatre and an abridged version as a BBC Radio 4 Afternoon Play. Written and performed another Afternoon Play, The Ugly American. BBC profile: Opening the book on Amazon. All of this information is buried under the resume-style trivia, but it's there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calton (talk • contribs) 13:31, 9 February 2006.(Sorry, in a hurry to leave for work. --Calton | Talk 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: from above, User:Encephalon writes, there is a lack of reputable sources on him/her that may be used as a basis to write the article and satisfy the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS. As is clearly the case in this instance.
  • Fifteen minutes on Google (counting the cut-and-paste/formatting time) turns up:
  • BBC - Radio 4 - Afternoon Play - The Ugly American, Written and performed by Mike Daisey. An American student is desperate to absorb the British theatrical tradition, but instead falls into shady fringe theatre...[28]
  • NPR : Tales from Amazon.com: Scott [Simon] talks with Mike Daisey, a former employee of Amazon.com who has produced a one-man show about his short career at Amazon.... [29]
  • Mike Daisey's powerhouse tell-all monologue is elevating and hilarious By Jonathan Kiefer. Encore Encore Our critics weigh in on local theatre ... [30]
  • The Seattle Times: Theater & arts: "The Ugly American":... Mike Daisey begins his new solo theater piece, "The Ugly American," riffing on (and debunking) that ... [31]
  • Art imitates life -- or the lack thereof -- of Amazon.com worker: Mike Daisey has turned his two years at Amazon.com into a one-man show, "21 Dog Years: doing [email protected]." Phil H. Webber / Seattle Post-Intelligencer. [32]
  • Comedian lifts lid on working for Amazon.com | The Register: Mike Daisey's 21 Dog Years – Doing Time @ amazon.com promises to reveal the ... Anyhow, Mike Daisey's show takes place on Saturday 23 November at 5.30pm at ... [33]
  • Solo Turns: Monopoly! by Mike Daisey. Sponsored by The Landing. Dubbed “the master storyteller” by The New York Times, Mike Daisey brought down the house at the 2005 Festival... [34]
This was essentially random: I clicked random results pages and pulled stuff off them. It's called "research", people. --Calton | Talk 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's called research. What a pity the article's creator didn't do any, since they are the one who supposedly cares :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add references cited by User:Calton so many afd's without proper research, when articles could just be improved is just pathetic. --Randomgenius 10:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and thank Calton for the research. Kappa 20:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reply to Calton. Thank you for the preceeding, Calton. It's regrettable that you presume I'd written my comment without doing what you helpfully inform us is '"research", people'. I did make the requisite appeal to the research tool of choice for scholarly writing these days—the search engine. I got online booksellers, blogs, ads and notices; even a dog training outfit. Many of these are no surprise: Mike Daisey has a play in print, 21 Dog Years. This explains many of the hits, in particular the booksellers and notices. You adduce a sample, and claim that they are sufficient to meet what I termed reputable sources... that may be used as a basis to write the article and satisfy the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS.

    I saw some of the things you've put up. The NPR link is a three sentence scheduling notice about 21 Dog Years. The BBC link is a similar 1 sentence scheduling notice about a play. This SF link has a single sentence, about his play. In my search I had also found others of a similar nature: Assembly Theatres programme item—1 sentence about the play. Now, when one writes an article—an encyclopedia article, how well do 1-sentence sources serve as reference works? How well do scheduling notices about plays serve as a basis to write an encyclopedic biographical article, in your opinion?

    You mention the number of google hits your searches produced. I have found that using the number of hits to indicate encyclopediability to be suboptimal suboptimal—what matters most is the quality of the references and sources with which you can write on the subject. Not the number of hits.

    Take, for example, the article on Hopkins syndrome. This is an exceptionally rare medical condition—many doctors go through their entire professional lives without having once heard of it. However, it is the subject of serious study and is perfectly encyclopedic. Our WP article is a summary of what is known about the condition; every claim in every sentence is verifiable in the references, all of which are of good quality. We'd be hard-pressed to put up an argument that that article in not suitable for WP. Yet, if you perform the much-vaunted google search, you'd get only some 250 odd links, of which many are duplicate copies of abstracts pulled off another site. Google hits are a suboptimal measure of encyclopediability. The numbers may coincide with encyclopediability, but they are not the crux of the matter; at the very best, they are merely what might be called a surrogate measure.

    The crux is how solid an article can be written about the subject, per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NOT. If the subject is a disease, are there excellent references that report what is known about its clinical features, pathology, etiology, epidemiology, natural course, possible treatments? If the subject is a person, do we have references on them (ie. them, not just reviews of their books or plays or theses)? The latter issue lies at the heart of this AFD, and perhaps we should discuss it further.

    I have noticed a curious difficulty many of us Wikipedians seem to have with biographical articles on writers (I think it has something to do with misunderstanding the relationship between WP:BIO and WP:V). If a person happens to have written a book, and there is available a review/critique of the book, there is immediately an (odd) assumption that a WP article can be written about the person (as opposed to the book). "John Brown has published a novel? Oh, we definitely should have an article on him, then." This is often said despite nothing ever having been written on or about John Brown, the subject of the proposed article. IMHO, this misunderstands how an encyclopedia article is written. An article on the subject "John Brown" can only be written per WP:NOR and WP:V if we have works on John Brown, just as an article on asthma may only be written if there are publications on asthma. If all available acceptable sources pertain solely to John Brown's book, one may write a good, NPOV article on the book, but unless one wishes to break WP:NOR, the author page should not be more than a redirect.

    Consider as an example the article Bertrand Russell. The reason we were able to write that article on WP is that there is a rich trove of works on Russell, the person: Ray Monk's famous two-volume biography, AJ Ayer's work on Russell, Clark's—even Russell himself wrote a three volume autobiography and numerous papers on his own life and convictions. We have libraries-worth of works on his works, his philosophy, his mathematics. So when we put together the article, including in it those features that one would expect to find in a biographical account, we have rich sources from which to write and verify. When we say "Russell was born on May 18, 1872", we can verify that, easily. When we write "He was born in Wales into an aristocratic family", we can verify that. When we say that his father was so and so, his mother had an affair with so and so, his siblings were so and so, his adolescence was lonely, he attended Trinity on scholarship, his influences were Whitehead, Moore, Hume; he married so and so, he taught at XYZ, he was forced to leave City College because of controversy, he won the Noble Prize in Literature... every such claim is verifiable from excellent sources. And then of course we have the works on his philosophy and thought, his politics, his professional life... For the opposite situation, see this AFD for an example of a case where there were a lot of sources on the writer's work, but absolutely nothing on the person.

    With Mike Daisey, the "references" I found were

    1. Online bookshops selling 21 Dog Years
    2. 1-2 line notices of the sort I've alluded to above, and
    3. his personal website, which contains little biographical information (and which is furthermore inadmissable as a good source, being a personal website).
  • I do not believe these hits to be "reputable sources that may be used as a basis to write the article and satisfy the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS". Which is why I said so. You've been a Wikipedian for a while, Calton, and I'll not waive policy pages in front of you, but I would ask that in future you assume good faith of your fellows. In discussions, do not presume that they haven't given a matter any thought, or haven't performed "research, people". They may simply have come to different conclusions than you. Resorting to condescension, incidentally, is rarely productive (particularly when it falls flat).

    Now, I am thankful for your contribution above for one reason in particular: you found a couple of good reviews of the play, 21 Dog Years, that I didn't. For example, this BBC link from the old UK BBC website. It's a very good write up. I've also found an SF weekly review, which now that I look at it is actually linked from one of your links above: I think you got a TOC page. These pieces all pertain to the work 21 Dog Years: they're either reviews of the show or the book. One can write a very decent article on 21 Dog Years from these sources; along the course of which one can mention the author's other play (which seems to have considerably fewer reviews), and works. That outcome I'd fully support, because the article that is written will be congruent with the both the subject and quality of the available sources. If someone writes 21 Dog Years, I'd support having Mike Daisey and The Ugly American (play) as redirects. If not, my opinion above still holds. ENCEPHALON 06:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • NB. As there has been a significant discussion over this, I think all participants should be given an opportunity to reconsider their views: while my opinion remains unchanged, some others may wish to change their vote from delete to something else. I'll contact those who edited the AFD before Calton's post to ask if they would like to reconsider. ENCEPHALON 06:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calton. It's regrettable that you presume I'd written my comment without doing what you helpfully inform us is '"research", people'. It's not regrettable, it's natural -- and based on the content of your rather gaseous and defensive response, I stand by my statement. To pick a few examples:
      • The NPR link is a three sentence scheduling notice about 21 Dog Years.. Wrong. It's a link to a radio interview -- you DID notice the "LISTEN" button, right? You DID notice the sentence began with "Scott talks with...", right? -- by NPR's Scott Simon for his Weekend Edition Saturday program. I added the "Simon" so you might get the point -- that the host of the program has singled out the subject and his work -- but it seems to have escaped you.
      • The BBC link is a similar 1 sentence scheduling notice about a play. Yes, a BBC scheduling notice about the play that the BBC is broadcasting. Your phrasing makes it sound as if it were merely a theater listing -- though given your complete misreading of the NPR link, maybe that's what you thought it was.
      • This SF link has a single sentence, about his play. Technically true, but misleading: it's round-up page for that week's edition of the paper, with a link to a full review of the play. You DID notice that link there, right?
      • You mention the number of google hits your searches produced. I have found that using the number of hits to indicate encyclopediability to be suboptimal suboptimal—what matters most is the quality of the references and sources with which you can write on the subject. Which is, you know, 'utter irrelevant to what I actually did. The number of Google hits was not -- and as far as I'm concerned, clearly not -- the primary argument, merely the jumping off point for a quick jump through what the Google hits reveal. That you would pick nits -- and in the obvious case of the NPR link, be objectively wrong about it -- rather than note what the pattern reveals makes me question the purpose of your response.
      • As well, your self-congratulatory (and redundant) lecture about sources is duly noted. It's also utterly irrelevant: none of the links I note are for the purpose of sourcing the article -- they're for rebutting the claim that that this article is a vanity piece for promoting a non-notable writer, by demonstrating the breadth of the attention he's received. What choices I made of which to cut and paste were based on medium, significance of source, and geography -- a San Francisco alt-weekly, two Seattle daily papers, NPR, BBC, Spoleto USA, etc: they seemed sufficient to the task I set out to do. The BBC profile page might have been the tiniest clue
    • With Mike Daisey, the "references" I found were... That rather speaks more to your research skills than to the source material, doesn't it, as the NPR link you misread indicates. Perhaps the time you could have spent actually reading the (essentially random) links I pulled up or doing some actual research would have been better spent than on composing a rambling and tangential 1300-word rationale for your pomposity -- along with the self-congratulatory side-trip. I, for one, do not plan on spending any more time rebutting nonsense: I only responded as I have because, as rule, I hate pomposity and I hate having my intelligence insulted, especially at length. Now excuse me, I have work to do and -- when time allows -- an encyclopedia to contribute to. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is an unfortunate post, Calton. Do try to keep uncivil remarks, personal attacks and/or disparagement of your fellow Wikipedians off these pages; we all benefit from courteous and thoughtful AFD discussions. As to the substance of your comments:
      1. In this AFD we're mainly concerned with whether there exist multiple independent, reputable references on the subject "Mike Daisey", which may be employed to write an encyclopedic account of him. I found none, and stated so in my first comment. In a discourteous response, you disagreed, pasting a number of links that you felt disproved my suggestion that there is a lack of reputable sources on [him] that may be used as a basis to write the article and satisfy the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS. The links sadly did nothing of the sort; indeed, they have confirmed my original conjecture about the paucity of reputable, independent references on Daisey.

        This is the core of the issue: to write a WP article on a person, we need works on that person, just as we do with any other subject in order to comply with WP:V and WP:RS. If a thing that person has produced has received wide attention and comment in reputable publications, we may certainly write an article on that thing, but we won't be able to write a good article on the person if we lack verifiable facts about him. That's it, really: that's all I'm saying.

      2. In your last comment, you write that discussion of the use of Google hits was "utter irrelevant to what I actually did". Well, I was responding to your first comment: you informed me that "Google is your friend", and proceeded to relay a string of Google figures: "67,400 hits for "Mike Daisey" (in quotes), 2 from Google Books (though one is from one of those damned Chicken Soup for the Soul collections), and 9 from Google Scholar -- and a Google Ads link to buy audiobooks by Mike Daisey from Audible.com." I was simply addressing this apparent faith in the relevance of hits; it's also an issue that bears discussion, IMHO, given the widespread use of this technique on AFD.
      3. With respect to the links:
        • The SF link. ...it's round-up page for that week's edition of the paper, with a link to a full review of the play. You DID notice that link there, right? Yes—I explicitly noted that in the second last paragraph of my comment. I'd read the short, 1 paragraph review of 21 Dog Years; you had actually linked a TOC (table of contents) type page of the SF Weekly. Did you read what I wrote, Calton? Not that any of this is directly relevant to the crux of the matter: the availability of good sources on Mike Daisey. Like all the other quoted sources, this one is focused on the play, not the man.
        • The BBC link. It's good you acknowledge that this is simply a scheduling notice—1 sentence long. You then ask if I knew the play was broadcast by the BBC. One would hardly expect a schedule on BBC Radio to pertain to some other institution's line up, Calton. I most certainly have not alluded to theatres. Again, though, this is neither here nor there. This is a brief notice on a performance: it's not a reference work on Daisey. We can use this page with its solitary proclamation as a source in an article on the play The Ugly American. We could use it as a source in an article on Mike Daisy to indicate that one of his performances was broadcast on BBC—if we had enough other material on Daisey himself that could be used to write an article on him, that is. As must be apparent, I am doubtful of this.
        • The NPR link. You reserve especial odioum here, over a point as incorrect and IMHO as inconsequential as the above. Yes, I did spy the "Listen" button, Calton—it's a bit hard to miss on a page with 3 sentences. Before you make the inquiry, yes, I had even clicked on it and listened to all 14 minutes and 36.5 seconds. The interview is, once again, on the show 21 Dog Years: they spoke about the play, the experiences behind the show, and played a number of clips from it. Not a single second was spent on Mike Daisey the individual apart from the show: nothing on his childhood, or education, or influences, life... or even his other works. It was a chat about 21 Dog Years; the description was not "wrong", Calton—quite the opposite, if I may say so. And, once again, the point you raise is IMHO tangential: whether or not I saw the "Listen" button hardly changes the simple, straightforward nature of the page—three sentences concerning a scheduled radio interview about 21 Dog Years.
      • The primary consideration remains: where are the multiple independent, reputable references with which we may write a balanced, factual, verified WP article on the person, Mike Daisey? I do not see them: what I see are simply blurbs and reviews on the play/book. They are best utilized as a basis to write about the play; until Mike Daisey is notable enough that people start writing about him, I'm afraid a page on him is premature.

        Finally, do moderate your tone. I was disappointed (and surprised) to read your last post: we would all benefit from courteous discussions, and that tone is hardly helpful. I've given your comments all due consideration and respect: this despite being subjected to an incredible amount of condescension and incivility ("It's called research, people; "gaseous and defensive"; "self-congratulatory"; "your pomposity"; "speaks more to your research skills"; "rambling"; "pick[ing] nits" "nonsense"). In fact, I stopped the normal course of the AFD, contacted each participant who had commented before you and asked them to consider your views, even though they are opposed to mine, because the AFD would not have reached a fair conclusion otherwise. It would be nice if you could say what you have to say with a little less discourtesy. ENCEPHALON 14:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        • NB. I've just gotten a hunch as to why one of my comments above was disparaged as "self-congratulatory". Is it that I referred positively to an article I initiated? If so, please note that that was not the intent at all: I only used the article as an example because I'm aware of it (I consider articles WP's anyway, and refer to them that way). I don't know that many articles of the top of my head that can serve as a good example of what I was referring to: something on an encyclopedic subject with very low google hits, but which had been written up on WP and completely referenced to acceptable sources. If this was the reason for the uncivil remark, I can only advise, once more, WP:FAITH. Thanks ENCEPHALON 14:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion remains unchanged. Ardenn 07:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete, but I'm fine with an article about 21 Dog Years instead if the self-aggrandizing stuff is made to disappear.pschemp | talk 07:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also still going for delete; but thanks to ENCEPHALON and Calton for their research. Mikker ... 17:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable and verifiable. I wouldn't object to anything about Daisey himself being merged into an article on 21 Dog Years, so long as someone else does the work ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well written, ENCEPHALON, the subject remains non-notable. Admins, we should keep this entry, simply for ENCEPHALON's excellent analysis of notability! -- Avi 13:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or even strong keep per Calton (never thought I'd type that). -- JJay 04:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Babajobu 16:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep. Profiled by the BBC [35], published by major publisher, often enough noted in news articles. Is there a dispute on this for any reason other than a clique of users regularly vote, in what should be seen as bad faith, to delete articles that plainly meet notability standards? Monicasdude 18:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I looked him up on Gale.net's Biography Research Centre which has a listing in its Contemporary Authors Online for Daisey. Unfortunately, it is another subscriber service but it is another reliable source for the article which I have added to it. He is both verifiable and notable enough as an author for mine. Capitalistroadster 23:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great effort there! The first promising plausible source. However, on checking out at the website I was discouraged. According to gale-edit.com, their Contemporary Authors index is essentially written by the authors themselves. Any person who has published one non-vanity press book can fill out their questionnaire; Gale editors will turn the answers into a prose sketch and then return this piece to the author. Then, "we will incorporate any changes you wish to make at that time..." This certainly does not seem to be a reliable source as defined in WP policies. Sources acceptable to WP are those which have undergone a fact-check or peer-review process (eg. as in published scientific journals, theses, newspaper articles etc). This is especially important to WP because we completely lack any kind of mechanism for doing this internally (ie. we have no peer-reviewers, editorial offices, fact-checking departments etc—we're just an anonymous wiki, so everything must be cited to reputable external sources). (<--general comment just for the benefit of participants who may be unfamiliar; no offense meant Capitalistroadster :))ENCEPHALON 14:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasonably popular book (66 user reviews on Amazon isn't too shabby), documented media coverage. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as of 05:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC). Basing my opinion solely on my interpretation that the assertions in the article suffice to meet WP:BIO - barely. ikkyu2 (talk)
  • speedy keep -- bad faith nomination. -- Geo Swan 17:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Illinois Center for Anonymous Postings[edit]

This seems to be a forum where some guy puts up pictures of celbrities and other guys chat. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 16:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think DJ Clayworth is the devil incarnate. Just an opinion, but its probably true.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.184.106 (talk • contribs)


Go back to England Clayworth. Nobody wants you here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.184.106 (talk • contribs)

  • Apparently it's the "Northwest Illinois Center for Anonymous AfD Postings". Delete per Wikipedia:Importance and WP:WEB. Barno 19:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability not established. Pavel Vozenilek 19:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, forumcrufty WP:VSCA. I chuckled at the list of regular readers and participants, though... as if these names are supposed to help assert the notability of this. --Kinu 23:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does "AfD" mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.184.106 (talk • contribs)

    • "AfD" refers to Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, the category where articles which might not be on encyclopedic topics are discussed, seeking a consensus whether to keep, delete, or improve each article, or merge it into another article on a more general or more significant topic. Barno 23:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as somewhat poor website article, WP:WEB. Stifle 00:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bring out the meatpuppets! OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.Blnguyen 02:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Change vote to "keep" if the real Elvis Presley is shown to be a regular contributor. Grandmasterka 07:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus jukebox[edit]

This is a stub about a piece of software currently on version 0.3. A quick search didn't turn up any reliable sources - that is, commentary not produced by its maker - on the software, making it effectively unverifiable. CDC (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlings biggest plot holes[edit]

An article at this title cannot be written in a neutral and verifiable way. CDC (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cn-babies[edit]

Tagged for speedy but no relevant criterion. Blatant spam. I guess I should have speedied per WP:SNOW, but let's be unambiguous here. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 17:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Jack Hyles. Babajobu 08:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hyles Controversy[edit]

Delete Not appropriate for an encyclopedia San Saba 17:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a webspace provider for cataloguing grievances.--Isotope23 17:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy should be put on the article page not just deleted. Arbustoo 04:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbustoo - Please stop valdalizing Wikis that deal with Jack Hyles and Hyles Anderson College. If you cannot learn to write in a Neutral Point of View, then your edits are just a waste of everyone's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.212.201 (talk • contribs)
Once again Mr. Board of Directors for Hyles college, I did not write the article. I am merely trying to undo your POV fork. You have been banned from Wikipedia for your behavior. Arbustoo 05:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Jack Hyles article. The issues presented were significant to the man's ministry. They are well sourced and referenced. --Awcga 18:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jack Hyles is not so long that a separate article is required for opposing views. Fix POV issues and merge to Jack Hyles. --Craig Stuntz 17:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, looking over the main Jack Hyles page, it appears this POV fork is the result of edit wars there. POV fork is only appropriate in reference to large articles that will benefit from branching off. Jack Hyles is barely a stub and this fork appears to be an "out of sight, out of mind" attempt to avoid confrontation. If these claims are WP:V and can be legitimately sourced without being WP:OR, then protest by those who don't want this information posted in the main Jack Hyles should be ignored and continued reverts by them subject to censure. If, on the other hand, this information is not WP:V or violates WP:NOR, it doesn't even belong on a fork.--Isotope23 19:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant info to Jack Hyles, with care for NPOV. NickelShoe 22:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As-Is, The Jack Hyles Wiki was originally hijacked by a small and dedicated group of anti-Hyles persons who want everyone to think that their accusations are "significant to this man's ministry" and that they are "well sourced and referenced". Their constant vandalism of the main Jack Hyles Wiki caused a wiki-war. A consensus solution was reached whereby this fork article was created. This solution is consistant with Wiki guidelines on article forking (POV fork) which states, "As Wikipedia articles grow, they often need to be segmented, or branched, into manageable parts. This is an accepted premise for forking an article, and the nature of that split more often depends upon consensus — e.g. a "Criticism of" article may be justified if there is enough (or going to be enough) material to justify a separate article..." Go ahead and delete this article and merge these outrageous accusations into the main Jack Hyles Wiki, but you will surely enter right back into the wiki war again, which no one wants. - GeorgeS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.212.201 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment, again... this seems to be a fork that is there strictly to create an "out of sight out of mind" scenario. The main article has not grown enough to merit a fork. To quote POV fork: "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion." As I said above, if the criticisms of Mr. Hyles are If these claims are WP:V and can be legitimately sourced without being WP:OR, they should stay in the article and anyone who initiates an edit war by repeatedly deleting material should be warned and then banned if they continue. Conversely, if the criticisms are not WP:V or violate WP:NOR then they do not belong on Wikipedia at all and anyone who repeatedly adds this information should be warned and then banned if they continue. Forking just to keep 2 opposing sides from having to work together is, in my opinion, not a supported reason for a fork and is bad precedent. You kids will have to learn to play nicely together.--Isotope23 17:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Comment, The point is that we came to a consensus solution here and most seemed to be happy with it, and most thought it was an equitable solution and it ended the wiki-war, or at least it was a temporary "cease-fire". The truth is that there is equal Wikipedia guidelines for BOTH positions (deletion vs. forking). The forking solution will work; deleting this fork will only add fuel to the fire on both sides of this issue. From the last wiki-war, it's apparent that banning IP addresses is not the solution, since both parties seem to have an abundance of methodologies at their disposal for avoiding such control schemes. Please allow me to ask for YOUR solution to this problem-- allowing the anti-Hyles people to place their extremely biased and unproven pet theories and character assassinations on the main Jack Hyles Wiki is NOT a solution that will work without major challenges. The majority of the anti-Hyles editors have proven time and time again that they CANNOT write in a Neutral Point of View on this subject. -GeorgeS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.212.201 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment, my solution is for everyone to read WP:NOT, use the talk page to come to consensus, source their edits (and not with forums or people's personal websites... with factual evidence), and work together to create an article that is NPOV. Again, this is how things are done on countless articles on Wikipedia every day.--Isotope23 18:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't allow POV forks, you should familiarize yourself with the resource. If something is sourced and murder allegations are part of his past it should be included on the main article. Just because his supporters disagree that doesn't give them the right to take it off the page as it never happened. Arbustoo 04:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbustoo, perhaps YOU should familiarize yourself with the resource. A fork is clearly acceptible when there is enough material to support it. (Try reading the comments above and checking out the Wikipedia guidelines on forking) AND WHAT THE HECK is this stuff about "MURDER ACCUSATIONS"?? See folks, this crowd just keeps piling on false accusation on false accusation, tell a lie long enough and eventually it makes it into the Wiki. That's crap, sir. - GeorgeS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.212.201 (talk • contribs)
There is not enough material to support a fork in this case, neither article is anything like big enough for that. Addition of rubbish is not a reason for forking (otherwise we'd have hundreds of articles on old smirky by now) - and addition of verifiable material offensive to fans of the subject is equally not grounds for forking. Merge what is verifiable, and if necessary apply protection to prevent addition of unsubstantiated allegations. Guy 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No POV forks. Arbustoo 01:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to articles on school and man accordingly. This is clearly a POV fork. Arbustoo 03:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jack Hyles. A POV fork here is not acceptable and is clearly meant to hide criticism. Superm401 - Talk 06:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep it here Well, all I can say is that if you rabid Hyles-haters don't abide by Wikipedia's rule of Neutral Point of View, you're edits will be deleted asap; and placing your own personal web site as a "source" is not valid, neither is an obscure rant from a lunatic's blog a valid "source"... if you have valid sources from accepted media or news outlets, that is what makes a solid Wiki. Personally, I think it's a waste of your time, since most of you have proven that you are incapable of writing in NPV style and all the time you spend posting obviously biased trash will be deleted in time due to your non-compliance with Wikipedia policy. -GeorgeS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.212.201 (talk • contribs)

George, only one vote per person. Arbustoo 01:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete move verifiable criticism back to the Jack Hyles page. As some above mentioned this is clearly an out of sight, out of mind page. There is no good reason for this fork given the small size of the Jack Hyles article. David D. (Talk) 22:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what's verifiable to Jack Hyles. It's not over large. Note that the Hitler article has also been "hijacked" by anti-Hitler editors - Hyles is not Hitler, but maybe he is less wonderful than his friends would ahve you believe. Guy 23:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment GeorgeS (User talk:69.214.212.201) has been permanently blocked for making two threats and vandalism related to the Jack Hyles articles. He also revealed himself as a board member of the college (see school talk page), who admittedly wants a certain type of representation of the school/founders on Wikipedia. Arbustoo 04:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. mikka (t) 09:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Guy. Sandstein 09:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Jack Hyles. Capitalistroadster 10:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge --Terence Ong 11:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete; this seems to have been created simply to avoid disagreement at Jack Hyles — not a good reason for an article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On further consideration I agree with Mel. This should be merged then deleted. This will prevent criticism from being shifted back on the page; as one can tell by looking at the heated debate at the main article. Arbustoo 20:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to article on Jack Hyles and trim any non-Jack Hyles allegations --Ruby 22:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jack Hyles. This is a POV fork. Not good. Stifle 19:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Jack Hyles article. Bad POV fork. No biscuit. Herostratus 18:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Cooper[edit]

Unsourced+unreferenced article full of internal inconsistencies, appears to be a hoax; if not, the subject fails the notability test. See Talk:Jenny Cooper for full explanation. BrownHairedGirl 17:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Please note, the new AFD has been moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FORscene (2nd Nomination)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 09:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FORscene[edit]

Page was previously deleted as advertising and recreated with some changes. It is still a non-notable software product, the article is advertising posted by the company's founder, and generally WP:VSCA-ish. Ryanjunk 17:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the important thing is that independent third parties think that this is a notable product. These include the Royal Television Society, who thought it was the most signficant of any product anywhere for advancing the process of video post production, and awarded it as such, as well as the biggest production company in the world, the BBC (FORscene works on their 27,000 desktops).
The product is widely used, with distributors in six countries on three continents.
Finally, the product pushes the boundary of what is possible on the web - a complete web-based editing and publishing system for web and mobile phones (cell phones in the US). By using Java in novel and powerful ways, the client takes the strain rather than the server, giving the internet its first complete (ie from shooting through editing to publishing and viewing) browser-based real time video application.
So, in short, I'd like to contest this deletion, which removes from Wikipedia what has been judged by senior independent people in the industry a very significant product.
((The above comments added by User:Stephen B Streater, the author of the article.
    • Please sign your posts with 4 tilde marks, it creats a signature. Also do not add extra formatting to the page such as "==Reply==", it messes the page up. Thank you. Thatcher131 18:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain based on lack of knowledge. However it is not enough to assert the product is used by BBC or whatever; can you include references from trade publications, or other independent sources? Thatcher131 18:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To get you started, here's a video of the award ceremony shot on a prototype Nokia N90 mobile phone, uploaded over the air, and edited and published in FORscene. PS I don't know why the four tildes come out Forbidden on my preview - I'll look this up now. SB Streater. Forbidden 18:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reference to ITV's multiple programmes (Granada is the production arm of ITV). Their first ten programmes were broadcast on Channel 5 last year.

If you live in the UK, you can watch the prime time series Super Vets on BBC1 every Thursday at 8.30pm. Forbidden 18:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the signature now. Stephen B Streater 18:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some recent information on Tiscali.

MPEG-4 legal action against MPEG-4 users. FORscene uses Forbidden's own editing codecs, so is not affected by MPEG-4 legal action. Having your own codecs is a significant technological position (as Apple is finding out to their potiential cost), which is why it is mentioned in the article. Stephen B Streater 19:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent news on the Forbidden website from Friday 13th Jan and Thursday 26th Jan show a couple of recent BBC events Forbidden has been invited to attend to demonstrate FORscene. Stephen B Streater 19:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now put that stuff in the article and give people a chance to mull it over. Thatcher131 20:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this, and some extra links to more third party articles too, to the main article, in a new section. Stephen B Streater 23:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle 00:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless it's cleaned up; current version is not very encyclopedic. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything specific in mind? The original version said a lot more about the system and why it was significant, but this was deemed to salesy. This version says a lot more third parties views and usage. Perhaps something looking more like Adobe Premiere would be preferable, showing development history back to 1990.

I notice that other similar UK listed companies have entries eg Vividas. Would the VSCA people be happy with a Forbidden Technologies entry, with a link to the description on the Forbidden website? Stephen B Streater 08:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment The presence or absence of other similar companies having articles is irrelevant. If those other companies are non-notable, their articles will be brought through the AfD process. Ryanjunk 16:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not after removing Vividas, but thinking of adding Forbidden. Are there any guidelines on what makes a company notable?

I would rather read about a company or product on Wikipedia, where independent third parties can amend or write their own content, than rely on the company website or literature.

To me, notable is not the same as popular or established. In particular, some novel products can be very notable. Judging by the response from independent third parties in the industry, FORscene would appear to fall into this category ie novel and notable.

I've included a couple of third party articles which mention FORscene, and which give a broader picture than the current FORscene article.

I notice in the guidelines that there is no prohibition per se to writing articles about products you are involved in. I know that this has been controversial when applied to biographies and such like, but I would have thought a web based product is relatively simple to verify and so much less prone to bias.

  • Comment WP:Notability provides guidelines for notability, further broken up into subpages for different categories (companies, products, etc). Ryanjunk 18:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll have another look. Stephen B Streater 19:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Notability pages themselves mention some discussion as to how important notability is, but I don't think anyone is concerned with this here. More useful is the criteria for notability expressed in the guidelines here. In particular the sufficient criteria for notability which is for multiple independent non-trivial published works including newspaper articles.

Forbidden Technologies, which has been around for a few years, easily meets this notability criterion, with numerous articles including in the national press eg Telegraph, Independent, Financial Times, The Business, Investors Chronicle, The Daily Mail and the Sun as well as the trade press articles which talk about FORscene (see next paragragh), and thousands of "articles" in invesment websites. ADVFN alone has over 4,000 since the beginning of last year (Forbidden Technologies does not post on these boards).

FORscene itself, although relatively new, has also received multiple independent articles, both on the web and printed trade press particularly eg Broadcast, Televisual, New Media Age and Showreel magazine, as well as winning multiple independent awards (the RTS being the most recent and important).

So if people here are happy with these notability guidelines, I'll fish out references to some of these press articles.

Moving on to the VSCA question. The guidelines suggest that although desirable, it is not required, that the author of the article is not an investor in the company.

I've been tidying up the entry, with the objective of making it more encyclopaedic. This process is still ongoing. Stephen B Streater 00:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


History section added showing developments since 1990. This could be thinned, but launch date in 1990 is significant because it shows FORscene is not some random new idea, but the result of many years of development in the industry.

I've included Eidos plc developments NOT because I founded Eidos plc (which had reached UKP 1Bn market cap the year I left to found Forbidden), but because thousands of broadcast TV programmes were made on it. One of the reasons for the success of FORscene is that Optima developments had responded to vast numbers of criticsms from professional editors over many years, and this knowhow is incorporated into FORscene. Stephen B Streater 10:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:Notability and WP:VSCA for three reasons - (a) The only contributing editor in the article - and proponent here - seems to be Stephen B Streater, and the article is about his web site, (b) virtually nothing in WP links to it apart from his comments in a few Talk pages this AfD and (c) it doesn't do well on alexa --Nigelj 14:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alexa information in particular, which shows a significant recent rise. However it's not obvious to me that links to Forbidden Technologies website directly relate to the importance of FORscene. Most FORscene users have locked down systems and would not register at all in alexa, which may in any case be weighted towards the US, where FORscene is not available.

It's true that FORscene is not widely linked to in Wikipedia. In fact, the original article was deleted after about 1 minute, so I wouldn't expect many links in Wikipedia! No one will link to an article recommended for deletion, so I think the link point is spurious.

The notablity guidelines suggest that the large number of printed press reports, both in the national press and trade journals, should be enough for notability.

Now I've got to know Wikipedia a bit more, I acknowledge that independence is an important issue though, which can only be resolved either by either:

a) people who are independent (such as customers) writing an article; or

b) reducing the article to a stub which contains little information.

As FORscene itself is still a new product, I suspect that over time some of the growing FORscene user base will also be a Wikipedia contributors, so a) will happen at some point.

In the mean time, seeing as I'm me, the most constructive thing I can do is to reduce the page to a non controversial stub, and wait for other Wikipedia users familiar with FORscene to add to it as they see fit.

I was thinking along the lines of:

FORscene is an award winning Java internet video platform, enabling users to edit and publish for web and mobile.

Stephen B Streater 17:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On notability, this Italian magazine has a four page article (about 2/3 through). Stephen B Streater 20:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another international article - this time in Japan: DRM article. Stephen B Streater 20:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 09:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simat, Helliesen & Eichner - SH&E, Inc.[edit]

This page is trying to be free advertising for a company. At very least it needs major editing. Maniacgeorge 18:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advert. Stifle 00:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is no different than any other company I have seen.

  • Delete just a rewording of the opening paragraph on the source listed on the page. Still an ad. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koopatorivm and Kaptain H[edit]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted (twice) as non-notable bio. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Allum[edit]

This is a self written biography page in a nom wikipedia style about a complete nobody. Maniacgeorge 17:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 18:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per A7... actually it appears to be written by her boyfriend...--Isotope23 18:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 09:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nebraska-related topics[edit]

This sort of thing is exactly what categories are for. -R. fiend 18:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then why do state topic lists exist at all on Wikipedia? I do agree that this article does overlap with the Nebraska category; in addition, I almost always use the category listing instead of the topics list when browsing a set of related articles. However, I see no harm in providing an alternate listing of Nebraska-related articles for those who don't find browsing by category all that intuitive, especially when a precedent has been established for topic lists by state. Unless you're willing to put all state topic lists for discussion on AfD, I see no reason to delete this article. – Swid (talk | edits) 19:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only one I happened upon, but if there are ones for the other states that are resonably identical, then sure, they should all be put up together. -R. fiend 19:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is really task for categories. Pavel Vozenilek 19:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong opposition, as the primary creator and editor of the List of Kansas-related topics. The reason given is that this "is exactly what categories are for", but I have yet to see any state category that lists a wide variety of topics related to that state in an alphabetical fashion. Category:Kansas has several subcategories and several articles, but it is in no way a comprehensive list. Furthermore I am always disappointed when people nominate lists simply because they have an anti-list bias, and they believe that categories are the solution to everything. Categories have a use for organizing articles into a tree-like structure, but they are not the same thing as lists, nor will they ever be (in my lifetime at least). —Mike 05:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Categories and lists can serve similar purposes, but this is well-organized, useful to some, and not really bothering me in terms of WP:NOT or anything like that. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have one for every state (I think). savidan(talk) (e@) 07:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was 1, 2, 3... (40 keep/23 delete/2 other/1 disq.) no consensus, defaults to keep. This conclusion refers to the subject of the article, not the article itself.

I think the best compromise to put this messy past behind us is to give it a fresh start, (with unprotection) and let Wikipedians rewrite a neutral and verifiable version. If there are libellous/disparaging additions, delete only these edits, not the entire article. If it's vandalised, then revert on sight, and keep a watch on the article. - Mailer Diablo 01:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion blanked as a courtesy to article's subject. Ral315 (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shao Yung[edit]

Delete copied from http://www.newagequest.com/iching/shao.html San Saba 18:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: it is bad enough being unencyclopedic, badly POV, uninteresting (all right, that's a personal judgement), so if it's copied from elsewhere and copyright violation, there should be no question. --Gro-Tsen 19:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Copyvio.--Isotope23 20:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stobblehouse[edit]

Delete vanity San Saba 18:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probable hoax. Stifle 00:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 16,700 google hits though...? Published magazine writer, editor of book on amazon.com. What am I missing? Weregerbil 15:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 09:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blaumachen[edit]

POV first person essay. -R. fiend 18:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clean up POV and make neutral. Put a neutrality tag on it until that's done. --Walter Görlitz 18:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment right now this is noting but a POV essay. Needs to be cleaned up, WP:NPOV'd, & WP:V to be kept.--Isotope23 20:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. That's why I nominated it for deletion. If a good article can come out of this in the next 5 days I'll withdraw. I have no interest in trying to write one though. -R. fiend 21:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete, good point. Can't source it in English, so I can't do a rewrite. Give it 5 days and if it isn't an article it should go.--Isotope23 21:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up. Stifle 00:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space_Cowboy_Software[edit]

Delete. Page appears to be just a link to author's blog Darthnice 18:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Non-notable software company with non-notable software; likely WP:VSCA. --Kinu 20:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Magdela 21:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 01:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 01:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Dogbreathcanada 20:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systems' Approach for Interpreting Horoscopes[edit]

Delete well, because its crap, not worth having in Wikipedia San Saba 18:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---keep without testing a system, opinion should not be formed.[user: manofletters]11:00, 4th May 2007Manofletters 05:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC) You "Zodiac sceptics" are just too much. Just because you people disagree with astrology or whatever does not mean it is crap. Actually, to obliterate information because you disagree with it is nothing short of FASCISM. This information has relevance for a lot of people who are interested in astrology and believe in its efficacy and have seen it demonstrated in their lives. The information concerns an author of many books who has lectured around the world, has a web page with over one million hits and students all over the world. If you want to delete something, why don´t you consider some of the crap you may be interested in or believe in. If you delete the article, it will be reinstated and a complaint lodged. I am new at this and really don´t know Wikipedia protocol very well, but take the liberty of removing the DELETION TAG. It just strikes me as being a very unjust and uncircumspect action - just consider the comments by this user above. As stated in the History page, a further edit is being considered to reconcile opposing viewpoints. Ramayan 19:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramayan, please do not "take the liberty" of removing the delete tag. As the tag itself says:
You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.
Removing the tag counts as vandalism, especially repeated removal. You are, of course, more than welcome to defend the article (not, please, your Zodiacal beliefs; your beliefs are not relevant here and this discussion is about the article) here and/or on its talk page, and to edit the article as you see fit, within WP criteria. Tonywalton  | Talk 19:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep pending POV cleanup. Not having a belief in something doesn't automatically make it "crap". I personally don't believe that yarrow stalks are a reliable means of divination, but I'm not about to AfD I Ching on the strength of that. Tonywalton  | Talk 19:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep pending a real nomination. The word "crap" is insulting, offensive and constitutes an attack. It is not acceptable for a nomination and "not worth having" also tells me nothing. The editors who worked on this article deserve a minimum of respect from you. Provide a cogent argument or withdraw this nomination. -- JJay 19:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed 100%. Changing my vote as above. Tonywalton  | Talk 19:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for heads up on tag deletion. Relieved to see a more circumspect approach taken towards the article in question. Further edits of it are being considered. Ramayan 19:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I don't see that a good-faith reason to delete has been asserted. If consensus becomes speedy keep, we should just go ahead and close this. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has serious problems, most notably in the controversy section... which should be relabeled criticism and be expunged of the subtle attempt to justify the main text of the article while making it appear to be a counterpoint. That being said this is a badly done nom. Unless you have a valid reason (WP:NOR, WP:V, etc.) there is no reason to delete.--Isotope23 21:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been disappointed with Ramayan's approach. I have attempted to make the article NPOV and have added a criticism section which he has continually deleted or alterered. He (I'm assuming a 'he') has failed to understand NPOV and it irritates me no end that he puts such advertising gumph and cobblers on wikipedia. That said, there appears to be people who believe in this stuff and therefore we need to include it in a comprehensive encyclopaedia. It just needs to be written properly. Come on Ramayan, you have got my vote to 'keep', so if it kept, let's work together to have a neutral article? Maustrauser 22:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mousis have trousis? :-) I've noticed your repeated and fruitless attempts to edit down the POV, Maustrauser (and I'll put the "gumph', "cobblers" and "stuff" in your post above down to pure frustration rather than a lack of civility). Perhaps, Ramayan, you can assume good faith in future (on the part of most editors, anyway), and please don't immediately assume that an effort to make an article neutral (you do know what we all mean by "NPOV", by the way?) is an attack on the subject of the article itself! Tonywalton  | Talk 22:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mousis do have trousis (at least where I live!) Yes, I apologise to Ramayan for my intemperate language. I was frustrated. Maustrauser 23:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Lots of people care about horoscopes, and an article about methods surrounding them is encyclopedic. I would, however, keep NPOV for the 'controversy', because I don't think there's much question that horoscopes are entertainment, not science. Peter Grey 04:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the group spirit of administrators and members of Wikipedia and the apparent consensus to keep this article. I´ve entered a new version of the article, with a bit more elaboration on theory and also the original criticism by Maustrauser but with a section offering a rational reply. Hopefully this meets the standards of NPOV. Your comments are welcome on talk page or to insert factual changes in article as per your best judgement. Thanks. Ramayan 07:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 13:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep "crap" is not a reason for deletion NickelShoe 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Clearly, the vote is to keep this article. It should be done ASAP. Jorgeangelino 19:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 09:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Listfield[edit]

Delete. Non-notable vanity article Maxamegalon2000 19:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep google gives 240 hits for "Scott Listfield" artist, and several are interviews/articles about him. The "go to his website for more info" needs to be removed, but other than that it's ok. He's on the Wikipedia list of requested articles, if that makes any difference. Magdela 21:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's more of an ad than an encyclopedic reference. The personal pronouns tell me that this could quite possibly have been written by Mr. Listfield himself. -- Wikipedical 23:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if people are writing articles about him, he's notable. Kappa 14:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 09:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Village Doctor - A.S. Holla[edit]

Vanity, original research, and memorializing. Indrian 19:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It says he's a doctor, which is borderline notability assertion; otherwise I'd say speedy it. But alas, WP:NOT a memorial. --Kinu 20:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My brother's a doctor, but that doesn't make him notable. Delete per nom, alas. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the editor of the article on Dr. Holla. I know there were and are so many doctors. But not many like him even in these days in many countries. In the 1970s when medical facilities in villages were often almost nonexistent in India, he would provide the best possible care given his education, equipment and fees he would take. Most of all, he would keep case-histories when I see even in 2006 not many doctors in the developing world keep any case history of any patient.

I appreciate it very much if Dr.Holla page is not deleted.

Thanks

  • Delete reads like a vanity article, with a hint of nonnotability and a strong aroma of unverifiable. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom (Talk) 11:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hockster[edit]

Factually inaccurate. Confirmed to be a hoax by original author (see Talk:Hockster) Aranae 19:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy as page creation vandalism.--Isotope23 20:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete vandalism. Stifle 00:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 09:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Baptist Church of Lake Orion[edit]

Delete not notable San Saba 19:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm trying to create this article-please wait to delete it until I'm done at least Brdforallseasons 19:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Kind of bad form to AfD something that was started earlier today... but being familiar with the subject of the article, I don't think the author has much of a chance of asserting enough notability to pass an AfD. I'd say at least let them try and userfy their effort if they can't.--Isotope23 20:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Individual churches are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 05:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some churches are notable - St Paul's Cathedral for example - but most emphatically are not. Consider an article on "places of worship in Lake Orion" including the synagogue, mosque and Roman Catholic church. If moved to there and work started, will change my "vote". Guy 23:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably not notable (ESkog)(Talk) 12:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 03:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. Clowser[edit]

Cannot verify, possible hoax. Accurizer 19:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Can't verify anything on Google, especially dubious information on Corpsel Magdela 21:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per {{nn-bio}}. Stifle 00:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD A7. Fails to assert notability. ikkyu2 (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. -- Wikipedical 00:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete unfunny hoax. Camillus (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Izwan Firdaus[edit]

Singaporean athlete whose main claim to fame is competing at the World Junior Championships. This is way below the notability bar for sportspeople, who should win major international titles or perhaps compete at the Olympics to warrant inclusion. An event like the Asian Cities Games, on the other hand, gets 2 Google hits. Punkmorten 19:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO unless I'm completely off base and track is enormously popular in Singapore.--Isotope23 20:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a participant in a minor regional or international sporting event isn't enough to make a person notable, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  22:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He is more than 10% slower than the WR, so very slow.Blnguyen 03:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He is notable in Singapore and track and field is popular inSingapore. Almost every day there is news coverage about local track and field in this country. Siva1979Talk to me 16:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muthukumaran[edit]

This runner is "an integral partof Singapore 4x100m and 400m team", but this isn't particularly important or notable. Every country has a national relay team, and the individual team members shouldn't be included here until they win something or do something great. This guy hasn't even competed in a major international championship. Punkmorten 19:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO unless I'm completely off base and track is enormously popular in Singapore.--Isotope23 20:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a participant in a minor regional or international sporting event isn't enough to make a person notable, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  22:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn.Blnguyen 03:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity bio article. *drew 14:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A notable Singaporean athletic. Siva1979Talk to me 16:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yasin Sulaiman[edit]

Another non-notable athlete from Singapore competing on junior level, this article should share the fate of the following articles: Alfred Sim and Tan Rui Xiang. Punkmorten 18:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO unless I'm completely off base and track is enormously popular in Singapore.--Isotope23 20:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a participant in a minor regional or international sporting event isn't enough to make a person notable, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  22:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn.Blnguyen 03:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 13:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Has represented his country at junior level. Siva1979Talk to me 16:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 03:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Tan Jwee Ann[edit]

Another non-notable athlete from Singapore successful mostly on school level. One of the categories does say that he competed at the South East Asian Games, but this is a quite small event and apparently he didn't accomplish much. I'm all for keeping Olympic competitors or medal winners at major international events, but this is below my bar. Punkmorten 19:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO... and regarding the stub tag, when did steeplechase become part of track & field?--Isotope23 20:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a participant in a minor regional or international sporting event isn't enough to make a person notable, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  22:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vietnam has won 1 silver at Olympics (total) but dominates Seagames, so not winning anything at seagames is a joke.Blnguyen 03:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, steeplechase is part of track and field la noob! ahah.(Mark waite 14:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment - User has made three edits, all on related singapore athlete AfDs.Blnguyen 01:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Has represented his nation in a notable event. Siva1979Talk to me 16:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 03:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheena Hu[edit]

Winning a school tournament in 100 metres sprint does not constitute notability. In other words, fails WP:BIO Punkmorten 19:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete under A1 Ryanjunk 19:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO unless I'm completely off base and track is enormously popular in Singapore.--Isotope23 20:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability of subject not asserted. I don't think winning an event at a school sports day is enough to qualify an athlete for a WP entry.  (aeropagitica)  22:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. shee is almost 20% slower than the WR, so very slow.Blnguyen 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A good athletic studying in a notable school. Siva1979Talk to me 16:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 03:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhd Firdaus bin Juhari[edit]

Nothing notable about this sprinter, except that he is incorrectly tagged as a "celebrity". 5 Google hits indicates otherwise. Punkmorten 19:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO unless I'm completely off base and track is enormously popular in Singapore.--Isotope23 20:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a participant in a minor regional or international sporting event isn't enough to make a person notable, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  22:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He is more than 10% slower than the WR, so very slow.Blnguyen 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Has represented Singapore in the Asian Grand Prix. Siva1979Talk to me 16:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 03:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Wang Kan[edit]

Another non-notable athlete from Singapore. He did compete at the 2005 South East Asian Games, but this is a quite small event as far as athletics goes, nowhere close to its European, American or African counterparts in terms of importance. I'm all for keeping Olympic competitors or medal winners at major international events, but this is below my bar. Thousands of people have performed better. Punkmorten 19:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO unless I'm completely off base and track is enormously popular in Singapore.--Isotope23 20:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a participant in a sporting event isn't enough to make a person notable, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  22:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He is more than 20% below than the WR, so very nn. If a man were more than 20% slower than the WR, he would bnot win the respective women's event, which is an indication of their lack of skill.Blnguyen 03:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, international athlete. Kappa 18:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, He is well known in Singapore. All over newspaper and word-of mouth. only those ignorant ones who done follow track in the country or south east asia, asian region doesnt know. (Manha 07:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment - user's second edit - the preivious was on a related AfD on another Singaporean athelete.Blnguyen 07:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personal attack noted with amusement.Blnguyen 07:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable athelete, he didn't win a medal at the SEA Games. I a Singaporean never heard of him before. The newspapers did not really mention about him. --Terence Ong 10:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,oh.terence, so u mean the newspaper (did not really) mentioned much about him. that means he did appeared in newspaper rite? i believe quite a couple of times although not in depth..tink thats where this site provides a good platform for ppl to know more about him.(Mark waite 14:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment User has made three edits, all on related singaporean athletes on afd.Blnguyen 01:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Kappa. Siva1979Talk to me 16:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep;he is notable in South East Asia!(Kanett 07:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Note-User's 2nd edit, the other was on a similar AfD for another singaporean athlete.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 03:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Tang Yoke Pin[edit]

She hasn't won anything, just competed at various marathons. This is below the bar for WP:BIO. Punkmorten 19:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO unless I'm completely off base and track is enormously popular in Singapore.--Isotope23 20:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a participant in a sporting event isn't enough to make a person notable, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  22:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. she is more than 30% slower than the WR, so very slow.Blnguyen 03:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Has represented her nation in international events. Siva1979Talk to me 16:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 04:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hakeem Bin Abdul Halim[edit]

Another non-notable athlete from Singapore. He did compete at the 2005 South East Asian Games, but this is a quite small event as far as athletics goes, nowhere close to its European, American or African counterparts in terms of importance. I'm all for keeping Olympic competitors or medal winners at major international events, but this is below my bar. Although I am curious about the 2005 West Germany Championships... Punkmorten 19:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO unless I'm completely off base and track is enormously popular in Singapore... Too bad these couldn't have all been combined.--Isotope23 20:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't want to combine them as the cases are somewhat, although not very, different. Punkmorten 21:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a participant in a minor regional or international sporting event isn't enough to make a person notable, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  23:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He is more than 15% slower than the WR, so very slow.Blnguyen 03:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If someone in Australia was more than 15% outside Libby Lenton's WR of 53.42s, that would make them about 60.9s, which would not even have them in the top 50 in Australia, and completely unknown
  • Keep, international athlete. Kappa 18:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, He is well known in Singapore. All over newspaper and word-of mouth. only those ignorant ones who done follow track in the country or south east asia, asian region doesnt know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manha (talk • contribs)
    • Note -user's first edit. Blnguyen 07:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Personal attack noted with amusement.Blnguyen 07:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Sorry, this doesnt meant to be personal attack.its like c'mon, look, do you know of every good and notable sportsmen in every different discipline? or even in each particular country? each country or area have their own famous people. like do you know any indian famous actor? if you do not know, but few billions of indians know. then if thats the case , the billion of people notability is well proofed? thanks (Manha 07:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Keep notable in Singapore. Siva1979Talk to me 16:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stromg Keep; notable enough!! he's featured in newspaper and websites!! ask straits times newspaper in Singapore(Geishalover 07:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Note - User's 2nd edit. The other was on another AfD for a similar singaporean athlete.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 09:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian novel[edit]

Dictionary definition of Christian applied to the noun novel. Made to promote the website link, maybe? Magdela 19:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The link is somewhat irrelavent anyhow.--Adam (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no WP:V information that this is an established genre. Some inference perhaps from the Christy Award, but I'm not convinced that is in anyway notable. An author also wrote a "how-to" guide for writing christian novels... but that's about the extent of it. I need to see credible evidence that this is an established genre.--Isotope23 20:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I guess, but I am astonished that there is no article for either Christian fiction or Christian literature to which we could redirect. DJ Clayworth 21:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly a redirect to Christian mythology would serve. If you look down that page it appears to cover Christian fiction to some degree. If the page then became sufficiently expanded, this topic could be forked back off. :) — RJH 16:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to take it on myself to start Christian literature, make Christian fiction redirect to it, and eventually I'll make this page redirect there. (Mythology is hugely different from fiction, by the way) DJ Clayworth 19:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change my vote to keep. On reflection there are enough Christian novels that the history of them should be interesting enough to deserve an article. The current article doesn't say much, but that just means it's a stub. I'm also realising what a huge subject Christian literature is. I know nowhere near enough to even start a stub overview that would not be laughed at by anyone with any knowledge. Still, I guess we have to start somewhere. DJ Clayworth 00:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DJ Clayworth. --Malthusian (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProgressSoft[edit]

Does not appear to be sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. --Sleepyhead 12:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep it has many relevant Google hits, seems notable in its field, and is in the middle of a rewrite. Elfguy 14:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't really in the middle of a rewrite; the {{underconstruction}} tag was placed by the original editor on February 4; I nominated this for deletion on Feburary 9; since then, there has been no substantive edits. --Nlu (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or else I will email my cousin and tell him to put an ad for his software tools business (I won't actually, but delete this!!).Blnguyen 00:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
moink 19:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 10:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge management for development[edit]

This seems pretty useless.....I added proper formatting, but there's no information here. --NorkNork 14:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've fixed the format and listed, seeing as that was not done at its initial nomination.SoothingR 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete: there is clearly not going to be a cleare consensus after three weeks on AfD. - ulayiti (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CBHCO-MA[edit]

This article looks legit; however, I can find no reference to this organization via Google search. My vote is Delete unless References cited. James084 13:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The active duty population, including certain National Guard and Reserve, has unique health care considerations, for instance, line of duty care, active duty claims processing, and post-mobilization care. Hear how each of these offices - Resource Management, the Military Medical Support Office, and the Community-Based Health Care Organization - plays a role easing the process by which active duty care gets coordinated and bills paid.

CBHCO-MA may likely be the provider for that TRICARE region.--み使い Mitsukai 14:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. Vegaswikian 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A google search shows that the US Army does indeed have something that is called "Community Based Health Care Organization", but not that the Massachusetts branch of it is anything special, or even that it exists. I would have voted merge with CBHCO, but that page does not exist, and this does not seem to be a good start for it, so for now I just leave it at a comment. - Andre Engels 10:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Explorer[edit]

Does not merit an article, per Website notability guidelines. An external link on Google Maps might suffice (and with an Alexa rating of around 130,000, I wouldn't remove it from Google Maps, as spam). --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. And when I clicked on the article, I had in mind a more notable "Earth Explorer", which is USGS's system for querying and ordering spatial data and satellite imagery. I just don't think it needs its own article on Wikipedia. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website. We have only 6,832,117 articles after all, and only a small fraction of them are about individual websites. If it can be re-written as a different topic, I strongly recommend starting the new article on a user subpage, then moving it to this title when the current article gets deleted, to keep irrelevant material out of the article history, and also avoid ambiguity (in later votes) as to which version is being voted upon. — Feb. 18, '06 [19:03] <freakofnurxture|talk>


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, given two go-rounds and couldn't produce a single vote one way or another, default action is keep. Babajobu 09:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norrie maclaren[edit]

A strange mixture of fact and unverifiable statement. Imdb knows about a Norrie Maclaren, but he seems to not be this person. No mention of him on the credits to The Shining per the end credits on the DVD (the assistant director was Brian Cook). There are Google hits on various farming-related activities such as hen-keeping, so that might be this person. The only verifiable bit seems to be filmbang productions, here, but that looks fairly nn. No Vote, I'm bringing this to AfD in the hope that someone with more film knowledge than I can confirm whether this is a hoax ripe for deletion, spam for a production company or what. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep, Some verifiable facts: The Peerage lists a Norman Angus MacLaren, who is the grandson of a Countess from Britain. [37]. MacLaren's grandmother, Edith Maud Rawdon-Hastings, Countess of Loudoun, is from the controversial line of Plantagenet, who have a claim to the throne of Britain. [38]. filmbang, which is Scotland's film production guide, here, lists a Scottish based producer named Norrie MacLaren. There is a reference in a book on British fashion photography titled 'Look at Me Fashion and Photography in Britain' [39] and a continental European photography web showcase has a sample piece for Deluxe magazine from 1977 [40]. IMDB lists a UK production credit under Norrie Maclaren

There is a Scotland based organisation that does film related work for the local economic agency, that has MacLaren as a chairman, [41]. There are various farm and animal related activities referring to a Norrie Maclaren living in Scotland, consistent with the interest in gardening prominently mentioned in the article. Finally, the article mentioned that he was an assistant to Stanley Kubrick, which is not the same as claiming that he was the assistant director to Stanley Kubrick. There is enough to prove that the article is neither spam nor hoax.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.20.37.41 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment my question is not whether he exists, which he clearly does, but whether notability is established. Thanks for the additional information, 82.20.37.41 Tonywalton  | Talk 09:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Assistant to Stanley Kubrick" is NOT the same as "Assistant Director": the former job is more of a gofer than a technician's job. If you have The Shining on DVD, check the credits again under the former title, not the latter. Kubrick's assistant while he was making Full Metal Jacket got a credit (and if you're wondering why I would remember such a thing, it's because he {Leon Vitali) gets mentioned in Matthew Modine's Full Metal Jacket Diary -- which I just read -- and I spotted his name in the credits).
Hmm, IMDB lists Vitali as Kubrick's assistant on The Shining, too, so the probability of this being a hoax/inflated resume increases. --Calton | Talk 07:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
moink 19:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the creator of this article, I have asked IMDB to update their database. Maclaren was Kubrick's personal photographer on the sets. Until the changes are reflected on IMDB, i've taken out the reference to shining and barry lyndon. The rest of his biography should be enough to establish notability


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Not sure the exact criterion, but it was someone's story they made up. WP:NOT shoudl cover it sufficiently.-R. fiend 21:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyborg Action Hero[edit]

Material is not suitable for wikipedia. The article is a story, not an encyclopedic entry. Tc61380 20:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep the redirect. (AFD is the wrong place to take redirects, try WP:RFD if you must, but redirects from misspellings are cheap and often considered harmless.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chrine Njeim[edit]

Name Mispell moved to Chirine Njeim Kaiser23 21:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, so why the AfD then? Just leave the redir in place... no harm.--Isotope23 21:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphiamrk.com[edit]

Not sufficiently notable as per WP:WEB. About 70 Ghits and a dozen sites linking into it including myspace.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Hotel[edit]

Reads like a promotional piece, or review straight out of some magazine. Doesn't seem to be a notable business. -R. fiend 20:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Advert, probable copyvio. Stifle 00:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section was re-written so that it reads more as an historical piece. It's not a review it's a documentation of the hotel/firehouses history. Let me know what parts you think are ads and I'll reword it or if you would like you can reword it Fiend. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aplusjimages (talk • contribs) 14:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment: This page has not been edited since it was created, except to add and remove a prod tag and to add an AFD tag. Stifle 20:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response:This page has been deleted in the past and was rewritten from the last time it was deleted. What material on it is an ad and I'll remove it? Thanks. --Aplusjimages 16:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who Will Save Your Soul[edit]

Non-notable single, does not appear to be particularly stand-out. Can be merged with Jewel or deleted. Stifle 21:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I merged the article. There was a tiny factoid that seemed worth saving (song was significantly altered for radio). If I kept some of the text we have to do a redirect, not a delete, right? Thatcher131 22:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should preferably not be merged to the singer but to the relevant album Pieces of You and then a redirect. Personally, I consider there is enough verifiable material to warrant a stand alone article. Capitalistroadster 03:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, we tend to keep notable singles, and this was Jewel's breakout hit. If it's stub size, expand it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable single per precident... merge may or may not be called for but that's for the talk page. --W.marsh 15:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per badlydrawnjeff. youngamerican (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, breakout single. Kappa 18:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ubiquitous and annoying single which was parodied on SNL. Monicasdude 19:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, utterly notable (although I hated it personally). Gazpacho 08:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom (Talk) 11:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Da bomb[edit]

Dictdef plus a presumably very cool formula. Belongs on urbandictionary

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a slang guide. Dicdef, no chance for encyclopedic expansion. Barno 21:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, A1, tagged. PJM 21:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Droops[edit]

Hacker, founded a hacker club and a blog, a "staple" in the hacker community -- too much of a claim for speedy candidate, but appears nonnotable. google for "Droops Infonomicon" gets about 84 unique hits; could possibly be more notable than that, since his name is such a common word it's hard to sort out, but doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO from here. Delete. bikeable (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete nor to smerge. This does not preclude any such merge discussions taking place elsewhere, of course. - brenneman{T}{L} 06:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pillow_Fight_Club[edit]

Please add new comments to the bottom of the page.

  • Strong Delete:This is a pure vanity page, of interest only to the event organizers, and consisting in the main of links to other vanity pages. Hmackiernan 21:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this purely vanity? Someone must have had some serious sour grapes to consider this page, which is informative and one of the few sources of information on this "fad" purely in vain to the organizers. If that's the main objection limit the off going links.

22:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)22:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)22:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)22:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)12.111.30.89 22:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This organization exists in the real world and has had press coverage. The San Francisco Chronicle article, which is linked to at the end of the page, would seem to clearly indicate that Pillow Fight Club is of interest to those outside the organziation.

This is TOTALLY valid!

I agree this is interesting to some and not a harmful entry. Please keep this entry here(JB, 2/15/06).

Someone must be really vengeful and spiteful to want this page removed. There is no other reason. I think the support for this page speaks for itself. If it's deleted, I'll probably stop using Wikipedia altogether, since its whole foundation would be flawed and its name a fraud. ---

I'll elect to ignore the psychologizing, and say only that you must have a very skewed idea of Wikipedia to consider deletion of this page constituting 'fraud'.
Maybe you should read a bit more before making such histrionic and grandiose statements.
Hmackiernan 20:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pillow Fights are real-world events that ought to be documented on wikipedia. They have affected thousands of people in dozens of cities worldwide and the phenomenon is currently spreading. This page is linked to by many websites. Why would you delete it?


Don't delete! This was informative!


Newsworthy, informative are not, in my opinion, valid criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. 209.19.42.2 23:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Surely Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but that's not an actual policy, nor should newsworthiness preclude topics from Wikipedia. Yes, before this event took place the article probably wasn't deserving of a page but now that there existed such an event, that it is imtimately linked with flash mobs which is itself is a legit topic (it would have been an actual flash mob if it was planned covertly), and it has garnered enough notoriety to become newsworthy, I believe makes this topic worthy of inclusion. Its clear it has elevated beyond something that was just made up and I'm sure someone can find the feathers around the ferry building to prove it. hateless 01:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Its not make believe people, its been documented as a real event, besides some people have no idea about it.

--ConradKilroy 04:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First rule is - never mention the Pillow Fight Club (and certainly never write an article about it). A smerge into the flashmobbing article may be in order, though. Grutness...wha? 05:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The "event organizers" mentioned in the original post are parties unknown, who seek to remain anon & who make no money or other gain through any aspect of an event. Organizers and participants are unorganized, which means the idea has spread for its own value, as a meme. The "promoters" are merely reporting on an open source idea that has international acceptance.--dr elys jimenez 07:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this is a totally legit entry. It falls under Sociology or Anthropology and is a cultural phenomenon albeit a weird one and perhaps short lived but I was seeking legitimate info about it and was happy to see such an exhaustive entry about it which also led me to Flash Mobs and other interesting bits of modern culture. --User: taymar
    • user's second edit to Wikipedia - the other was to the sandbox Grutness...wha?

KEEP!! This is a real event, these do happen, and I wouldn't have found out so much about them if it wasn't for this page.

KEEP THIS - Please

KEEP! Am going to link to this on my blog. Thought provoking, informative, and apparently true: there have been actual events in London, San Francisco, etc. This is no less valid than Pastafarianism. Oh yeah, and I'm going to organize one myself.

  • Well, I'm heartened to see the pillow-puppets are out in force (and thank you Dylons493 for that wonderful neologism :) )

I remain unconvinced, but whatever.

Hmackiernan 21:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Pillow Fight Club mentioned in Neil Gaiman's blog and didn't see an explanation. I came here to find out. Now, if it's something that people unrelated to the event would want to research, then it is informative.-E.C.

  • Delete. Wikipedia should not be used to promote memes, only document them when they have already become popular. That means we need good coverage of the event in independent sources (good ones - not blogs), and sorry, but one slow-news-day story in an Israeli newspaper doesn't convince me that this is a global phenomenon. --Malthusian (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Missed the SF Chronicle - now I see that we have actual third-party evidence that this encyclopaedia is being used to promote non-notable events. "Like many others, Davis learned of the pillow fight from a friend who directed her to a Web site -- in her case it was Wikipedia -- that gave details about a planned flash mob pillow fight on Valentine's Day in San Francisco." (my emphasis) Never mind the WP:NOT paper versus WP:NOT indiscriminate see-saw, this article is literally giving people the wrong idea about what we're here for. Even ignoring that, the two independent references documented two individual flash mobs, not a global pillow fighting fad, and individual flash mobs are generally not notable. --Malthusian (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your comment reeks of subjective judgement, Mal. First off: what is non-notable? What is your criteria for notability? Seems newsworthiness is not a criteria you'd use, although the topic passes your "good coverage in independent sources" criteria. If it helps any, Google has about 10 articles for the SF pillow fight.[42] Second, if you have content on an article that is promoting or advocating an event, you have an example of POV in an article, which would warrant editing. I will concede that the article outside of the opening section and the external links should probably be deleted, and perhaps the opening needs some editing too. However, you can argue any proper article on an event, say, 2006 Winter Olympics, is functioning as promotion as well: all you need is a time and place. It's not the job of the editors to police what the contents of an article is used for by individual users. And the quote does not make it clear that the article was used for the purpose of promotion or as just as a reference. Lets not get into silly authoritarian we need to make an example! sillyness, it's gonna punish Wikipedia users more than the promoters. We on the Keep camp have proposed newswortiness as a criteria for notability, please present your own objective criteria and argue for it. hateless 05:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, all your news articles prove one thing: that in a couple of places people had a couple of flashmobs in the form of a mass pillow fight. This article is a) trying to bulk up those isolated incidents into a global phenomenon and b) trying to turn it into a global phenomenon by using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. As for the Olympics, you might be interested to know that those have been going for decades and receive worldwide coverage from every form of media, and have already become notable without Wikipedia's help. --Malthusian (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And it should be clear that I'm not denying that, yet I'm saying that's enough for inclusion within Wikipedia. What I'm asking for is your criteria for notability and inclusion, and I'd like one where you can't just raise the bar every time you realize the test was passed. hateless 07:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Know what I'd like? If the pillowheads people demanding that the standards and criteria be made available would read up a bit on Wikipedia's policies, standards, guidelines, criteria &c before barging in bloviating about how horribly hateful and unfair we are by threatening to delete 'their' article. Hmackiernan 18:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the strawmen at home, h, no one here claimed ownership of this article in any way. And name calling isn't going to help. hateless 07:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
straw is for stuffing pillows anyway Hmackiernan 22:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Malthusian Ryanjunk 16:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! Pillow Fight Club is a social meme akin to Burning Man. It existed. It exists. It will appear again. Flash mobs can be related directly through history to the 1960s Be-Ins or early 90s Queer Nation mall zaps. In this case, though, the Internet as the medium of communication. PFC did not occur *because* of Wikipedia, but is certainly of interest to its users. --Ggreg 22:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • user's second edit to Wikipedia Hmackiernan 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I had no idea what this was as I heard about it thru an weird happenings newsletter. I came to Wikipedia and I now know. This is why wiki exists.

--Acgrenier 23:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first contribution. [43]
  • Keep - I came to wikipedia to find out about this. It was useful. MarkDilley
User's sixth contribution. [44]
  • Keep - I just received an email invitation to a future pillowfight happening in New York City--I was baffled and did a wiki search to find more info. As dr elys jimenez said, the events are taking place around the globe, it seems doubtful that the same people are behind each of them. Apparently mass public pillowfights have become a meme, definitely some obscure piece of knowledge worth noting.Anirishprophet 02:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's first contribution. [45]
but is it Wikipedia's job to be the clearinghouse for information on every passing fad? Answer: no. hmackiernan 00:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Unless you'll replace it with something more useful, why delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.97.6 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep - Stupid fad, good article. KarlBunker 02:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query — Where is the line between a newspaper and a living Wikipedia? How many PFC events must occur before it has a place here? Can the lines between documentation, reporting, and promotion be drawn without considering the motives of the writers? --dr elys jimenez 07:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When there are reliable independent references that state it's a global phenomenon, it's a global phenomenon. Using individual flashmobs as references and trying to pull them together into a global phenomenon is original research. --Malthusian (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Look at the text of Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day: "Fads, and fashions can end up in Wikipedia. But only if someone first sits down and researches them, and publishes a book, an academic paper, or a magazine/journal article detailing that research. Then the subject becomes eligible for Wikipedia.

For example, Catherine Gewertz has written an article, published in Education Week in 2001, about the school craze of freak dancing, which makes freak dancing a valid topic for a Wikipedia article." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.34.46 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep: This is an interesting article about a social phenomenon that adds joy and whimsy to life. With all of the anger in the world, isn't it worthwhile to mention a movement of lighthearted fun? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.202.150.177 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 20 February 2006
  • Strong Keep I heard about this page from an onlooker at the SF event who was delighted with the event and very pleased to find out more about it on Wikipedia quota 13:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC) As several people have pointed out to me, this was rather 'faint praise'. I should have added that I found it useful and informative, too. If (before some event) this page was used as promotion, then yes that's not Wikipedia. But if it is a professional and accurate record of events, then it is as useful as any other record of people doing extraordinary things for extraordinary reasons. quota 20:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I came upon this page randomly from a xanga, it's brilliant! If it weren't for this wiki, I never would've learned about this. There's no reason to delete! Vecter 02:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (I am a real user, not a puppet.) If this isn't true and notable, it should be. If Brian Peppers can be deleted simply because the whole phenomena is evil (even if perhaps marginally notable), than this can be kept because the phenomena is delightful (even if perhaps marginally non-notable). Anyway, with a Reuters story and lots of photographic verification, this seems to have more verification than many other marginalal articles that are kept. (However, the "Rules" and perhaps the "Sugesstions for attendees" sections should go.)Herostratus 18:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See no grounds for deletion. See no overbearing vanity. --Shadow Puppet 01:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, the article is a substub and has no sources cited. Verifiablility issues have not been adequately addressed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umar ibn Walid[edit]

Although I'm much against systemic bias this has no claim of notability and possibly son of and candidate for being father of are just too tenuous.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. Stifle 00:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas above.Blnguyen 03:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, important part of Islamic geneaology. Next time someone types this in, they should not have to create a new article to fill in our wilful ignorance of the topic - and then see it deleted again. Kappa 18:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd be happy to be proved wrong on this. If you add the references showing where this fits into Islamic geneaology I'll withdraw the nomination. Dlyons493 Talk 19:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost (game)[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Tc61380 21:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deleted by author's request. Friday (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous species[edit]

delete as I discovered it was superfluous Camberwell 21:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No need for Afd for your own article. I'll just delete it. Friday (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted per WP:SNOW. FCYTravis 23:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poop Juice[edit]

Neologism at best. If there's an article here, it should be at a more encyclopedic title, and rewritten in a more encyclopedic style (less silly quotes). -- Curps 21:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete No speedy criteria applies (alas) but it's silly, OR/neologism, and offensive. (Also someone's mucking about with the AfD page, but that may be unrelated) Ryanjunk 21:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Complete bullocks --lightdarkness (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, NNN. Only seems like an excuse to sport toilet-talk. PJM 21:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Non-notable slang. -Nv8200p talk 22:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Deb at 22:27, 15 February 2006, Reason: non-notable. --lightdarkness (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ramage[edit]

non-notable biography

  • Speedy delete, not notable. Accurizer 22:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 00:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alasdair Fraser[edit]

Not notable- done nothing notable. waste of a page -- delete--Light current 01:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems harsh. Plenty of folks pay to get in to the rooms he plays, and he fills those rooms pretty well, that I've seen. Discography. Has written at least one tune that made it into a standard tune collection: Tommy's Tarboukas in the Portland book. -- keep -- Just plain Bill 03:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep: He has a whole collection of albums at Amazon listed here. This goes far beyond meeting WP:BAND. And this Afd is messed up. Both steps 2 and 3 were not followed correctly. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Definitely notable. --Allen 00:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand as per Wknight94. Capitalistroadster 00:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep What is wrong with this article, other than it could be expanded? Camillus (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Per WKnight94 --lightdarkness (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per Wknight94. Monicasdude 01:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Wknight94. --Terence Ong 03:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep StarTrek 06:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone but nom. Definitely worth a cleanup and expansion as well. --Kinu 06:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Instead of deleting it, list it as a stub, and seek expansion. Thor Malmjursson 18:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no opinion about the page, but the nomination is dreadful! "Done nothing waste of a page!"?? JeezJcuk 19:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 37,000 Googles for a folk musician is extraordinary. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks notable, just expand --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 00:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep no need to insult the subject of any article during discussion. Yamaguchi先生 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs expansion and cleanup, but there's no question that he merits a Wikipedia listing. Dsreyn 20:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Poor nomination. Merchbow 23:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as per WP:BAND. --Craig Stuntz 15:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Leffler[edit]

Not Noteworthy, is only in X-Play


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The History Of Bluetack[edit]

Take your pick: patent nonense, POV, original research, non notable, etc... Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'll go beyond the menu and choose apparent hoax. ;) PJM 22:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a grain of truth in there, but it's a mis-spelling of Blu-Tack. A redir from Bluetack to Blu-Tack might have been worth it, but "The History of..."?. Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Trost --lightdarkness (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense - speedy A1? -- Mithent 23:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 00:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas above.Blnguyen 03:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Booger murphy[edit]

I really don't think he's notable. -Doc ask? 22:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article author implies they'll come up with references on the talk page, but until then, delete. --W(t) 22:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I only see one match [46] in the first couple of pages. Doesn't seem notable to me. PJM 22:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Pavel Vozenilek 22:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, only 8 Google hits and only this which states anything about this person. -- Mithent 23:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I originally marked this for speedy deletion per CSD:A7, which is admittedly tenuous. I'll settle for a slow, regular delete. Stifle 00:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; hoax. - Liberatore(T) 15:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn (if even real). dbtfztalk 06:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted (as copyvio). Mailer Diablo 09:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim prayer room[edit]

Other than saying 'a room where Muslims pray' this term is too generic to be encyclopedic. Delete or redirect somewhere if any good suggestions -Doc ask? 22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as obvious dicdef unless anyone has anything to add to the article. -- Mithent 23:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Mithent. -Joshuapaquin 06:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey J. Federico[edit]

Tagged for speedy as nn-bio but notability is asserted. Jeffrey Federico scores a massive 32 Googles. Jeffrey J Federico, on the other hand, gets 18. All mirrors, I think. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 00:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given by JzG. Yamaguchi先生 01:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn-bio. This is an easy one. When your primary claim to fame is your lone interview on ATC, you're not notable. Fella should come back in 10 years and try again. ALC Washington 02:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas above.Blnguyen 03:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team PseudoFlux[edit]

No evidence of notability, only four google hits, one of which is the huge web directory on parkour. --W(t) 22:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable --TBC??? ??? ??? 22:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 23:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 21:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AAHHHHHH burn it... send it to hell </homer>  ALKIVAR™ 22:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Mailer Diablo 03:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team Awesome[edit]

Non-notable group. James Kendall [talk] 22:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy as nn group. --W(t) 22:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete {{nn-club}} applies. Tagged. Stifle 00:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. No evidence of notability provided. - brenneman{T}{L} 05:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surreal Aim[edit]

Aimbotcruft. Nominated for WP:PROD and then contested. FCYTravis 23:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence of notability provided. --W(t) 23:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle 00:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete Software is notable, Surreal Aim is 'one of' the few very notable Colour Aimbot's ever created, these are unique aimbots and are very notable in the research of cheating. Elvva Majes 09:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn freeware program (ESkog)(Talk) 12:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veröld Rúnka[edit]

Supposedly an obscure former Icelandic porn-site, non-notable and unverifiable. Google yields 9 results, 2 are short blog posts and the rest are Wikipedia mirrors or sites that link to the Wikipedia article. Bjarki 23:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Satomi Ishihara. Mailer Diablo 09:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isihara Satomi[edit]

First of all, her name should be Satomi Ishihara or Ishihara Satomi in Japanese, not Isihara Satomi. The spelling is wrong. The page for Satomi Ishihara already exists and Ishihara Satomi also redirects to Satomi Ishihara. Also the user categorized the page as Japanese porn stars, which is totally wrong and insulting since she is a popular Japanese idol drama (dorama) actress and has a very clean reputation! The link to that category has already been removed by me before it misleads others. Imperfect information 08:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This sounds like an argument to make it into another redirect, not to delete. If your allegations above are correct, it's a plausible misspelling (plausible defined as "somebody's obviously already done it once"). As for the concern about the categorization, I'd say sofixit but you already have. Either way, that's not an argument for deletion. (By the way, as a regular article page, this should have gone through the Articles for Deletion process, not Miscellany.) Rossami (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to AFD now. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, it's an alternate spelling, not a misspelling. Kappa 18:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as per Kappa. --Kusunose 07:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per Kusunose and Kappa. Neier 08:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Satomi Ishihara, which has the same info and is far better. --C S (Talk) 13:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Vote count is 2d-1k but Kappa has provided a reasonable reason to keep, and good points have also been presented in the comments. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pivot (band)[edit]

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 23:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if closed as delete, please remember to also remove the link at the pivot dab page --W(t)
  • Weak delete. Note that most of their releases seem to be singles or EPs, or minor labels. Stifle 00:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:MUSIC: "Featured review and CD compilation in Jan 2005 German Magazine "Rock Hard" Over 90,000 Issues sold per month" Kappa 18:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning keep - "These guys have some real potential." - and when they seriously use it and move out of the local scene we will have a much better case for WP:MUSIC. Dan, the CowMan 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears to me that this band has already moved beyond their local scene. In reviewing their accomplishments, they already have national and international exposure and notability. In reviewing the WP:MUSIC guidelines, the German magazine alone qualifies them, not to mention their exposure on the USA network and several other items in the list.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 04:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictator appreciation day[edit]

Recreated again by new user. Should probably by a Speedy Delete. Bobby1011 23:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was del sandbox without useful content. mikka (t) 23:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Good titles to start a new page[edit]

I have no idea how this page is useful. ··gracefool |☺ 23:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. It would be nice if people would provide evidence when having these sorts of discussions, and if there were any more meat to the article itself I'd extend it. Top tip - when you write an article, provide references!
brenneman{T}{L} 05:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bwain[edit]

del promo of nonnotable japanese energy drink. Described as "internet phenomenon", hardly a blip among other usages of the word "bwain". mikka (t) 23:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE FROM THE CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE: I disagree. I've seen it mentioned MANY times on a number of different Internet message boards. Just because you haven't seen it personally doesn't mean it wasn't an Internet phenomenon. It was probably just one that you didn't catch. There are many things on the "Internet Phenomenon" page that were also incredibly minor as well, yet still are on it.

Please read about original research. The fact you saw it on many boards and concluded that it is a "pheno" does not count in wikipedia. A published reputable source must report is as "internet phenomenon". There are zillions of things in message boards. Like, I see the word "fuck" in tons of boards. But fck it is hardly an intrernet phenomenon. 04:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

True, but this was actually a big thing amongst forums. I think you have enough server space to accomdate a coulpe k of information that actually deserves to be up there moreso than some others. The moderators have an awfully fickle opinion when it comes down to what deserves to be included and what doesn't.

  • Delete This is a no Bwainer --Ruby 02:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and nomination withdrawn. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EN World[edit]

This is nonnotable and an advertisement. It is also written in an unencyclopedic manner. —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 23:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per wwwwolf. Sorry about the tag thing, I initially listed it for AFD, then saw the live test of prod notice, changed it to prod and forgot to delist from AFD. —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 21:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry, I didn't check the history. Just remember that PROD is the first choice of deletion and intended to take workload off of AfD process; it's kind of pointless to go for PROD after you've already gone and done AfD. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas above.Blnguyen 03:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup/wikify (will do that as soon as I'm done with this note). "written in unencyclopedic manner" isn't a deletion reason, nor is "advertisement"; they belong to cleanup. As for notability, any site where I can go to the front page and it cheerfully greets me with "There are currently 1508 users online now" is probably popular enough in my books. =) Plus, enworld is pretty well known in d20/D&D circles and has a very informative database of d20 products and reviews - it's probably one of the most important d20 sites right after Wizards of the Coast's site! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I did a near-complete rewrite (and also, the nominator forgot to de-{{prod}} this and {{subst:afd}} it, which I added. Hopefully this makes the thing more presentable. Mmmm. 40,000 registered members. Don't know about your notability criteria - I think it well passes mine! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep — This site is pretty big among the D&D crowd. I still go there myself on occasion. My feeling is that it is just sufficiently notable to keep around. Thanks. :) — RJH 16:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and/or merge with the one I wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENWorld User:BOZ
  • Keep for sure. EN World is probably the biggest d20 site out there (not counting Wizards of the Coast's Dungeons and Dragons site). But admittedly, the article needs work. Rycanada 02:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with cleanup. Right now, it's just a stub anyway. I agree with Boz on this one. Kimera757 05:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this nomination has been withdrawn, why is the page still tagged? (Oh, and in case it still matters, keep as one of the most notable and influential RPG sites in existence.) PurplePlatypus 20:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). I deleted the article on one of the books he published after this AFD debate, but I recognize that authors themselves are more notable than the books they write. Note that the article at present reads more like a CV than something you would find in an encyclopedia, and needs some cleanup. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Kenneth Barton[edit]

No grounds given for notability. Writing a few minor books (only one of which is possessed by the British Library incidentally) and being a retired schoolmaster are not grounds for being included in an encyclopaedia. This almost looks like someone's genealogical research. Necrothesp 23:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I created this one... I'm pretty new here, but is it really a problem if I use a few bytes on this? Actually I've only just started this article, there are a whole lot more interesting biographical facts about AKB that I'm going to add, if you chaps will let me - e.g. he was a pupil of CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien at Oxford in the 1930's, he taught John Wain (future Oxford Professor of Poetry) at Newcastle High School when Wain was a boy, he was in charge of the RAF cadet unit in which Anthony Benn served in the Second World War, he was a close acquaintance of Alan Bennett when Bennett was setting up the New Vic Theatre in Newcastle... Give me a chance? A hnau

I have to say that I don't think any of these are particularly notable achievements. I'm not trying to discourage you from contributing, but being the pupil or teacher of someone famous, commanding someone famous and knowing someone famous are not really grounds for notability. Many, many thousands of people could claim that. The question is, was he notable in his own right instead of by association? -- Necrothesp 11:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A hnau, you might want to read WP:NN and especially WP:BIO for information on who is and is not considered notable enough to start an article on. But welcome to Wikipedia, in any event, and please consider contributing to other pages no matter how this discussion is resolved! --Craig Stuntz 14:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Thanks for the pointers; I did dive in without really checking the FAQ's, which is poor netiquette so apologies. I've read the links Craig recommended, and have a much clearer idea of the criteria for biographical entries now. Certainly AKB doesn't hit the big, obvious criteria, but there are one or two things which may convince folks to let him stay;

- the basic biographical information is verifiable (starting with the St Edmunds Hall Who's Who)

- his publications likewise are verifiable (Alibris, Abebooks, Internet Book List, getCITED, BookFinder.com all list and/or have for sale one or more of his books, and the BL lists both Circling the Square and Mystery in its catalogue; the Library of Congress lists Circling the Square in its holdings)

- all three of the educational institutions he studied or taught at have their own Wiki articles, so there are places to link to and from him, even if just as an 'Old Boy'

- certainly he has lots of connections as well as the ones I've already mentioned (e.g. he holidayed with Alvar Liddell's family in Devon as a child, his family knew the Jeromes as in Jerome K. Jerome, though I take the point about this not being conclusive)

If this tips the balance, I'd love to carry on adding to the article. A hnau

  • Delete per above. Stifle 00:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, published author, scope for an interesting article. Kappa
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. The article does not read like an encyclopedia article either, containing only a sentence of self-description the book and a list of authors and publication info. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery (A.K. Barton)[edit]

Doesn't appear to be at all notable. Not even an original work, but a collection of stories. The British Library does not apparently even hold a copy. Necrothesp 23:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually BL does have this... A hnau

You are correct. It didn't come up on my first catalogue search for some reason. But I still vote to delete as a non-notable work. We can't have pages for every book ever published. -- Necrothesp 15:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the British library doesn't have it, it doesn't exist. Seriously. It's the law in England, you have to donate six copies of any book published to the British library. Although one gets sent to Ireland. Stifle 00:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas above.Blnguyen 03:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eminent domain to promote private enterprise[edit]

Not an article but an essay. Also looks like a copy&paste, but I can't find a source. --W(t) 23:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyism[edit]

Original research. Possibly advertising. Bobby1011 00:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as second def. of Patent nonsense, bad faith original research. Makemi 00:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Weyes. ×Meegs 23:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable subject and original research. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by User:Mikkalai Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Productions[edit]

Vanity page. Bobby1011 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as non-notable group. Tagging now. Makemi 00:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Speedy delete as per nom Maustrauser 00:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"There is Art in a Woman"[edit]

Vanity page by a Blog artist. Bobby1011 00:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_15&oldid=1116878814"