Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 8 February 10 >

Purge server cache

February 9[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 Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted content. Capitalistroadster 01:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gendowned[edit]

apparent nn neologism Savidan 00:41, 9 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 as per CSD A6: attack. --M@thwiz2020 02:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kapuyolandia[edit]

Delete The article is in a foregin language – sampi (talk•contrib) 00:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this is the English Wikipedia. Royboycrashfan 00:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Speedy A6 per below. Royboycrashfan 00:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ditto. FunnyYetTasty 00:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page is also offensive to the gay community.--– sampi (talk•contrib) 00:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A6. This has to be some sort of poorly conceived hate joke against homosexuals. --Kinu 00:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an article isn't in English, list it on WP:PNT and it'll get afd'd if no one has translated it after 2 weeks. Not being in English isn't a reason for deletion by itself. However, in this case the page appears to be patent nonsense so speedy delete. - Bobet 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the translation tag as it is still POV. The article title itself is offensive.--– sampi (talk•contrib) 00:56, 9 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, majority vote keep. Ifnord 21:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coolidge Middle School Coolidge Middle School (Reading, Massachusetts)[edit]

"Ya u should certainly get rid of this page- it's very racist against miorities and I don't feel comfortablewith all the creepy stuff about Marie...DELETE bitches" Delete as non-notable. After reverting the blanking of this article earlier today, I received an email from the original author, user Slugger9203. "I am requesting the deletion of the article COOLIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL because the vice principal at my school told me to delete it and I do not want to get in any more trouble. Please delete it." I've done my part, Slugger. Lockley 01:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain. The author DID request deletion, but articles about schools need not be deleted. Royboycrashfan 01:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I find it sad that a person got in trouble for adding a page to wikipedia, but it seems non-notable, and would require a lot of research and formatting to make quality. --Mathwizard1232 01:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please Delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.107.161 (talk • contribs)
  • Weak delete. I don't know enough about the two awards listed (no citations) to determine whether they convey notability, but I doubt it. High schools are pretty much an automatic "keep" even when they only have substubs, but that's because they have sports teams heavily covered by local mainstream newspapers, they have a sense of community among the student body and parents, and other reasons that don't apply to middle schools. If kept (i.e. if much greater significance is demonstrated), rewrite from scratch (and cite sources) per author's request, dropping all existing content. Barno 01:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Schools are encyclopedic, as I found in my early days on the 'pedia. --M@thwiz2020 02:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (accredited)educational institutions are notable.Blnguyen 02:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: While some editors make that blanket assertion for all levels of schools, there are many who insist that any school article must demonstrate individual importance. There is no "Schools are encyclopedic" accepted policy, just a lot of opinions and some battling guideline proposals. There are also plenty who say (for reasons I explained above) that high schools will always have enough notability if verified, but lower levels typically will not. Note that unaccredited colleges get a lot of "delete" votes. Barno 02:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you want an article about this just delete this one and make one yourself66.30.107.161 02:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep from my short time at wikipedia I've come to learn that schools are the 3rd rail. Obviously the content needs to be fixed, but the article itself doesn't need to be deleted. Savidan 03:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm moderately deletionist now and figure that only High Schools are notable, but good luck trying to zap any school article these days. Ruby 05:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SOME schools are notable, most are not. This one sadly is not. Mike (T C) 04:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any kind of notability in this article. --Angelo 04:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the kid's got a kook for a vice principal that's terrified of the Internet, I see no reason to prolong the kid's suffering. It's inevitable that someone will come along later and write another article anyway, likely someone that said vice principal cannot touch. --Aaron 04:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as not enough information to be notable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC) I have changed my vote, please see below[reply]
  • Keep all schools are worthy of inclusion. cleanup and expand.  ALKIVAR™ 08:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "One news story that this school has is that they want to extend the school day from 2:30-4:30." Must have been a damn slow news day. Marskell 08:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per WP:SCHOOL. Jcuk 09:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Marskell. :) ENCEPHALON 10:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. If kept, do not expand with transient and non-notable information for the sake of expansion. -— Rebelguys2 talk 11:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After this article is kept, if you wish to influence its content, you're free to edit it. If you opt not to edit it, you will have no influence whatsoever on its content, and your comments will, as usual be ignored by the people who do editing. Wikipedia is not for backseat drivers. --Rob 11:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What was the point of that bite? Marskell 18:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What? It's a suggestion. Ignore it if you'd like. Please be WP:CIVIL. — Rebelguys2 talk 22:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being a stub doesn't make it non notable. Elfguy 14:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:SCHOOL ComputerJoe 14:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Newham Sixth Form College was kept on the grounds that schools should be kept and I can't see any reason why this one differs. MLA 15:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Major awards and lots of good info. Article is off to a good start. No reason to remove this. -- JJay 15:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, schools are notable to be on an encyclopaedia. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets the WP:SCH prop.Gateman1997 16:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SCH. --Rob 16:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has potential to be expanded. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schools are kept. --Ezeu 18:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I still have yet to see any compelling argument that schools are inherently notable... and the author requested it. Plus I just love seeing the "No Consensus" comment by the closing admin.--Isotope23 18:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can understand high schools. They almost never get deleted. I think middle schools fall into a different category of schools. This article has the potentional to expand but is it really notable? Unless something really important happened at this school then it should be deleted.--† Ðy§ep§ion † 19:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please middle schools are important also Yuckfoo 19:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SCHOOL Nick Catalano (Talk) 23:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 04:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SCHOOL. Only articles created by mistake may be speedily deleted under G7. (Although if memory serves, it may have been phrased differently when proposed.) Stifle 09:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, et cetera. Silensor 00:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, established school. Kappa 19:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Car salesman 14:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Depending of course on whether the Vice Principal story is true) this could become notable if the student decides to protest. It seems at least tangentially related to Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. Ardric47 03:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SCHOOL. Four refs, 3 external links, looks like a rather decent school stub to me. Now, which one of you delete votes above is the vice-principal? :) Turnstep 01:36, 14 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 this crap. Ifnord 21:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crap[edit]

There is already an entry on Wiktionary for crap. This article has been and remains marked as Move to Wiktionary. If it is already on Wiktionary than it should be deleted from here in favor of the Wiktionary entry. Further, I do not see that this article is anymore than an elaborate dictdef as was purported when the prod tag was removed. James084 01:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Although some may be offended by this article, wikipedias goal is to have an article an anything useful. i used this to see if my my girlfriend loved me (dont ask)
  • Keep. There is a section at the bottom that can be used as a dis-ambiguation page for the uses of the word. Georgia guy 01:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Royboycrashfan 01:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reasonable article especially with dab aspects. Move to Wiktionary tag removed. Capitalistroadster 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete DicDef, not enough crap there for a full-up encyclopedia article Ruby 01:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crap. (Sorry, I've always wanted to type that on AfD.) Change to disambiguation page, agreeing with Georgia guy. The rest is properly Wiktionary content, not Wikipedia. Barno 01:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This dicdef is a piece of... garbage. And don't you dare insult Thomas Crapper!!! --M@thwiz2020 02:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change bottom section of article to disambiguation page and delete the rest of crap. --FloNight 02:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig or redirect to feces. Peyna 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to feces. -Jetman123 02:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Disambig; its a dictionary def --Bletch 03:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Flonight. Mike (T C) 04:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it does not look just as a dictionary entry --Angelo 04:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is more than a dicDef. Particularly the information dispelling the myth that it derives from Thomas Crapper. Paul August ☎ 04:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Disambiguation possibilities are stretching (since none of them are actually the word "crap". Fagstein 04:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting article. I learnt something new today! Jcuk 09:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I meant keep, of course, per the very good Paul August. ENCEPHALON 10:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paul August. Not all the useful information is in Wiktionary, nor should it be. The Etymology and myth dispelling is encyclopedic Mgm|(talk) 12:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a common word and if deleted it will be recreated. Elfguy 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above ComputerJoe 14:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this crap and have a disambig and link to wikt. instead. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 15:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. Neither wiktionary nor disambiguation are appropriate if either mean the loss of information. Smerdis of Tlön 16:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is an extended dictionary entry and WP:NOT and all that. Mikkerpikker ... 17:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a very common word. If the article is deleted, it will likely be created again. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. Ibn Abihi 18:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this necessary crap. It is a very common word, likely to be recreated. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is not a dictionary definition really Yuckfoo 19:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete disambig page would get absurd....per nom not an encylopedic entryAnlace 22:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig this should be nothing more than a page linking to other approprate pages... all other content is in Wiktionary... Nick Catalano (Talk) 23:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Topic is encyclopedic, and article is more than a dicdef. --Allen 00:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep based on the precedent of Shit. If etymological discussions of dirty words is encyclopedic as retention of the cited article indicates, then certainly crap should stay as well. Carlossuarez46 00:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The discussion is encyclopedic, not lexicographic, in tone and scope. Ikkyu2 02:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Carlossuarez46. Forbsey 05:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shamed keep - it is an encyclopedic topic too, and it can be expanded upon.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 14:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's encyclopedic information about the word too. Car salesman 14:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per norm. 3H 05:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article is way more than a dicdef. Turnstep 01:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep according to precedents with articles like fuck and shit. If they can exist, "crap" certainly can. - furrykef (Talk at me) 06:08, 14 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 00:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medicinal Tree plantations[edit]

I believe this page should be deleted because of the poorly written style. It has no coherent topic, is POV, and contains random facts contained in other articles. Nothing links to it, and it's not even clear that there should be an article for this topic, as it is rather obscure to begin with. --Mathwizard1232 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Aren't articles supposed to be easy to read? This thing's a mess. Royboycrashfan 01:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It looks like a how-to guide on how to grow medicinal trees, and it's either copied from somewhere or it's original research. --Kinu 02:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --M@thwiz2020 02:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as beofre.Blnguyen 02:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, its a pile of giberish. Mike (T C) 04:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 04:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- there's no need for an article on this, even if well written. Reyk 06:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-02-09 06:49Z
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Krashlandon (e) 13:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hardly an article. Elfguy 14:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mikkerpikker ... 17:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The potential of the article being properly written is there. If it goes through a major revamp, we should keep it. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 23:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Car salesman 14:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom with the caveat that this AfD should not be held against any future article that might actually contain real content. :) Turnstep 01:45, 14 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. Ifnord 21:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King levitation[edit]

At Ellusionist.com you have to BUY this. You have to PAY money to know the secret. Its terrible that people can search this site for the secret, while others pay their hard earned money. CrazedNakedFooll 01:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep It may not be that encyclopedic but I think it can be improved to be of encyclopedic quality. The nominee's reason is invalid, though. --M@thwiz2020 02:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. For those who are interested, there is a very extensive discussion of the pros and cons of publishing the "secrets" to magic tricks at Talk:Out of This World (card trick). This is a minor twist on the so-called Balducci levitation, and might be comfortably merged there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not call this a "minor twist" on the Balducci. I can understand how a layperson comparing the two methods in a few minutes might be led to that conclusion. But consider creating your own levitation illusion from scratch. It took Corey King more than a year to develop this "minor twist."Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reason invalid. But, if you come up with a better reason, I'll change my vote.--Muchosucko 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or merge two sentences to Balducci levitation, advertisement for commercial website. Google search shows this is real, but I question its notability (separate from the intellectual-property issue). Frankly, if I paid a dollar (let alone $19.95 or more as the website offers) and someone taught me this supposed "magic trick", I'd ask for my money back and contact the Federal Trade Commission. Barno 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally only magicians think that this trick is worth paying that much for. This is partly why magic tricks are SOLD. Magicians normally feel that only people who respect magic as an art form should know magic secrets. People who do respect magic will pay for an effect, where as a layperson won't, thereby restricting the secret to someone who truly has use for it.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Muchosucko. Royboycrashfan 02:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been done to death. Kuru 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirect back to where it was pointing before. It's obviously NOT a secret, or it wouldn't be so widely published. Peyna 03:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So should be publish all magic secrets, just because people can't keep their mouths should and share the secrets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs)
WP should publish everything that is verifiable and encyclopedic. Peyna 13:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not verifiable without buying the product. - Mgm|(talk) 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the magic articles here on WP (including this one) seem to be used for the explicit purpose of exposing the secret of an effect. Exposing magic secrets is not encyclopedic. However, I believe that if the articles can be improved to reflect all aspects of the effect (author, effect, comparison, history, and method), it may justify keeping them.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Ardenn 04:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak weak Delete I have to think that somehow this could come back to haunt us. Despite how basic the trick seems, it was some magicans hard work/"trade secret", and we're basically stealing it by posting it here. Mike (T C) 04:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to reiterate; something cannot be a "trade secret" if it is not a secret. This is not a secret, because it has been published. Peyna 04:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless. --Aaron 04:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete- I don't care about the fact that money is being charged for this, I just don't feel that it's worth an article. Reyk 06:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's delete-worthy but not with that rationale. Try again. --Agamemnon2 07:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think it should be deleted, vote delete. Other rationale has been presented by other contributors, and there is no reason to let a bad article survive due to a technicality. Reyk 07:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, second choice: merge as Balducci variation if kept, just because someone puts it up on the net doesn't mean it was legal to do so. Maybe it's not a "trade secret", but it's certainly someone's interlectual property. In Dutch, this would be called "inkomstenderving", an action that prevents someone from getting paid for their product which, as far as I know, is illegal. Besides, it's not as widely known as the Balducci levitation, the cups and balls or the floating lady. - Mgm|(talk) 12:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IP rights are granted by the government in the forms of trade secret, patent and copyright (in the US, where Wikipedia is located and where ellusionist.com is located. Trade secret protection doesn't fly here, because it's not a secret. It hasn't been patented, so there's no rights there, and copyright only applies to a particular expression of an idea, which is not the case here. Wikipedia is under no threat of legal action for posting this page. Peyna 13:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as the secret is revealed, as it currently is, then it's worth keeping, and followed the "all information wants to be free" motto. Some people keep reverting it to try to hide the information and that shouldn't be allowed. Remember if we delete it we do these people a service since the secret will be lost. Elfguy 14:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand this reasoning. You're saying that this article only has value if the secret of the effect is revealed. This would suggest that nothing else related to the effect is important. Not the person who created the effect; not the facts of its development and history; not the place it is sold or the people who use it; and certainly nothing about how it fits into the history of magic levitations. Even if the page had all of that, if it didn't include the method it would be worthless? Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Good short article in the vein of our other magic articles. Knowing a secret is not hard work. Brighterorange 15:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong (�?喜�?�财) 15:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as scoring only 98 unique googles, but BJAODN the nomination :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 15:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The secrets of stage magicians, like the secrets of secret societies, are not anything Wikipedia should be censored to respect. Smerdis of Tlön 16:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing this article without respect for magicians makes the article biased (against magicians) and should not be allowed. I don't see any reason magic secrets should not be included on Wikipedia. However, I think there is a right way to give away secrets (with detailed information on other aspects of the effects), and a wrong way (with a brief introduction half the size of the explained secret).Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not censored for magicians. Dr Debug (Talk) 17:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Siva1979Talk to me 17:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What Agamemnon2 said --† Ðy§ep§ion † 19:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This trick was revealed on one of those "Secrets of Magic" shows on TV at least 3 years ago. I've been freaking kids out with it for years. I've never actually heard it called by this name, but David Blane and others have been doing it for years. I applaud Ellusionist.com's sense of capitalism, charging for a trick that is freely available online. Maybe people paying for it should take the time to do a little more research. Wikipedia isn't in the business of keeping illusionists' secrets, so the article should stay.--Isotope23 19:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of companies make A LOT of money providing services to information which is freely available. Lexis Nexis and Westlaw have been very succesful at this. While we can't reprint their copyrighted contributions to that material, we certainly can publish all of the government works that are already public domain that they provide for a fee. It's the "other" services they offer that add the value (searching, ease of acces, support, indexing, etc). That said, I'm not sure what value Ellusionist.com adds to their products, other than neat packaging. Peyna 19:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, the product (variant trick) was there before people posted it to the net, so ellusionist isn't marking free information. The people posting it are ripping off a commericial product. - Mgm|(talk) 22:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A ha! But, ideas are not copyrightable. Peyna 23:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this effect was not exposed years ago. The illusion Isotope23 referred to is called the Balducci levitation, which has in fact been exposed for much longer than 3 years. I learned the secret when I was a child from a children's television program over a decade ago (really). The King levitation however was developed just in the last few years, and has not be widely used or exposed. Whereas you can say the Balducci has been popularized by magicians like Blaine, you can say nothing of the sort about this levitation, which hasn't been around long enough to be widely publicized to the layperson.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duly noted... Your latest rewrite makes clear the difference between Balducci and King's variant. Nice rewrite by the way.--Isotope23 21:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep please this is a important magic trick Yuckfoo 19:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep provided issues of verifiability are adequately resolved. The "money" issue is irrelevant; Amazon.com charges $4.95 for Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, while Project Gutenberg provides it free[1]. Encyclopedia Britannica charges money for information that can be obtained free in many places, notably Wikipedia. The local Blockbuster charges money for videos that can be checked out for free from our public library. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is certainly nothing secretive about this illusion. It's one of many ways to go about creating a levitation effect, and absolutely should included in the wikipedia. Stevemarks 00:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All magic effects have an element of secrecy. They are not legally secrets, but they are known only by a limited number of people (mostly magicians). It is not a secret to any of you, simply because you all regularly read Wikipedia articles, and have read this article. Remember though that just because everyone in this community may know the secret to this effect doesn't mean that most people in the world know it. I doubt that even 1% of the population knows how this effect is done.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems notable and I agree with Peyna that the legal issue is phoney: want to know may square miles is Italy: buy an atlas for $20, subscribe to Britannica.com for whatever the price.... or...gosh, it's free on Wikipedia, and someone lost some money. Carlossuarez46 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as no valid reason for deletion provided. Stifle 09:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it can be improved upon, probably.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 14:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I will take the initiative and improve it right know.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article lacks references, and the trick described is not noteworthy in the least. Kleg 01:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember that just because you don't have a particular interest in the effect doesn't mean no-one else does.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "you have to pay money to learn this somewhere else". Well then, I guess you'd have to delete almost the entire Wikipedia database, because you have to pay to get the same info from Encyclopedia Britannica. Free information is the whole point of this place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.100.60 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per DrDebug. Turnstep 01:50, 14 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 AfD for non existent page, probable AfD hoax Peyna 02:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Boot Protocol[edit]

Not notable, advert for yet another sourceforge project. Dibnot 01:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • WoW, it's WoW! Sorry, that's not funny. Royboycrashfan 01:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The link doesn't work - it links to an article that doesn't, and has never, existed. --M@thwiz2020 02:17, 9 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 Merged, redirect Marskell 12:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Morton[edit]

Non-notable person, do the other 1694 people that voted get a page as well? Peyna 02:23, 9 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, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenburgh Taskforce[edit]

Non-notable, possibly unverifiable "taskforce" that no longer exists Peyna 02:26, 9 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 00:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B5media[edit]

A run-of-the-mill network of blogs, which would be about as notable as a webring Ruby 02:29, 9 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, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small Town Murder[edit]

Non-notable band. Has been tagged for {{notability}} a couple of times, but the tag is always removed. Ezeu 02:34, 9 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. Ifnord 21:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Description[edit]

This page was marked Move to Wiktionary. Evidently (according to the article's talk page) this had been completed. In fact, there is an entry on Wikitionary for description. This article is an elaborate dicdef and therefore, should be deleted in favor of the Wiktionary entry. James084 02:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this is already more than a dictionary definition, and has further potential to expand to mention description techniques used in poetry, in police work, in audio description for the visually handicapped, and other fields. Kappa 02:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Royboycrashfan 02:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per Kappa. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not just a definition anymore, more of an indepth description of a description. Mike (T C) 04:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is this a dicdef or a disambig page? Might be useful as a disambig page, but the rest sounds pretty definitional to me. Fagstein 05:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Kappa. The article is not merely a dictionary definition; as well, it has room for expansion. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is also used in witten composition to refer to a particular type of prose writing and a particular type of essay. It can and should be expanded. Logophile 09:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. More than just a dicdef Mgm|(talk) 12:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a common word and should be expended. Elfguy 14:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Mikkerpikker ... 17:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a basic process underlying a number of activities Fred Bauder 18:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please because of what kappa said Yuckfoo 19:39, 9 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 00:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCAR[edit]

Was nominated for proposed deletion with reason "redirection to an organization that would fail AfD notability guidelines if created", but search for target of redirect "National Center for Atmospheric Research" gets 911,000 hits, and all the early ones are relevant. Bringing here for further discussion. Redirect goes to a nonexistant article at time of nomination, but parent article should be created if consensus says to keep. Barno 02:40, 9 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 already redirected to Fueled by Ramen. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fueled by Ramen Release Catalog[edit]

Oh boy, now spam comes in easy to open lists Ruby 02:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, list is almost blank. You can take all the time you want; we don't care about it. Royboycrashfan 02:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been working hard on this Release Catalog. I would appreiciate it if you did not delete it. --Russ is the sex 03:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My vote will change to keep if you add context and background to the article, and perhaps tag it with one of those nifty "incomplete list" notices. Also, even if it is kept, perhaps a name change is in order? - CorbinSimpson 03:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tagged it with an Incomplete List notice as asked. --Russ is the sex 03:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am adding more information by the hour. It should be finished very soon. Please don't delete this. --Russ is the sex 04:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 04:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have, yet again, added even more information. Why do you keep voting to delete this?--Russ is the sex 05:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sun Tzu said, "You can add link after link to a chain, but never once does it show any sign of wanting to stand up by itself." Ruby 05:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I'll change my vote once there is context and background. - CorbinSimpson 06:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unreferenced, unverifiable. This could be published elsewhere and linked to, perhaps, but of what use is it? Fagstein 05:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got the idea from a similar list on Drive-Thru Records. It serves a genuine purpose there, and it should serve one here as well. --Russ is the sex 06:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • An alternative idea would be to merge the release catalog with the list of artists into the main article (which is rather short), like has been done with Drive-Thru, and strip the release numbers which aren't of any real use outside the company. Fagstein 15:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing vote to merge, as it is now. Fagstein 17:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Russ, the very fact alone that it's tagged with a "major edit" that lasts nearly a month indicates strongly that it's "your" article; articles here belong to everyone/no one - in short, if you'll note on each edit page, If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Unless the article serves a valid purpose (and right now it doesn't), how could you expect anyone to vote any differently? If you must take time to build it, build a Sandbox page in your user space and develop it there before making it live. Until that time, my vote won't change; I doubt anyone else's will, either. Changing vote to Merge in light of the further developments.--み使い Mitsukai 07:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have taken your advice. I deleted the "major edit" box. At the time, I wanted to make sure that the format of the list was not edited. I have no worries about that now. The reason I don't want to take the advice of Fagstein, is because I don't want to clutter the Fueled By Ramen page. However, I will take that advice if it is necessary for me to do so. If you want proof of my information, please visit the release page on the label's official website. For release dates, I have used Amazon.com. I have other sources of information that I will use to determine the identity of the missing releases. I will eventually add these links to the bottom of the page. I don't see why you say that this list does not serve a valid purpose. The purpose is to see the history of releases by the label. I will continue to work on this article, and I will put it in the proper place that you determine. Thank you. --Russ is the sex 16:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you click on the "Sandbox" link in my message, that will set up your Sandbox, and you should be able to copy the article there and work on it until it's good enough to go live. Hope this helps.--み使い Mitsukai 16:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I copied it to my Sandbox. Since my article will be ready to go live within the hour, I see no need for the deletion of this page. I will edit the page with the final version when I am done. --Russ is the sex 20:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per nom. No background is given on what the list even is. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 19:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is simply untrue. I added more information though. --Russ is the sex 20:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That may be so, but articles remain AFD until a definitive consensus is reached (usually takes about a week). You can still make edits to the article (like paste in the rest of it to replace what is currently there); it will just still remain AFD until the consensus is done. That's how it is for every article that's nominated for AFD.--み使い Mitsukai 21:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd have voted for deletion if this were one of those "two guys in mom's basement" micro-indie labels. However, it includes multi-platinum-selling records like Fall Out Boy's "From Under The Cork Tree", which is currently #28 on Billboard's album chart after 40 weeks (its peak was #9). At the very least, this should be merged with Fueled by Ramen, which is presently a stub. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think merge is a good compromise. Fagstein 01:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per starblind. Bad ideas 06:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a list of interest to very few people and apparently created just for the sake of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Also violations of WP:OWN. Stifle 09:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no violation. Also, how do you know what other people are interested in. Are you a psychic? It may not be interesting to you, but others may be interested. The examples shown on listcruft do not apply to this list. --Russ is the sex 16:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I am going to merge my article with the Fueled By Ramen article right now. I have only a few releases missing. --Russ is the sex 16:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have merged the page. The separate page can now be deleted. --Russ is the sex 16:49, 10 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 keep as apparent bad-faith nomination. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Hangovers[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted Swampyank 02:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC) (2 contributions to Wikipedia, both for this AfD.)[reply]

doesn't meet "Notability (music)" standards of:

"A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, dj etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country[1]. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one large or medium-sized country. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Has been prominently featured in any major music media. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award. Has won or placed in a major music competition. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.) Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network. "

  • Delete, non-notable, possibly a hoax.Royboycrashfan 03:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Keep per below. Royboycrashfan 05:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - good article, plenty of google hits, seems notable enough. And why do you people think everything is a hoax? --HasNoClue 04:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, that's pretty disingenuous of you to cite only the first part of the standards list, leaving out "For performers outside of mass media traditions:" which they clearly fall under. HasNoClue 04:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Keep per above. Ardenn 15:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you delete 'per nom' when i just pointed out that the nomination leaves out the standards of notability that would be applied to this article? --HasNoClue 04:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I went to cornell, and this article is junk. Do people watch to make sure that lies do not get posted? If they do, they missed this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardman1999 (talk • contribs) (1 Wiki contribution, to this AfD.)

  • Speedy keep and block nominator, as well as User:24.128.84.159 for violating WP:POINT. This article was nominated for deletion by User:24.128.84.159 (as you can see right here) because I've been counteracting that user's campaign to dump links to Bates College all over Wikipedia. In fact, over the past two days, I've rolled back dozens of inappropriate links from this user: look at all of the Bates alma-mater-cruft I've scrubbed off in the past few days. (I'm not the only one to notice this and roll it back, either: see his talk page for User:Mulder416's comments on the issue.) But, rather than discuss his POV Bates spamming, this user has decided to come after my edits. The nominator pretty obviously is a sock puppet for the IP address, given the huge (not) number of edits the nominator has made. With alllll that said, the Hangovers:
    • have won or placed in a major music competition (the ICCA, which is about as big a competition as collegiate a cappella has)
    • have toured Switzerland, Italy, Germany, France, England, and Brazil in the past three years.
    • are the third second Google hit for the word "Hangovers".
These seem to qualify it for WP:MUSIC. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 05:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Why does AFD get dominated by kneejerk deleters who don't even notice basic things, like that nominator's only contribution was this AFD. HasNoClue 05:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concut with JDoorjam, we need to stop being so lenient of null-value contributors and extend indefinite banning to include lesser infractions. Unless we all want to drown in AfDs, speedys, vandalism patrol and so on, in the future. --Agamemnon2 07:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In case there is any further doubt, I believe the Hangovers meet the standards of notability. The ensemble has gone on numerous international tours, traveling to Germany in 1970, and making their first solo tour to Bermuda in 1971. On a 1995 tour to Japan, they received attention by donating half of their tour profits to the Kobe Earthquake Relief Fund. They most recently toured London in June 2005 and will be touring Italy in March 2006. In March 2004, they were shown performing on the Brazilian national evening news, Jornal Nacional. Alumni include such notables as Alan Keyes. They have competed in international competitions such as the Intercollegiate Championship of Collegiate A Cappella (ICCA), advancing to the semifinals in 2001. They can be heard on the PBS American Experience documentary "Rescue at Sea." They are the second oldest a cappella group at Cornell University, certainly the most well-traveled, and arguably the most musical. In 1980, their original single titled "Facetime" received national recognition and earned mention in Yale's "Guide to Selective Colleges." The song was recently re-recorded on the album "Blackout" with another original song, "River to the Sea," both of which received high marks from the Recorded A Cappella Review Board (RARB). The Hangovers have perfomed for John D. Rockefeller, Helmut Schmidt, the widow of Anwar Sadat, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, Gerald Ford, Henry Kissinger, and other notables. They recently performed to a sold-out audience at the French Embassy in Washington, D.C. [2]. CREarle 05:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Six albums recorded and 26 years as a group. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and request admin intervention per Jdoorjam. Bad faith nomination. --Aaron 07:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as notable band, this is a bad faith AFD nomination and needs admin attention. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and request admin intervention per Jdoorjam. Nominating this for AFD was clearly bad faith and should be dealt with accordingly.--み使い Mitsukai 14:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep this seems somewhat notable. Elfguy 14:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough for Wikipedia. Not everyone needs to be Rush or the Rolling Stones Avi 15:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per JDoorjam. As there are no remaining "delete" votes, I suggest this be closed as speedy keep. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 15:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep can an administrator please speedy keep this now Yuckfoo 19:40, 9 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 00:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gtagaming.com[edit]

Non-notable website. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=6m&size=medium&y=r&url=www.gtagaming.com#top may prove useful here. Does not meet WP:WEB, to my knowledge. Delete. - CorbinSimpson 03:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The website is an extremely influential GTA related website that has recieved recognition from Take 2 Interactive as well as Rockstar Games. The site has also had a hand in Young Maylay's (the voice of Carl Johnson)career. I for one do not feel that a deletion is in order. I would also like to add that the site recieves privy information from Rockstar well before it released to the general public. Which if I understand correctly qualifies it under this criteria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB
    • So a fansite was recognized by the game publisher. That doesn't make it notable. Fagstein 05:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The site is not just recognized (acknowledged) by the game publisher. The site itself recieves exclusive information, modifications, and tangible goods from the publisher. The publisher sent out packages to the administrators with exclusive memorabilia not available for purchase to the general public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.146.210 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This website is one of the best GTA websites out there, if not THE best. It was even in the game manual for the last 4 GTA's! Even Rockstar themselves loves this site! It definateally doesn't deserve to be deleted
  • Delete nn per nom.--Adam (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable. Tawker 05:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least part of the content is a copyvio: [3]. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only thing that exists that could possibly be a copyvio would be the rules, for which we have recieved permission from the Site Administrator Zidane (the network administrator, Shawn, has nothing to do with these rules.) As far as other GTA-relates sites are concerned, none recieve the same attention from the developer of the game that this particular website does. For instance: there is a character model in the game based off of the Site Admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.146.210 (talk • contribs)
      • Can you provide some sort of source for this? Fagstein 06:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable sitecruft. Link to it from Grand Theft Auto if it's such a huge GTA-related site (unlike all the other great GTA-related sites) Fagstein 05:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete with laughable claim to notoriety below. Might still deserve link from GTA page since it is mentioned in the manual. Fagstein 15:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-02-09 06:51Z
  • Delete has no significance other than its subject - link to it from the appropriate GTA articles Cynical 11:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to show how popular thsi site is here's a scan of the GTA:Vice City manual- http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7176/vicecitycredits4ht.jpg look under "Fansite Thanks" on the pink page. GTAGaming.com is right there
    • Comment: Cool. That's not notable, though. - CorbinSimpson 14:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then why the extraneous request for it. It's beginning to seem that this whole deletion notion is nothing more than a mere joke and form of distraction.
  • Delete per nom. Avi 15:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 16:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, the article does lack external links and references to prove its influence, and the scan posted earlier ([4]) is probably insufficient to use in the article. --User:UnKnown X (Talk)    16:17 - Feb 9 '06 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Percy Snoodle 16:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable fansite.--Isotope23 18:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still waiting for someone to explain how any of the material was copyvio. Under the established laws in place, and the policy of this website nothing, not a single charater in the article, was copyvio.
  • Delete or merge a couple of sentences to Grand Theft Auto series, which already has an external link. Neither Google nor Alexa indicates the topic meets WP:WEB. The connection to the game's publisher doesn't make this worth its own article. No indication of any influence, or even interest, for anyone not a fan of the game. WP:NOT a web directory or gamers' guide. Barno 00:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whether it's a copyvio or not. Fails WP:WEB by a mile. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not if fails WP:WEB, I think the people involved have a right to an explanation. You don't just pull an accusation of copyvio out of thin air and then have nothing to back it up. In addition I've found numerous web related wiki's that do not pass according to WP:WEB, yet they've been given the ok to stay up. Explain this please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.119.86 (talk • contribs)
    • Feel free to point these articles out on my talk page and I'll nominate them for deletion as well. Fagstein 01:28, 10 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, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opiyo Okeyo[edit]

Whoops, I should've nominated this at the same time as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stellar Pictures. Subject's claims to fame are 1) editing a film that won an award I can't find, 2) getting two awards from his own university, 3) some kind of mention in a commercial website, 4) incorporating himself and 5) miscellaneous work on unnamed projects. Google reveals nothing other than that. Melchoir 03:04, 9 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 repost - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 16:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiccup fetishism[edit]

Delete - Seems non-notable, original research, or just a joke article. Zero google hits for "Hiccup fetishism" - note that at first it seems that "Hiccup fetish" gets 11,300 hits, but most of these are a single porn site - excluding that gets 767 hits [5], most of which are mentions in blogs, forums, or yet more porn sites. Mdwh 03:09, 9 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, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jononation[edit]

Appears to be a nn web-forum/fanclub about a TV show.Blnguyen 02:59, 9 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 Wayward (csd a7). - Bobet 12:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Rutter[edit]

Vanity piece by user of the same name - a 16yr old up and coming politician.Blnguyen 03:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, vanity page. Royboycrashfan 03:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is known for claiming to be known for a lot of things when in fact he isn't really known at all. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete obvious vanityspam pschemp | talk 06:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. Biography of a non-notable person. Reyk 06:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily delete. CSD A7 ENCEPHALON 10:38, 9 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 non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 05:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Scott (Beat Jimmy Atkins in a Race 2000)[edit]

This should probably be a speedy, but I don't know that nn sporting events are speedyable.Blnguyen 03:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy A7. Royboycrashfan 03:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Per Royboy, CSD A7, maybe even A1. --lightdarkness (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Royboycrashfan or Lightdarkness. A7 or A1, whatever gets rid of it quickest. --Aaron 04:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A1 and A7 per above. Tagged as such. --Kinu 05:02, 9 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 (speedy deletion criterion A7). howcheng {chat} 19:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Neeleman[edit]

This subject does not appear to be notable, and garners 37 unique Google hits. [6] The article may also qualify as a speedy deletion candidate (CSD A7). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, perhaps speedy A7. Royboycrashfan 03:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't trust articles created anonymously about public relations guys which make notability claims, it could be a self-promotion Ruby 03:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete {{db-bio}} Avi 15:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as above Tphi 15:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Dr Debug (Talk) 17:20, 9 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 non-notable biography. Being the best gymnast in your school and a potential school captain is not an assertion of notability. Capitalistroadster 06:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip McClenahan[edit]

Joke page. Seems like a student is making fun of another or it is a in joke or something like that. Anyway, joke. Forever young 03:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy, just a high-school athlete. Melchoir 03:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn bio Ruby 03:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not speedy nn bio but asserts to be a champion.Blnguyen 04:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy just a joke of a kid --Angelo 04:08, 9 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 00:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frogpress.org Collaborative Journalism Project[edit]

Finishing AfD started by User:24.21.213.141, no reason given. Peyna 03:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the anonymous user listed above has inserted the following text into the top of the article:
    Vanity Page--the owner of this website is also the author of this wiki. Other sites have seen similiar press releases hyping frogpress in recent days 24.21.213.141 03:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote from me though. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Fagstein 06:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletenn vanity nonsense. pschemp | talk 06:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with the nominator, this is a clear case of AfD-worthy advertising. Delete --Agamemnon2 07:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable Avi 15:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nn, ad. --Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatant advertising. Bad ideas 06:25, 10 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, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch Of Writers[edit]

Five relevant google hits for this forum to the best of my knowledge Ruby 03:41, 9 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 00:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard_Strehle[edit]

Delete. This page is an obvious prank. There is no fighter named Richard Strehle with the credentials and fight history listed here. No fighter named Richard Strehle has ever fought in King of the Cage(Which has never been held in Philadelphia by the way. The article also indicates he's married to Ladanian Tomlinson, the NFL Running back. Drivel. 68.193.78.229 04:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails Google test with ~85 hits [7] (including Wikipedia entry and Answers.com mirror). Page contains false information (as noted by nom), fails to establish sufficient notability, and is most likely vanity. --Alan Au 08:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, nonsense. Sherdog.com has never heard of a fighter with a last name of Strehle. MLA 15:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See here - he does seem to be a martial arts fighter? I don't think he's notable for Wikipedia, but I don't know the sport. -- Mithent 20:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He may be a martial arts fighter, but numerous things in the article are clearly false beyond what is already mentioned. There is no Northeastern Martial Arts Association. Nor is there an East Stroudsboug State University. Also, Ritler Gracie is clearly a joke as all Gracie first names start with R, but are pronounced like an H. So the pronounciation of the name would be "Hitler Gracie". I'm also not aware of a Pennsylvannia Top Team, although there is a small chance it may actually exist. Finally, Mixed martial arts events are not legal in PA so the existence of a NMAA’s Philadelphia Fire 7 event is unlikely.
  • Delete per nom. Avi 20:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense.Blnguyen 00:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sherdog.com has no listing for him, and has no record of him ever facing let along beating Stephan Bonnar as the page claims. Definite nonsense. VegaDark 08:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've fought this slippery fellow on more than one occasion, and even went 52 rounds with him on a barge off Sao Paulo! He is a worthy opponent and a man whom the MMA world needs to learn more about. Don't be so quick to seize another man's legacy. I think your votes should be repealled unless you've actually stepped into a ring. RitlerGracie 20:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Obvious sockpuppet. The votes on this page were vandalised. I reverted to this version which is the last one that wasn't vandalised and it contains the sockpuppet vote from RitlerGracie. MLA 09:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I reverted another fraudulent misrepresentation as above.Blnguyen 23:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. I've tagged it as such (and reverted the page while I was at it, which had been changed by the anon IP again). Turnstep 02:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete complete bollocks. Claims notability, even if it is clearly a hoax. I'd love to nuke it but probably shouldn't Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 00:04, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Genocide by Greeks in the Balkans[edit]

POV article with no sources Jacoplane 04:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I should point out that I have blocked the author of this article for 48 hours. However, he seems to have circumvented his block, so he can comment here. Jacoplane 04:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme delete. POV from the get-go. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. political insanity, unverifiable. pschemp | talk 06:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- February 2006, article massacred. Reyk 06:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV infected. Blnguyen 07:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of course. Title is by definition POV and it's impossible (and selective) to compile such a list. Also, I have a suspicion that many of the events listed there were Turkish genocides against Greeks. The Messolonghi incident certainly was. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 09:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as above.--み使い Mitsukai 14:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Extreme POV (could this be a {{db-attack}}? Avi 15:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment POV is not a reason to delete; it may be a reason to rename. The solution to POV is to *edit*. I did a quick search on google "Missolonghi Turkish Massacre" and found several references (I don't know how credible) to an alleged series of massacres of Turkish people by the Greek independence forces. [[8]] (A Turkish source, but we don't discount German or Jewish sources related to the Holocaust, or Armenian ones related to that genocide.) See also [[9]] an ebook of unknown authorship but which reads on a quick scan as some reprint of a public domain item of the late 19th or early 20th century. Another Turkish source comes up on an obviously biased website "greekmurderers.com" [[10]]. So at least the point of view has been put forward that these massacres did indeed take place; there are probably conflicting accounts. I am not as well versed on the subject as others: could there have been such massacres? If so, then edit the article to make the cases pro & con & NPOV. If we delete the article are we saying that the alleged massacres did not happen or that they cannot be verified or that we as editors cannot be bothered to try to untangle the truth. Carlossuarez46 01:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsalvageably POV, unless that's a Carlossuarez46 volunteering to edit it over the weekend? Stifle 09:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment not my area of expertise, but I just have difficulty with POV being a reason to delete; we have many articles here that are POV and have been flagged thus for months but there is no reason to delete them. There may indeed be 2 sides to this article, I just have difficulty with deleting something because the otherside hasn't (yet) been written up. Perhaps we can solicit someone with a pro-Greek bent to have at it. Carlossuarez46 17:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely POV. Aldux 11:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - made by Steven Banks/Blue sea, someone who in my opinion should be on hard ban. --Khoikhoi 00:36, 14 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 00:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Van Dyke[edit]

  • Delete Contestant appeared 10 times and won $52,000 on one of many revivals of a minor game show. This revival only lasted a year. The info on this page is already on the "Joker's Wild" main page. He hasn't achieved any sort of cult status per Google. Richfife 04:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as gameshowcruft. (Is that a word?) He's no Ken Jennings or Charles Van Doren. --Kinu 05:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gameshowcruft is a word now. A mention in the main article is plenty, doesn't need own article. pschemp | talk 06:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.Blnguyen 07:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with game show article Jcuk 10:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joker... Joker... JOKER! The crowd goes wild! Delete, as non-notable and someone add "gameshowcruft" to urbandictionary.--Isotope23 19:01, 9 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 00:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boo ya pictures[edit]

This is a hoax with a nice website to back it up. Ruby 04:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. I disagree with Endomion - a) the article makes no assertion of notability and b) it is not an hoax - the website exists! - but that is all there is - a non-notable website. -- RHaworth 04:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gosh, their first "feature" movie The Bobbsy Twins Save Passover doesn't show up on IMDB, so I still think it's a hoax. Ruby 04:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. TheRingess 04:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all that is sacred. Brahm Kleinman (one of the "architects" of this major studio) is up for a speedy, so keep an eye on that too, since that should go too. Alexa rank for this joke: 2,032,941. For an unusually warm winter, that's a nice low! --Kinu 05:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn nonsensepschemp | talk 06:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this nonsense.Blnguyen 07:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for nn. The Bobsey Twins Save Passover? Whatever....--み使い Mitsukai 14:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete their "features" are actually Quicktime movies hosted on a free server Ergot 16:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Toss this drivel Avi 16:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not convinced it's an actual hoax, but it's definitely not notable! -- Mithent 20:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete' please this looks like a hoax to me Yuckfoo 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, hoax, whatever. No shortage of red links, either. Bad ideas 06:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete I believe this is quite a notable group which grows more and more each day in Montreal and will soon spread even further. Its definitiely legitimate and deserves to stay.
  • Don't Delete Hey! This website is not a hoax. Their short's are funny and kind of in the spirit of the lonely island guys who are currently on SNL. I'm look forward to seeing their website grow and am excited to see some new sketches! Def Do no delete! Keep it up guys.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Hoover[edit]

David Hoover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think it should be kept, but many will disagree - best to settle it now. CrazyC83 04:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Eliminated too early to matter, and didn't probably won't have a "She Bang" type afterlife after his fifteen minutes of fame Ruby 04:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's too early to tell though...he only got eliminated about 3 hours ago (to TV viewers). CrazyC83 04:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for telling me that, I'm not an Idol fan. Ruby 04:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, until he gets an album with the same guys who signed William Hung. I probably wasn't the only one who figured he was doing it on purpose for the 15 minutes... in which case, the clock shouldn't start with an article here. IMHO, he has done nothing to differentiate himself from other contestants who have made a fool of themselves and failed, other than doing it in Hollywood rather than at a city audition. --Kinu 05:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Didn't win so nn pschemp | talk 06:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until he gets HUNG-ed.Blnguyen 07:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu and Blnguyen. Hung first, Wiki later. --Aaron 07:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He became known to millions, which automatically qualifies him for an article. Wiwaxia 07:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And soon will be forgotten by millions, making him nn. pschemp | talk 07:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough. Elfguy 14:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hopefully he will go on to further fame.
  • Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball Ergot 16:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough Avi 16:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Dave may be the funniest person that has ever been on AI, but that doesn't qualify him for an article. He had his 3 minutes of fame. As Pschemp said, he will be forgotten.--Isotope23 19:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dave doesn't deserve to be forgotten, he is the best thing that ever happened to American Idol. And anyway...he's the only one whose name I'll ever remember. The "talented" ones are the ones I remember by names like that fat guy, that scrawny dork, that loud woman and that other loud woman. Dave is loud, scrawny and the only "Idol" contestant I will ever acknowledge as talented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.54.106 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete I believe that all that needs to be said about Hoover is already said in the American Idol (Season 5) article. -- MisterHand 05:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should it be a redirect then, a la Rhonetta Johnson? CrazyC83 05:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure it even merits a mention in the Idol article. MLA 12:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No points. Mention in American Idol entry at best. Also, someone removed the AFD tags >_> Lunis Neko 09:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, millions of people can't be wrongwatch this show and know who he is. Would not be opposed to merging and a redirect however. Turnstep 02:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I truly enjoyed Dave's performance and would love to see more, so I think he's definitely deserving of an article here. 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus: Delete. Since there is nothing important not already mentioned on the Season 5 article, David Hoover should be made into a redirect to his article. CrazyC83 03:59, 14 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. – Rich Farmbrough. 21:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crayola Box Theory[edit]

Fails Google test. Seems to be original research, if not a copyvio Fagstein 04:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is written purely based on my personal thoery. There is no copyright violations, and you are correct in stating that this is original research, as it is based on my personal observations. The reason this is not on google is beacuse I have never before published my thoughts, and I believed that wikipedia would be an accepting place for new ideas -- User: DA_Scar 20:26, 11 February 2006
  • Delete, Speedy if possible as contributor has admited article is original research. -Drdisque 04:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Professors at my Univerisity (NYU) have encouraged me to publish this article at Wikipedia as a testing ground for a potential Senior Thesis that I will be writing. Please allow this article to stay up as I would appreciated feedback on this article, and perhaps help me to write a better thesis. This is not something I just made up, but is rather the fruit of months of careful reasearch, study and polling. Please allow it to stay.User: DA_Scar 20:26, 11 February 2006
  • Speedy Delete per DA_Scar's admission that it's a WP:NOR violation. Let me guess, Gallatin? --Aaron 04:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whats the harm in allowing it to stay. I've seen articles on wikipedia that are still up that are completely fabricated. This article, however, is based on research, could you possibly allow it to stay up, as I believe people can benefit from this theory. I do not see the harm in allowing a well researched article to stay up on this site, if at least for a few more days. User: DA_Scar 21:13, 11 February 2006
  • Delete (or userfy) per author's admission that this is original research. --Kinu 05:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is based off conversations and documents I have read by leading experts in the field of pschyology and communications (human relations). It is not a random rant but a well reasearched and well thought out article. Please allow it to stay, I don't see the harm in allowing a well written, logical article to remain on this site. User: DA_Scar 21:19, 11 February 2006
    • I'll remind you aboutWP:NOR. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's a rant. And while you may not see the harm in leaving it up, that's no reason to violate Wikipedia policy. Besides, I don't see the problem in just moving it to your user page. Fagstein 05:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can I move this to my userpage. Sorry I'm pretty new to this. And can people still search it up even if its on my user page?DA Scar 05:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete now that it's been moved to user page. Fagstein 05:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this nonsense.Blnguyen 07:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per above.--み使い Mitsukai 07:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:NOR and author has moved it to user page {{db-author}} candidate Avi 16:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I'm not convinced it is original research. I've heard variations of this idea going back at least 15 years. I have no idea if anything about this was ever published but my prediction is you'd never be able to prove this in any sort of clinical trial... It was BS psedoscience then and it is BS pseudoscience now. Regardless, it isn't WP:V in any case.--Isotope23 19:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's original research and completely speculative. -- Mithent 20:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting but no. Original research doesn't belink on Wiki --† Ðy§ep§ion † 20:33, 9 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. Coffee 06:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabid Babies[edit]

Patent nonsense, meant to be funny, but not especially. Was given a prod tag earlier but author deleted it. Mangojuice 04:28, 9 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 00:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Leadership of Mahatma Gandhi[edit]

Self-nomination: I the creator of this page nominate it for deletion. The following are my reasons:

(1) This article was created to curb the size of the main Mahatma Gandhi article - there is no specific chapter of Gandhi's life being tackled here (for example, there is a separate Military career of Hugo Chávez, but this article contains sections of generalizations and analysis of Gandhi's life).

(2) A lot of the data is mainly different perspectives and analyses of Gandhi - these should be dealt with in the main article. A lot of it is POV language, and there is a lot of fancruft present. All this contravenes Wikipedia norms.

(3) There should not be a major deviation from the main article, which is an FA. The existence of this article impedes the purpose of the main one.

Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 04:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per G7. --Aaron 04:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Authors request --lightdarkness (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:CSD#G7 does not apply here as other editors have also edited it. --Gurubrahma 04:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The other edits were very minor touchups; I think a G7 is still appropriate here. --Aaron 07:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe Rama's Arrow is planning to move relevant information to the main article itself. --Gurubrahma 04:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To corroborate - Yes. Rama's Arrow 05:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G7. Royboycrashfan 06:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The author in question is a very good contributor.Blnguyen 07:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Author's wish. Other users/bot who contributed to the article made only minor edits. utcursch | talk 07:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete if the other edits to the article are just minor touch ups, a speedy is still appropriate. If in doubt, we can always ask them to come here and verify if they agree. - Mgm|(talk) 12:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above, tagged as such -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it doesn't meet the speedy criteria because it appears the material was written by different people, just moved into this article, though correct me if I'm wrong. The topic is worthy, as a subtopic of an important person of being covered in it's own article. It is an important facet of the man. If it is POV, NPOV it. That said Rama's arrow, if you truly think there is nothing useful here after moving out what you want to keep, then delete is fine. - Taxman Talk 18:08, 10 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jethro

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Office Bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia[edit]

An enormous list of non-notable people. Why don't we just download the phone book? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Individually many of the people may be non-notable (although a substantial number are notable, including 4 Members of Parliament and other prominent political figures), but the list as a whole is notable, as these are elected officials of a student body which has its own article. Furthermore, there are articles related to the various factions and student bodies, and this provides context as to how much of a role those student associations and factions have in NUS. Ben Raue (Talk) 05:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note It's also information which, while not being made up, can't be found anywhere else. If this page is deleted there will be no place where a person can find information about who were NUS office bearers, which is very much relevant to the Australian student movement and a lot of people are interested in. Ben Raue (Talk) 05:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fail to see the part where that becomes our problem. So you can't find the information elsewhere. Tough cookies, it's still inappropriate here and should be dealt with accordingly. Delete. --Agamemnon2 07:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, unless these individuals are notable in their own right. Admitting it can't be found anywhere else kind of makes it hard to verify, as well. This information should be on their website and not here. --Kinu 05:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Few of these people have yet achieved any notability in Australia. Capitalistroadster 06:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 06:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. Fagstein 06:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The people in the list are not red linked so there is no undue claim of notability, though I do question if the list complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability if the information is not available elsewhere. --Martyman-(talk) 06:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. and offer it to their website. pschemp | talk 06:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How do we offer it to their website after it's deleted? Is there a procedure for "moving" WP content to another site? - Synapse 22:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most university students have no idea who thse people are - only 10% vote in student elections, and apart from the president - they are all unknwon even within their community.Blnguyen 07:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would argue for Keep as it seems to be more significant than many other articles on the site and while many of the past office bearers are not notable now, it is only a matter of time before more are notable (although, speaking as one of the people mentioned in the article, I doubt I will be one of them) and Wikipedia will be seen as having anticipated their rise to power. --Roisterer 08:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP is not a crystal ball. pschemp | talk 08:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you even read the article? It's not about future people - it's a list of past members. Ambi 04:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...maelgwntalk 11:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Information about the elected members of a national body is encyclopaedic. - Synapse 12:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a national organisation. I imagine some people will want to make use of it. But ask for verification. Tyrenius 12:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments above. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Zunaid
  • Weak Keep. Might be a national organization, but is going to need better justification than it has now if it's going to remain, by the looks of the opinions here.--み使い Mitsukai 14:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Next stop, Canberra phone book, stand clear of the closing doors Avi 16:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment many student leaders go on to become political leaders. but the NUS is not that relevant to ppl's lives - most students probly have never heard of it. --Sumple (Talk) 21:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They have a substantial presence at RMIT, most students are familiar with them. (Clarify) with the organisation and what they do, although they don't know many of the people involved. - Synapse 22:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none/very few of these people are significant by themselves, why should we have a list of them together? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or slight merge. This list is of interest to a limited number of people and is potentially very large or indefinite in size. In other words, it is listcruft. Should be on their website. Stifle 09:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is of interest to plenty of people - it's particularly informative about the early careers of the quite a few people who have gone on to achieve significant success afterwards. It's also very definite in size - as the NUS has only existed since the late 1980s, it's nearly complete as-is. Ambi 04:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been thinking about this a bit since this discussion started. I understand people's concerns about this not being encyclopedic, and it is true that this list isn't. So it's alright that it gets deleted from Wikipedia. However, I've found that it's been very successful in getting people to add extra information which would never otherwise be compiled, and I attribute that to it being posted on a Wiki. So I was wondering if people have a recommendation for another Wiki that could be a useful host for such a list, so I can continue to work on adding to it? Ben Raue (Talk) 11:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't take this elsewhere. It's perfectly suited to Wikipedia. Ambi 04:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I won't take it elsewhere unless it gets deleted. I was just trying to find a way that I can still work on it in Wiki form if Wikipedia won't have it. But yes, I'd much rather do it within the Wikipedia project. Ben Raue (Talk) 06:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's always a subpage in your user space, which people can still freely edit... i.e., something like User:Braue/NUSA Officers. I don't see any harm in keeping this there, as long as you don't link any articles to there (from is all right), or have any free use pictures there. --Kinu 06:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • What on earth is the point of deleting a page which is likely to be a helpful reference source for a number of articles on very notable people, as well as an interesting read in its own right? Ambi 09:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's perfectly encyclopedic, and quite interesting. It's highly verifiable, as most of these people have received press coverage within their terms and since, and in terms of the national officebearers, quite a lot of press coverage. Quite a few of these people have gone on to notable success (particularly as MPs). Ambi 04:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is not a deletion criterion. The article asserts its importance and its content is verifiable. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 10:17
  • Keep. Standard practice on Wikipedia is to permit long lists of such data today. The information in this page is effectively a part of National_Union_of_Students_of_Australia. Were the article not to be kept the correct solution would be to merge the content into that article. However, if it were merged someone would just unmerge it right away due to the length. The long term maintance issues of such lists may someday result in their removal, but that isn't our practice today... and one by one AFD discussions isn't the right way to change the project's practices. --Gmaxwell 10:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Gmaxwell. I'm still concerned about the size of the article, but it's very young, let's give it a chance to grow (in quality, not size) a little while yet. Turnstep 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, elected leaders of an important national body, and a large proportion are notable of themselves. I would normally vote merge, but considering the length, this should stay separate. --bainer (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Certainly needs some work, though. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have thought about it a bit and read through other peoples opinions and have come to the conclusion that it can't hurt to keep it. --Martyman-(talk) 10:20, 14 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 00:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gobi partners[edit]

Article admits it's an "early stage" firm, read "not notable yet" ... did I mention it was self-promotion created by "Gobivc" (aka Gobi Venture Capital)? Ruby 05:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable and WP:VSCA. --Kinu 05:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fagstein 06:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn advertising pschemp | talk 06:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 07:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete corporate equivalent of {{db-bio}} or {{db-club}}. Avi 16:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7, non-notable company. -- Mithent 20:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Bad ideas 06:20, 10 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 00:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dime piece[edit]

This is a dictionary article at best. Vicarious 05:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, dicdef. Royboycrashfan 05:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable Urbandicdef. --Kinu 05:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what Kinu said. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 05:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm not sure if nominator is even supposed to vote but just to be sure. Vicarious 05:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can never be more than one line. pschemp | talk 06:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn slang.Blnguyen 07:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Blunguyen. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 16:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. -- Mithent 20:24, 9 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. W.marsh 15:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star lighter[edit]

Delete, makes no real claim to notability Makemi 05:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated Star Lighter Company under this, similarly no assertion of notability. Makemi 05:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nom. Searching for media mentions beyond that provided in the article proved fruitless. --Kinu 06:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Advertising pschemp | talk 06:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn ads.Blnguyen 07:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable Avi 16:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly the case for keeping articles about piracy and counterfeit goods has already been made on this website. If Wikipedia admins and users can accept such articles as Modchip and Evolution-X, than why would the articles on Star Lighter Company and the Star lighter be considered for deletion...unless of course the individuals who have nominated these articles for deletion engage in piracy and have a vested interest in such. If not, shouldn't these other articles about intellectual property piracy also be marked as non-notable and submitted for deletion?
"The U.S. government estimates that piracy within China costs American companies $20 billion $24 billion dollars a year in damages. The assistant secretary said the effect of Chinese piracy on European and Japanese firms made the damage exceed $50 billion dollars annually. Lash listed diverse product areas where American industry and manufacturers were hurt by Chinese piracy: recent, new and unreleased DVD movies, Pfizer pharmaceuticals, Gorman-Rupp pumps from Ohio, Zippo lighters made in Pennsylvania as well as Calloway golf clubs and New Balance sports shoes." CelebritySecurity 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That is a bizarre reason to keep. WP:NOT the FBI. pschemp | talk 18:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are you suggesting the other articles dealing with piracy listed here also be deleted? CelebritySecurity 18:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The articles you cite are about widespread technology used to violate others copyrights. Not about a single company making counterfeit products. Just walk down Canal St. in NYC any day of the week and you'll see that any one of these companies is probably not notable. The phenomenon is notable, and there are already articles such as Counterfeit and Trademark infringement to cover this. The above "keep" vote is by the author of the articles. Makemi 18:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With respect, equating street-level DVD distribution with an international IP matter seems to be incorrect. I assume there are few retailers on Canal St. in possession of 750,000 counterfeit lighters.
"There is not one Zippo pocket lighter manufactured outside of Bradford, Pa. The company has spent $10 million protecting their rights in China, but where's the prosecution?" Lash asked. The assistant secretary said the Public Security Bureau was eager to prosecute a case against the Star Lighter Company of Wenzhou, Zhejiang province, which was caught red-handed with 750,000 fake Zippos, but faced resistance from the local Administration of Industry and Commerce." Strong Keep. CelebritySecurity 18:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My point was that there are counterfeit Louis Vitton bags, Tommy Hilfigger clothes of all descriptions, Oakley sunglasses, basically anything with a strong brand has a knockoff there, and presumably many of these are coming from companies in China. I don't think each company which makes a specific knockoff is notable, unless aside from this it qualifies under WP:CORP. Also, please don't make it look like you're voting more than once. And frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if all the fake zippos on Canal street added up to 750,000. Makemi 19:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While copyright piracy itself is a notable topic, individual pirates have to have some higher claim to notability than simply being pirates. —Cleared as filed. 19:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I get about 100 emails a day for $100 Rolex watches, but that doesn't make the manufacturer notable.--Isotope23 19:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, company is non-notable even if they are counterfeiters. -- Mithent 20:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one more reference can be provided, keep. If the UPI quote is the only one anyone can come up with, then even I'd have to vote delete. 750,000 Zippos isn't any more remarkable in the grand scheme of things than any of millions of crimes committed annually. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah, so they make knockoff Zippos - lots of companies make knockoffs of everything every day. Assert some significance and I might change my mind. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The "point" that this article should be kept because piracy is a notable issue is bogus; it's in the aggregate that such piracy is notable, not necessarily every individual company involved in it. More evidence of this particular company's notability is needed. *Dan T.* 00:20, 12 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 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genocidal Saints[edit]

The title is inherently POV and invites anti-Catholic polemics Ruby 05:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title is not specific to the Catholic Church, and invites anybody to list war criminals who have been officially recognized as 'saints' by an organized religion. M dorothy

  • Then it's anti-Christian nonsense as Buddhist saints would be called boddhisatvas and Sufi saints are unlikely to ever come close to fitting. (Or even have articles)--T. Anthony 07:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, did these war criminals get convicted at The Hague or do we just assume they are guilty until proven innocent? Ruby 05:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a response to the previous comment.
  • Delete this useless, hopelessly POV article. To my knowledge, the exact concept of a "saint" only exists in Christianity... Grandmasterka 06:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It just occurred to me that this would make a great name for a heavy metal band. Grandmasterka 09:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this POV nonsense that cannot otherwise be cleaned up. --Kinu 06:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Adrian Lamo ·· 06:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We all know that burning people at the stake is, by modern standards, a war crime or crime against humanity.M dorothy
You should've called it "saints who committed war crimes" then. I'm not sure that'd work either, but "genocide" means trying to murder an entire group of people. Thomas More may have ideally wanted Protestantism to be gone from England, but I don't think murdering them all was his primary method. (His son-in-law was a reconvert from Lutheranism I think) I doubt Charles I would fit either, but if he would I'd assume it'd be against some American Indian people like Powhatan's or something.--T. Anthony 07:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primary article lists "saints" of many religions.M dorothy
  • Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. --Aaron 07:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Blatant POV crap. Reyk 07:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inflammatory POV. Blnguyen 07:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, Thomas More burning six people at the stake doesn't even qualify for a "genocide" unless those six were the last survivors or a significant fraction of an entire race of humans, which I doubt. Delete
  • Delete Also do Anglicans really consider Charles I a saint? And where is Nicholas II of Russia?(Possibly the only person I can think of cannonized in any religion who may fit. Although there might be some other cannonized monarchs who fit)--T. Anthony 07:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough candidates for a start. How about Atrocities of religious figures instead. Tyrenius 13:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. While I agree with Grandmasterka that this would make an awesome name for a band, it does nothing but make for an inflammatory POV article as it exists now. Alternately, Tyrenius' suggestion works as well.--み使い Mitsukai 14:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{POV-title}} Avi 16:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Strongly notable, essential article for Main Page. --Westmills 16:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn neologism (given that the article attempts to define the phrase "Genocidal Saints" as meaning something other than "saints who have committed or attempted to commit genocide" and Google returns no hits for the phrase). "Genocide" and "war crimes" do not mean the same thing. Ergot 16:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While quite a few saints acted pretty un-saintly this article isn't nothing by a rant. Pavel Vozenilek 21:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I have to concede that the title doesn't really fit the examples, and I can't come up with any truly genocidal saints (I'm sure there are some). Those who want to use this as a band name are welcome to it. If I delete the title from Wikipedia, I guess I'm also withdrawing it from the public domain, so you are free to slap a copyright on it. I am having trouble coming up with a short name that would better describe these Tainted Saints. "Atrocities of religious figures" would bring in thousands of popes, cardinals and whatever that engaged in war crimes, but were never made saints. It would also bring in the Protestants like Cromwell who did stuff that was just as bad, but, so far as I know, have never been declared "saints" by any religion.M dorothy
  • "Saints who committed war crimes" is pretty long, and it suffers from the limitation that it seems to exclude crimes against humanity outside of war, which better describes the two examples I have listed. I have considered Nicholas II, who would be more of a war criminal. The Wikipedia article on him does not, however, mention anything about him that I would consider a war crime, so this has to wait until I do outside research.M dorothy
  • Delete per nom. Even I can't imagine a way to salvage this one. Turnstep 03:30, 14 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 an attack page. JIP | Talk 09:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goh Kang Ning[edit]

Hoax or prank or personal attack. Possibly not speediable as it does make a (undoubtedly false) claim to notability. -- Curps 05:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - nothing there. Tawker 05:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A6. Royboycrashfan 06:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A6 as a personal attack, and a lame one at that. --Kinu 06:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. Nonsense pschemp | talk 06:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as attack page. Adrian Lamo ·· 06:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as above.Blnguyen 07:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Adrian and all above. Nuke with extreme prejudice. --Aaron 07:15, 9 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 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy Sachs[edit]

Notability appears to be somewhat questionable. IMDB entry ([11]) shows that whoever wrote the article probably inflated her involvement in projects, as vandalous anon pointed out. Mild delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:V. --Aaron 07:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 07:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.--み使い Mitsukai 15:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 16:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is my first post... heard about this little dialogue with anymous (IR). anonymous isn't as anonymouse as he thinks. he is however bent on harassing and slandering while trying to hide the truth about who he is. His information is not accurate. Check out these direct SOURCES NOTING SUZY SACHS AS DIRECTOR AND CREATOR OF GLORY DAZE.

http://www.onemodelplace.com/member.cfm?ID=120203 http://www.crystallizeyou.com/resumes/actingresume.pdf http://dp.dynamicfilms.us/ http://www.jillev.com/http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:A_5Y72NpsyQJ:www.crystalizeyou.com/resumes/actingresume.doc+%22suzy+sachs%22+glory+daze&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9Resume.htm --SuzySachs 08:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think you should declare an intrest here Suzy! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Talk!) 08:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and we should look at the article on her husband as well. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Talk!) 08:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Good resume material, but not enough here to satisfy WP:BIO and I can't find enough to corroborate these claims from independent, trusted sources elsewhere on the Web. I see a hint of vanity here as well. On the bright side though, if her userpic was taken anytime recently, she can console herself with the fact that she had 5 children and still looks damn good. That's gotta be worth something.--Isotope23 18:48, 14 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. W.marsh 15:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Professionals[edit]

Delete - Seems to be part of an edit war over the Jung Sin Yuk-Do entry, and one side put this up to slap the other side, which really isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. There are too many 'he did this' and 'he didn't do that but should have' lines; also, it links several times to the same martial arts entry, so I wonder about this entry's importance. ddlamb 09:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless there's a substantial article left over following removal of the POV stuff Ruby 15:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 05:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails Google test with 43 hits [12], of which 2 are links to the Wikipedia entry. --Alan Au 08:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as attack page. --Nlu (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:05, 9 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 boldly redirected to Bald Eagle State Forest. Aaron 07:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bald Eagle State Forest, Pennsylvania[edit]

Delete dublicate article — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerruckteDan (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 00:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gheye[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; not for things made up in school one day. Ikkyu2 06:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no plausible reason to keep; unencyclopedic . Adrian Lamo ·· 06:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Reyk 07:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Give it to urbandictionary.com. --Aaron 07:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 07:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Article evidences eponymity Avi 16:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Childish slang. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 19:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, kiddie slang. --Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not Urbandictionary. -- Mithent 20:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree and apologize. This was my mistake. unencyclopedic . {{subst:User:frenchpress}} 12:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Since nobody else except the author above has edited the article, I've tagged it as a speedy delete under G7. Any admins around? Turnstep 03:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we weren't already sending ghey to Wiktionary, I would have suggested this as a redirect. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:56, 14 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. Article greatly improved over the course of the Afd. Current content clearly establishes this person as historically significant. Friday (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V. Kalyanasundaram[edit]

Probably another speedy deletion candidate, but I would like to bring this before AFD, just in case. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke it does not establish notability except as clear fancruft ... i'd have speedied this under A7 myself.  ALKIVAR™ 07:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity and POV. Elfguy 14:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a noted Tamil scholar based on some google research on "Thiru V. Kalyanasundara Mudaliar" [13] [14] Seems to have some type of academic award named after him as well. Avi 16:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For an article to contain a sentence like To sum up, the Tamils are what they are now mostly because of Dr. U.V. Swaminatha Iyer it better has sources. This article has none at all. Elfguy 18:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added one source and categorized the article. It needs cleanup but seems to be a keeper. -- Avi 20:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A noted and highly respected scholar within South India. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --HasNoClue 22:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Siva1979. Blnguyen 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability established. Stifle 09:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable. Notability was established. See the external link. The Hindu is a reliable source. Needs cleanup. - Ganeshk (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a Thiru Vi Ka Industrial estate in Chennai, I believe it is named after the same person.--Raghu 03:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Keep Deleting this would be analogous to deleting a badly-written stub on William Hazlitt. I should very much hope that stubs about non-Europeans won't be marked for speedy deletion simply because someone hasn't heard of them. -- Arvind 23:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Appears to be a notable person (certainly not vanity, considering that he's not living)...it might need more sources though. Ardric47 03:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. I completely agree with Arvind's comment above. I was deeply pained to see User:Alkivar's comment above. I would also urge those who voted "delete" on account of perceived non-notability to reconsider their vote after seeing this and other references added to the article. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bulldoze it...no notability established...and some obscure guy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princess durr-e-shevar[edit]

This could possibly be turned into a page, but would require a total re-write. Is she even notable? Anabanana459 07:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google pulls up nothing but another WP page. Fails WP:V. --Aaron 07:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, non-notable vanity, most probaly hoax. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources for a start. Tyrenius 13:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and rewrite. 109 hits in Google, and seems to be tied to children's hospitals and similar causes. However, based on the hits it's hard to tell if this is the same person. If it can be confirmed, then my suggestion stands. Otherwise delete.--み使い Mitsukai 15:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Princess Hadice (Khadija) Hayriye (Khayriya) Ayshe (Ayesha) Dürrühsehvar, daughter of Sultan Abdul Majeed Khan II of Turkey, the last Khalifa of The Muslim World, was raised to succeed her father but never did due to the takover of Turkey by Kemal Ataturk. She has a number of institutions named after her Durru Shehvar Children's & General Hospital in Hyderabad, PRINCESS DURRU SHEHVAR JR.COLLEGE FOR GIRLS, DABEERPUR, Princess Durru Shehvar College of Nursing. Bound to have few Ghits given her birthdate of 1914 and nationality. There's a photograph at [15] - also at [16] but it's very slow. Definitely needs a cleanup of the article. Dlyons493 Talk 20:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & cleanup. Crypticfirefly 05:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & cleanup. You can find her obituary at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/11/db1102.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/11/ixportal.html Dpd 23:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Examine the following articles about her: [17], [18], [19], [20]. Jungli 22:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Original version of article was a copyvio from the last URL. Hence, the article needs further tidying-up Dlyons493 Talk 18:46, 14 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 00:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pulp and Paper Merit Badge[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This page is a how-to guide to getting to the badge. Wikipedia is also not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. The article is, for the most part, just a list of links. — Scm83x talk 07:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. This is where I totally agree. What would be everyone's preference for documenting this type of information, namely: image, history, topic covered, relationship to society and culture, statistics, etc.? I am completely open to this type of discussion. A suggestion (below) is to merge with Merit Badges, but that would make a REALLY big article, perhaps unwieldly. Maybe it makes sense to group them in some other way. Ideas? NThurston 22:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, but someone keep a copy of it for possible use on WikiBooks. --Bduke 07:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I now think this should be kept, after the editor has made significant changes. --Bduke 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and a how-to guide. This is an encyclopedia, for goodness sake. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Go and buy the scouts manual if you want a badge Mike (T C) 14:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article does seem to have more history of the badge, and since scouting is such a huge part of north american culture, it would be wise to keep this. Maybe one day after scouting had evolved and the history lost, we can look back at some scouts uniform, and be able to identify the various badges? Mike (T C) 20:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Older Boy Scout Handbooks are perfectly good resources for identifying old badge designs. There are also various lists out there as to when badges were added, revised, or had their names changed. While such things may be interesting, especially for the Eagle-required badges, I don't think that either bits of data are alone sufficient to make a given article notable. That the rest of the article is POV rambling, listing of badge requirements, and a list of weblinks doesn't help. My vote does not change. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also think that we should consider merging data into the main Merit badge (Boy Scouts of America) article. Granted, the table is hardly sufficient at this point, but take a look at some of the fleshed out lists at Wikipedia:Featured lists. This article will inevitably remain short, and I'm not a big fan of seeing hundreds of individual and short merit badge articles. I think that we should merge some of the information there, and drop some of the more trivial facts such as the paragraphs dealing with individual topics. — Rebelguys2 talk 22:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong Keep NThurston 15:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC) The original AfD was posted in the middle of developing the site, when I had simply started creating a skeleton for a much more meaningful article. As I have continued work, I have incorporated the few positive suggestions listed above. The current page still needs some work (like many an article) but is dramatically different than the article at the time the AfD was posted. Here are some specific responses to the concerns listed above:[reply]
    • How-to guide to getting to the badge. This is inaccurate. There is nothing on the site that tells a Scout how to earn the badge, except for a link to the requirements, which are common knowledge. The site (in current form) is a description of the merit badge and what its goals and purposes are. It is clearly information about the merit badge itself.
    • List of links - Many articles start by cataloging what is already known. I was in the process of developing the site and had collected a list of related articles and links. Due to some positive comments, the direction of the article was changed to comply with Wikipedia policy, and the links are now used in a more appropriate fashion.
    • Go and buy the book - Seems counterintuitive that anybody would want to take information off Wikipedia because some of it is already available in a book somewhere.
    • Eventually, one would expect that other information about the merit badge itself - history, changes, impact, etc. would appear on this page. This will be of interest to many users, especially those that are involved in collecting patches, etc.
Before I knew the proper protocol for resolving AfD requests, I removed the AfD tags on the article. They have been restored thanks to a kind note from jergen and I am hopeful that the current article is more consistent with what Scouters would expect to see. By the way, as a newcomer, I was expecting a little more civility and cooperation than I received from the deletionists above. See "what the community is not" and | Please do not bite the newcomers.
  • Comment. This nomination does not fit the criteria for speedy keep; let it run its course. I also don't understand why you are accusing everyone above of being uncooperative deletionists. Please be civil yourself. We're not here to "bite," so I don't understand why you're getting so defensive. Questioning an subject's notability is standard practice on Wikipedia, and you will not get anywhere if your temper flares. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it does/did meet Speedy Keep because the inital AfD was based on an unfinished article (clearly a misunderstanding). Notice that some people have changed their positions now that they have seen the whole article.
Point well taken on the temper. Not everyone is a conspiratory deletionist, just a couple, at most. I have calmed down considerably since yesterday. I was referring to some of the insensitive and and inflammatory (to me) remarks (for example, "After all, how much is there to say about the merit badge? Information about pulp and paper already exists in various articles. Lists of requirements don't belong on Wikipedia. Merit badge pamphlets don't belong on Wikipedia.") that were meant to torpedo the page right off the bat without any regard given to an attempt to improve or fix it. I think those are squarely the types of things that are referred to in the "don't bite" article. I understand the need for people to patrol against random or wacky new stuff, but it seems necessary for the established users to welcome and guide newcomers rather than just jump on an unfinished page and suggest deleting it. Now we've got that cleared up, I am pleased at the level of debate on what this page should look like if it is to stay a part of Wikipedia. I am still thinking about wikibooks, but haven't even figured wikipedia out yet. I think we are now to the point where we can disagree about whether there is enough value in a particular topic to keep it on Wikipedia, but those are the types of disagreements where we can "agree to disagree." NThurston 22:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this thread is starting to ramble away from the point of this discussion, I've moved the response to his talk page. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps reading the Guide to deletion might be helpful for NThurston. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been spending a lot of time there recently, which was required to separate out the useful comments from the inflammatory remarks. NThurston 22:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --jergen 17:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Blnguyen 00:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, limited interest to non-Scouts. Wikipedia is not Scoutopedia.

Stifle 09:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Commentthe above delete rationale is nonsense. One could say the same thing about almost any article. Rlevse 02:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am in favour of all NPOV information. LARS 15:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not a how-to guide, and it was somewhat interesting to know there was such a badge. -- Mithent 16:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but reduce the number of links. The topic is encyclopedic, the problems are editorial problems that need to be fixed. Johntex\talk 17:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not how-to. Content is encyclopedia worthy, and I found it interesting. Would be OK with more merit badge pages. Mathboy965 02:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think these mb articles should provide a history of the badge itself, give a general overview of the topic, and provide wiki and web resources the Scouts could use to earn the MB. It should not be a mere collecting point, nor should it replace the MB pamphlet. As it stands at this moment, this article just needs some formatting and fleshing out. Rlevse 02:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC), Scouting Project and Portal coordinator[reply]
  • Keep for now. I cleaned up the article quite a bit, and trimmed out a lot of the "how to" and the completely unnececssary list of links from the bottom. It still needs more work, in particular, the "See also" section can probably be removed. For the record, I thought it was a thinly-disguised how-to page. Turnstep 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm happy with the current state of the article and find it contributes well to Wikipedia. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:59, 14 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) 13:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amita Chudasama[edit]

Non-notable. 26 Google results. Delete. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mira Chudasama. utcursch | talk 07:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete under CSD-A7 (non-notable biography). --Alan Au 08:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as CSD-A7. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 12:25, 9 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 11:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worship sampler[edit]

Vanity article writen by band member of unnotable band. Article created by a user that only adds to wikipedia on pages related to Prays -- also up for deletion.[21] Same user is the only one to edit this page and the only editor to contribute information on pages related to the band. The pages connected to the band Adam Woeger, Paul Guffey, In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler are also up for deletion. Every single edit that adds information is the same user on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that user. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays)--that is the singer/main member-- brings up 150 hits. Includes other unnotable/local bands Elisha's Request and Cynthia Paap, also up for deletion. Arbustoo 22:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arbustoo 22:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; self-promotion. --keepsleeping slack off! 23:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per everything else in this flock of afd's. Adrian Lamo · 23:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't have articles on samplers, unless they're rare material by a megastar. --kingboyk 02:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cruft. Merge the AfDs please Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete vanibandcurftspamvertisment. RasputinAXP talk contribs 15:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a catalogue.Cactus Wren 07:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanibandcruftspamvertisment. This is totally nonsense, please do not promote your band here, do it elsewhere. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 09:58, 9 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 per CSD A7.--Alhutch 17:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Guffey[edit]

Vanity article for unnotable musician. A google search for "Paul Guffey" brings 331 hits including personal pages and this one. Article created by a user that only adds to wikipedia on pages related to Guffey's band Prays -- also up for deletion.[22]] Same user is the only one to edit this page and the only editor to contribute information on pages related to the band. The pages connected to the band Adam Woeger, In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler are also up for deletion. Every single edit that adds information is the same person on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that person. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays)--that is the singer/main member-- brings up 150 hits. Arbustoo 21:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arbustoo 21:56,
Add speedy tag. Arbustoo 02:15, 4 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 00:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sony_Ericsson_K800[edit]

Delete This page should be deleted because all of this information has no real source apart from people's imaginations. All of the specifications and information given is useless and the name K800 may not even be used for the naming of the model. The K800 is only a rumour and has not been confirmed by Sony Erisson or anyone for that matter, except for a few photoshopped pictures floating around on the internet. In short, this page is basically what a collection of people THINK the phone will be. I repeat THINK. Shaliron 07:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. While it seems likely that a product called the k800i will eventually be released, the information currently contained on the page is not verifiable. I might be placated if the page were just a stub, but probably the better solution is to simply delete it now, and recreate it later once official details are released. In the meantime, WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Alan Au 08:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'd like to say keep it, but the information isn't quite certain enough to warrant doing so. Delete for now, recreate when details confirmed Kcordina 10:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Terence. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find this model number on any gadget site. Elfguy 14:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as speculaytion.Blnguyen 00:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Bad ideas 06:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete true, speculation everything. But then again there are many articles in an encyclopedia wich describe a myth wich had an impact on a community. But you are right, the article doesn't describe the impact, the special situation in the Sony Ericsson community. Err please don't tell me you couldn't find any k800 articles on any tech site :-) A new wikipedia article would be written at the day of the official announcement anyway. rigelt 19:52, 10 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. W.marsh 04:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion Interactive Media[edit]

This is a subtle advert for a product sold by the original author's company. Initial attempt at PROD was removed by author, who subsequently inserted two images of said product prominently featuring company name in one of them. Wikilinks to this article have been added to Human-computer interaction, Interactivity, gesture recognition and new media, which I've subsequently removed. Delete as advert. Zunaid 07:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closing admin: Entry on the MIM disambig page as well as the two images in the article should also be considered for removal if this page is deleted. Zunaid 09:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Aaron 07:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. User warned to stop removing AfD tag from pages. --Alan Au 07:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 20:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Blnguyen 00:11, 10 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. moink 19:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic conflict in India[edit]

After much careful thought and looks at the pages that this links to, I think this page should be deleted for these reasons: 1.It is a glorified list, the stuff it talks about is better explained on the pages it links to, which are themselves well-linked. 2.There are no articles like this for any other country. 3.The page is very incomplete and poorly done, and seems to have a little trouble deciding what an "ethnicity" is. It has been tagged for cleanup sine April 2005 and no-one's really done anything about it. Please consider getting rid of this page. Grandmasterka 07:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom for all of the specific reasons listed above, but particularly because of reason 1. --Alan Au 08:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Could be a useful article with LOTS of work by a knowledgeable person, but I can't see that happening and in the furrent form, delete Kcordina 11:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 14:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep India is a very populated country which has had many ethnic problems that are very important to it's history. This article provides links to the main articles of the conflict but can use a lot of help. It can be a very useful article.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ain't all countries are populated? Sorry, I should be chastised for this. --Ezeu 21:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ezeu 13:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 20:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep and cleanup --HasNoClue 22:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Blnguyen 00:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If we have to keep this eyesore, those who voted "keep" should be willing to do some work on it, it's in as sorry a shape now as it was four years ago. Grandmasterka 05:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment seems more like religious conflict than ethnic; I was expecting to see some references to the insurgent movements in the North East, some discussion of Kashmir, but lack of completeness is not a reason for deletion either. Carlossuarez46 18:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to that, I'm just saying that very little has been done to improve it since it was created all the way back in 2002, which tells me it's always going to be mediocre at best. But there are plenty of other reasons to delete it, as stated in the nomination. Grandmasterka 11:25, 12 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 Jacoplane

List of Electronic design services companies[edit]

commercial spam, off topic. Tawker 07:51, 9 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 00:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elwood79[edit]

Obvious vanity page, created by a Finnish retired electronic musician over a week ago, then abandoned. The author only ever edited this article and Elwood, to add a link to this article. While the article establishes some notability, I think he's not notable enough by far. I'm both Finnish and an ex-Amigan and have never heard of him. If the article is not deleted it should be severely cleaned up and wikified as it currently reads more like a fansite than an encyclopedia article. "Elwood79" gets 376 Google hits and "Jussi-Matti Salmela" gets 41. Both of these might include false hits from other similarly named people. Delete. JIP | Talk 08:07, 9 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 01:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balvanyos[edit]

An ad for a spa in Transylvania, not likely to be notable. Delete. Grandmasterka 08:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but rewrite, removing by far the most of the details. Spas and hotels are generally notable, and "Balvanyos + spa" gets over 76000 Google hits. The current contents are blatant advertising, though. JIP | Talk 09:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Would you consider doing the rewrite yourself? If not please consider whether voting to keep, rather than delete, the article currently serves Wikipedia better. Zunaid 13:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried to, but all Google hits for "Balvanyos" turned out to be some kind of hotel booking sites. One of those I tried didn't even find hotels in the same country - the nearest was in Italy. I could, of course, simply remove all the advertising, but that would only leave the first paragraph, which would only tell where Balvanyos is and not establish any notability. Even the Romanian Wikipedia doesn't have an article about this. I'm changing my vote to weak delete. JIP | Talk 18:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm changing my vote again to keep as rewritten by Grutness. Thanks! JIP | Talk 08:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless rewritten, blatant ad. Far too many articles survive AfD on "keep and rewrite" without the rewrite subsequently taking place. Will gladly change my vote if article is rewritten before this AfD closes. Otherwise it could always be recreated later in a much better form. Zunaid 13:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would like to change vote to keep following Grutness' excellent rewrite, however notability now seems like a major concern. There is nothing in the article to indicate importance, thus there is no support for it's being kept. Weak delete unfortunately. Zunaid 08:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement. Elfguy 14:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising Avi 20:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Such a shame. Balvanyos seems like a very notable place in Romania, and if someone could write a good Wikipedia article, then it would definitely deserve a place in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it seems no one can, not me anyway. I only heard about the place when I saw this AfD. Maybe in summer I'll buy a travel guide, maybe even actually go to the damn place. It'd be my first time in Romania and all that. It's just so damned hard to find out anything about Balvanyos except how to book hotels there. JIP | Talk 22:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've tidied it up and removed the infotainment quotient. Looks like a reasonable basis for a real article now. Grutness...wha? 23:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten by Grutness. Well done to hime for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 23:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Great job on the rewrite by Grutness. Crypticfirefly 05:50, 10 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 non-motable biography. Capitalistroadster 11:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Kilmer[edit]

Twice in the past 24 hours, there were speedy tags on this article that were both removed. I'm now trying to settle this issue by bringing this to AfD. Notable or not? SoothingR 08:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No, he's not notable enough. Aside from starting a website, which thousands of people have done, his only real claim to fame is releasing a Windows shareware game, whose article is only linked from this article. JIP | Talk 09:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JIP. –Sommers (Talk) 09:27, 9 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 - Mike Rosoft 21:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh oh's[edit]

This is original research and a neologism, and more things when I can think of them Ruby 05:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously nominated and then replaced with the "prod" template. Because the proposed deletion is evidently contested, I'm re-listing it here with Ruby's original nomination. –Sommers (Talk) 09:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. –Sommers (Talk) 09:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 12:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non sense. Elfguy 14:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom MLA 17:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Reyk 19:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This is nonsense. alcohol or other-cause induced amnesia is NOT called tghe "oh-oh"s any more than forgetting where you put your car keys. Uh oh or Oh Oh is a human expression of concern, not the drivel in this article. Avi 20:55, 9 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 01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nude yoga[edit]

This seems to be partly an advert for a yoga group in Manhatten, and partly a random list of people who have practised yoga in the nude. Its completely non-encyclopaedic in style, and I don't really see how what can be encyclopaedicly said about peforming yoga in the nude is more than a passage at most in the Yoga and Nudity in sport articles. Thryduulf 09:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertisement. As Thryduulf says, if there is anything important to be said about nude yoga, it can be said in existing articles. –Sommers (Talk) 09:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advert and unencyclopedic. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 09:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article does not seem to be about more than a single group of nude yoga enthusiasts and not really enought for an encyclopedia article. Martin-C 14:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's an ad. There's no place for it here. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 19:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ad. --Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Vanispamadbertcruftgarbagedisposalunitthrowitoutorwhatevertheflavorofthemonthforcomplaintsare Avi 20:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Adv, Strip it down Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 23:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Strong Delete this nonsense/garbage/bad joke.Blnguyen 00:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN seems to be the right place. Stifle 10:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- seems to be a real phenomenon -- one of the altweeklies in Boston did an article on it a couple of months ago. On the other hand it seems to be very sub rosa. More research may be called for. Haikupoet 04:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE NOW, BETTER ARTICLE NOW EXISTS: naked yoga This page now has no essential info that the naked yoga page doesn't now have, Dandelion1 00:08, 12 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. Jacoplane 10:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kuh Ledesma[edit]

Author seems to be editing in bad faith, creating article with POV tag. Jacoplane 09:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Nevermind, it was a copyvio from [23] anyway. Jacoplane 10:03, 9 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 Wayward (csd r1). - Bobet 12:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Desktop Application[edit]

redirect to deleted page. speedy delete Sleepyhead 10:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. Kcordina 11:06, 9 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 01:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Athletic client[edit]

Not notable. Newly coined term using wikipedia to gain acceptance. Sleepyhead 10:05, 9 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 01:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cybersist[edit]

Not notable. under 1000 google hits. Advertising. Sleepyhead 10:09, 9 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. Although the notvote-counters should note that Gwernol has notvoted twice, the points made by the keepers are enough to mean that a numeric two-thirds isn't enough here. I don't think the present version is a copyvio; at least, Google doesn't pick it up. -Splashtalk 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worsley Works[edit]

Spam page eLNuko 10:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as spam. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP, possibly linkspam and also copyvio of their website Kcordina 10:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep an article about a company isn't necessarily an advertisement, it all depends how notable the company is. From front google hits it seems to be notable in their field at least. Elfguy 14:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does this page offend when you can have a page about McDonald's
  • Keep I agree with Elfguy, this company is notable in their field: they are a significant supplier of kits to model railway builders. The page does need work and it was apparently added by the owner of the company, but I believe it is better for the Wiki community to improve this page than simply delete it. Worsley Works are a major kit manufacturer and deserve an entry. Gwernol 16:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Seems to be known among model train enthusaists, but does not, at least to my limited searching, seem to stand out more than any of the other modelers. Needs to show more evidence of notability. Note: Just because the author of an article has much to do with that article (be it about the person or their company) does not automatically make it vanity; just 94.28% of the time. Avi 21:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A couple more points (sorry): Worsley Works have been written up in several of the modeling journals (for example, "Sixteen Millimetres Today" and "Railway Modeller", I can dig out specific issues if required) so clearly do meet the criteria of WP:CORP. Second if we want to be encyclopedic then I'd suggest we do want to include manufacturers like Worsley and others of note. In fact that's what I intend to do (given time...) from the list at the end of 16_mm_scale.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rich Farmbrough. 21:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Quilty[edit]

Non-notable rocker. Author has removed deletion tags a couple times. Delete. Grandmasterka 10:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable musician. Capitalistroadster 11:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 11:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Delete. --Roisterer 11:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reason: I am just his brother, trying to do a favour for him to get some info on the net...its not a pisstake. Helview 10:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I added a {{prod}} tag earlier because I found no evidence whatsoever for the claims of massive influence. Unverifiable. Probably a real guy but not notable. --Spondoolicks 13:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Danny's brother, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and musicians should meet certain criteria unless they're a very special case indeed, which your brother appears not to, yet. Best of luck in his continuing career and if he ever does meet the criteria please do put up an article. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. Elfguy 14:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn per above. --lightdarkness (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. --Kinu 17:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Google searching on "Danny Quilty" and Berowra gives 0 results [24] To me, this implies that either this is a hoax, or that the subject is completely non-notable. So, without further corroberation, it should be {{db-bio}} and tagged as such. Avi 21:07, 9 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. moink 19:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of ham radio[edit]

Appears to be abandoned by its creator. As it stands, it contains too little content, I think, to survive as a stub. Mild delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Amateur Radio. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 12:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think Amateur Radio covers it well enough. PJM 12:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Amateur Radio. Lbbzman 16:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Keep based on Anonym1ty's expansion. Lbbzman 18:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand Which I did. As they say, be bold. The whole reason this article was started is because of the amount of info in the Amateur radio article was making the article too heavy, and I (and others) don't believe that Amateur radio was covering this adequately. the whole problem was that we would keep getting more and more theories that were not true in the Amateur radio article. All the article says now is that the origins are obscure. People want to know more and this article as a stand alone article is the only way we can assure the integrity of the Amateur radio article. These theories were part of the problem with taking up too much space. There are many many other theories that can be added to expand this article. The AfD should now be removed. Anonym1ty 17:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand I agree. There is so much more that can be put on this page. I, for one, would like to see more here rather than less. --66.93.197.187 18:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand - Anonym1ty has done a fine job adding to the article and the AfD note needs to be removed. Just what is the policy on "nominating" a candidate for deletion? This article was barely 3 weeks old before someone decided it had to go. There are many articles that haven't been touched in 21 days but that doesn't mean they need to be deleted!! -- N5UWY/9 - plaws 20:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and continue to expand. Clearly able to survive as an article. Adrian Lamo ·· 21:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is going to have a lower standard for inclusion of information since it is so speculative a topic. Having it inamateur radio would cause information that is highly speculative to be in an article that is very different. Having two articles would allow an editorial standard appropriate to each article. Also this article could carry a lot of information that would unbalance the size of each subsection of amateur radio if it were there. Kd4ttc 22:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wish I had had more time after creating the article to expand it, but I am a fourth year B.Sc. student and my time is very limited when midterm exams loom (the last of which I have to write in 2 hours time.) I stronly agree that this topic should remain independent of the Amateur radio article. Instead of AfD, this article should carry a warning about it's speculative nature (although this could also be accomplished in the introductory paragraph. --Andrewjuren 21:11, 10 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 delete. W.marsh 04:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tutoreasy[edit]

Advertisement JPD (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on! I placed this information here, as it is the first online example I can find of a "market for services" - where the whole service is carried out online, end to end, in particulary taking account of the post-eBay/Skype/VOIP world. If the wording seems too much like an "ad" the it can be changed. Companies are already listed on Wikipedia, so that in itself is not a cause for concern. The question is whether the entry adds value to users - which I think it does. Lets start a debate around that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cekbrooks (talk • contribs) , at 11:44, 10 February 2006

No, the question is whether the company can be considered notable (some guidelines here). We might also ask whether Cekbrooks has an interest in the company concerned? All edits by that username have promoted "Tutoreasy". Flapdragon 14:10, 10 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. W.marsh 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho Girl[edit]

Nonnotable amateur child porn video. Originally tagged with {{prod}} but tag removed by anon editor, so it's here now. Most Google hits are not relevant, and those that are have had any content removed because, well, it's child porn. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molto bene. PJM 03:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Why must people think just about any old weird stuff belongs on WP?--み使い Mitsukai 14:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This one is a mess. Incidentally according to the Libby Hoeller article, she was 21 or 22 when she made the video, so that doesn't make it child porn, thankfully. 23skidoo 14:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Presuming it's Hoeller, that's correct - I read the article and assumed that it was the 8th-grader in New York. Either way, it doesn't belong here. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Elfguy 14:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, not encyclopedic, non-verifiable, etc. - Liberatore(T) 16:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --Kinu 17:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability.--Isotope23 19:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Unencyclopædic (100 yr test? try 100 hour test!), not notable. Throw this out using 3-foot tongs! Avi 21:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete using anti-bioweapon protection.Blnguyen 00:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, still rather notable with the newspaper mention, even if it's not as famous as Libby Hoeller. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep borderline notability and Wikipedia is not censored.  Grue  13:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 188000 Google hits is actually enough to meet any criteria of notability.  Grue  07:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I click that link I only see 1440 links. Any porn wmv file will have that many hits from torrent tracker sites, web downloads, etc. - but I would argue that most are still below the bar of notability. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep JeffBurdges 05:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Icky, but I've heard about it. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. notable web phenomenon. Seen her mentioned in numerous messageboards for the past year and a half. --Madchester 19:39, 14 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. W.marsh 04:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Sim[edit]

Another nn Singaporean athlete; see also Tan_Rui_Xiang and others mentioned here. I'd speedy tag it as nn-bio but there seems to be some sort of pattern here. Delete as nn. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --Sleepyhead 12:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as another non-notable Singaporean athelete. I'm Singaporean, and I've never heard of him before. This is not encyclopedic, as he only has participated in school competitions. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 13:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable enough. Come back when winning international medals. Punkmorten 16:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable Avi 21:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gamaliel 21:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as has not gained national selection for international events, or done a time which is an A-qualifying time for the Olympics or anything of that sort - Delete his buddies as well.Blnguyen 00:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity bio article. *drew 16:29, 12 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 redir Minor Mortal Kombat characters. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tremor (Mortal Kombat)[edit]

Delete. This article covers a minor fictional character, the details of which have already been covered in the list of Minor Mortal Kombat characters, and is not notable enough to have its own article. In addition, the page is filled with fan-created, unofficial information. Shadaloo 12:26, 9 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 05:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Outline XML[edit]

Not notable. 500 google hits Sleepyhead 12:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable enough Avi 21:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. One of many XML-like representations. Perhaps there's an article on such encodings where some bits from here could be moved. Surely doesn't belong into category Category:XML-based standards. Pavel Vozenilek 21:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Blnguyen 00:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claims of notable use in the real world. Pete.Hurd 01:10, 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. W.marsh 04:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauquoy Token Company[edit]

This article appears to be spam. To date, the contributions by this user have all been centered around this company with the inclusion of external links in related articles, none of which have manufacturers links. The contributor also created Category:Coin manufacturers of which this company is the sole entry — Delete — Graibeard (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy for spamvertisement, or vanispami...whatever it's called.--み使い Mitsukai 14:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Ad Spam Avi 21:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per Avi.Blnguyen 00:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I haven't investigated the company to see if they merit an article, but this bit of piffle should not exist. 2005 06:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We assumed to be permitted on Wikipedia due to the fact that several other mints are also on Wikipedia. We have modified the text a little bit in order to make the article more informative. Please advise. User:Tinne
  • delete no claims to meet WP:CORP, or other standards of notability Pete.Hurd 01:12, 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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Na Rikousmouna, Cees De Nijs[edit]

non notable (zero hits on Google). external link is a blog, maybe vanity, and article text is almost entirely POV. Rossrs 12:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I added Cees De Nijs to the same afd at this point. - Bobet 15:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as vanity entries for non-notable persons. Only references cited is a blog they both work on, with no google hits or anything else to verify any of the claims. - Bobet 15:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (both) as per nom Pete.Hurd 01:07, 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. W.marsh 15:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oororagoninmusume[edit]

Was nominated as speedy (nn-band) but Reiko Chiba is otherwise notable, meaning this article should have a fair chance. Also, searching on Amazon.jp gave me this. Perhaps lackinmg in content, but surely not band vanity. Mgm|(talk) 12:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MGM, are you sure you provided the right link? What I got is, "ムーンライト・セレナーデ ～魅惑のムード・音楽 (Translation: Moonlight Serenade - Mood Music of Temptation)" is a Classic / Jazz album by ボストン・ポップス管弦楽団 (Translation: Boston Pops Ochestra). What this has got to do with our J-pop band? --BorgQueen 13:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curse Google! Still, the Reiko Chiba argument should suffice. Bands by famous people are also considered encyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk) 13:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree she is notable. However when I searched the band オーロラ5人娘 at Yahoo Japan I got only 126 hits: [25] - I suggest we merge the content to Reiko Chiba. --BorgQueen 13:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Reiko Chiba as per BQ.--み使い Mitsukai 14:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't checked yet, but if any of the other members are well-known, it should stay on its own. - Mgm|(talk) 22:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only Chiemi Chiba, a seiyuu. Akina66 02:44, 10 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. – Rich Farmbrough. 21:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dewdney[edit]

Obvious spoof, dreamed up mostly by anon vandals. Google knows of few persons of that name and none connected with Rasputin. Flapdragon 16:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree the man known as Richard Dewdney and his involvement in Rasputin's death is clearly theoretical and it is clear that the editors of this particular article have done extensive research into him and his involvement and there appears to be evidence to support the theory. I believe the article should be kept. Superquiff 18:18 8th February 2006 (preceding comment by 81.132.102.172)

I note that someone posting from the very similar address 81.132.106.254 added these clearly spoof edits at 20:38 on 6 February 2006. Flapdragon 20:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Superquiff. Susan 18:58 8th February 2006 (preceding comment by 82.5.231.22)

Again, checking the page history we find that Susan or someone posting from her IP address at NTL.com has added, and then deleted five hours later, an obvious piece of nonsense. Flapdragon 20:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid article, anybody studying AS Modern European History will know the Infamous Richard Dewdney. This article is too extensive to have been thought up by 'vandals'. I recommend that Wikipedia disregard this request for deletion. - Bossmanuk (preceding comment by 172.216.151.142 at 21:38 on 8 February 2006)

We look forward to seeing some sources. Sorry to spoil your fun guys but I think it's pretty clear the game's up. Flapdragon 20:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think not i can prove that all charcters, Dewdney through to Mason, within this article are real. Superquiff 21:09 8th February 2006 (81.132.102.172)

I'm sure the names are real, in fact I fancy we have may already have heard from Mr Mason, but the little story featuring them is not. Flapdragon 00:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i do not think this artical should be deleted the facts are real and i have also looked into the matter to see if this is true, and most is. Maybe some facts should be checked and some maybe got rid of but keep some of the artical that are clearly real.- robert brown. 09/02/06 8.55 (212.219.57.77)

212.219.57.77 is yet another author of hilarious spoof edits including Dewdney's presidency of the USA and Al Gore's invention of the internet (neither of which made the final cut). The whole gang is here! Flapdragon 12:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as Complete bollocks. --Ezeu 13:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, please. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 13:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have restored the article to the stub version before the anonymous editors started adding to it. It should be noted that the Grigori Rasputin mentions Richard Dewdney as a possible assassin and that information was there prior to the creation of this article. However, I cannot find any collaborating information on the web regarding this information. Most items I found credit Felix Yusupov & Vladimir Purishkevich with the shooting. Unless someone comes up with a source, it should be deleted as unverifiable. But if deleted, the Grigori Rasputin article needs to have the info removed also. -- JLaTondre 13:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The name to google for is Oswald Rayner. The nonsense was added to Grigori Rasputin on 18 January 2006 by the above "robert brown", or someone else at Cirencester College, using the simple expedient of swapping the names for those of (presumably) his schoolfriends. Of course, it's important to be wary of assuming that one Wikipedia article validates another. Flapdragon 15:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good work Flapdragon. I was starting to doubt my speedy vote and was all over the place searching for Dewdney. --Ezeu 15:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I've patched up the Rasputin article, though I fancy it could still use some checking by a specialist. A joke's a joke (though not in this case a funny one), but this kind of childish prank wastes people's time, misleads the innocent, and seriously damages the credibility of Wikipedia. Time for (yet) another block for 212.219.57.77 I think, and perhaps also a complaint to the college. Flapdragon 16:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Flapdragon. Reyk 19:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Garbage Avi 21:17, 9 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 Marskell 12:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gauri Shankar[edit]

Listed as non-notable person on CSD, but has article on chessbase and won national championships. Does need work though. Bringing it here, to see if I missed something. - Mgm|(talk) 13:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable enough at all. -Jetman123 14:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alright, after thinking about it, he's notable enough. I change my vote to keep. But can anyone verify these facts? -Jetman123
  • I cleaned it up a bit, but I'm not sure about the subject's notability. No vote. ×Meegs 15:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A preteen who cracks the top 2000 in standard chess rankings is notable, especially given the British championship titles. Monicasdude 20:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough. Avi 21:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - winner of US speedchess for K-12 in 2003-04. This indicates that at age 11 or 12, he was competing at the level of the highest 16-18 yr olds in US.Blnguyen 00:31, 10 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. W.marsh 04:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuore[edit]

Delete. Promoting commercial website. Monkeyman 13:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advertising, fails WP:CORP Kcordina 14:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. --Sleepyhead 15:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Advertising Spam Avi 21:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Adv, Evil Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 22:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per Avi.Blnguyen 00:32, 10 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 per WP:CSD A7.--Alhutch 17:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul lancheros[edit]

Delete Article appears to be vanity piece, unnotable and unverifiable - may even be a speedy delete nomination - you decide? VirtualSteve 13:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Vanity. Monkeyman 13:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something about it tells me that it's copyvio. In any case, it's pure vanity anyway, so Speedy it.--み使い Mitsukai 14:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:BIO. PJM 15:50, 9 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 05:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grasshopper Takeover[edit]

Was tagged as speedy, but making the chart IS an assertion of notability. Does anyone know whether the claim is valid? _ Mgm|(talk) 13:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, unless they have another claim of notability. Have found no evidence of them "hitting the charts big."Bjones 13:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How did you search? - Mgm|(talk) 22:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Working on the assumption that a charting single would show up on a Google search of the band. A fallible strategy, but the only one I could think of.Bjones 04:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They have a number of Google hits, and have had a writeup in Rolling Stone according to their site. -- Avi 22:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the Rolling Stone writeup can be confirmed. - Mgm|(talk) 22:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A feature article, or just a paragraph? Google search combining the band and the magazine gives lots of mentions, but the 21st hit is the first from the magazine's website, and is an article about someone else with a bare mention that he co-produced one of the band's albums. No vote. Barno 00:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Allmusic.com shows three albums to their credit but no singles or albums of the band has charted. Rolling Stone writeup might get them over the line. Capitalistroadster 01:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, looking at google, I believe the Rolling Stone claim. Kappa 20:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They google well and I've heard of them. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:06, 14 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 05:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zaplife[edit]

Non-notable web service. —Whouk (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like an ad --SammyTerry 23:55, 9 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. W.marsh 04:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oni-con[edit]

Advertising, horribly designed page, little if any indicator of notability. I had earlier slapped an {{advert}} tag in the hopes that someone from the Oni-con staff would come and clean it and improve it to justify the article's existence, but in that time the only thing that was changed was "The people who make it run smoothly are" to "Founders and staff", something that none of the other anime con pages contain. み使い Mitsukai 13:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article contains no useful information on a seemingly non-notable convention Kcordina 14:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Blnguyen 00:32, 10 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 ☎ ) 08:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Schwartz[edit]

This was nominated for both prod and csd/a7, but there's just enough of a hint of notability found in google to make it worth hashing out here. Just designing a font isn't enough, but he did win an award for one of his designs. A lot of the google hits look like cut-and-paste jobs of the same PR release, but there's just enough real stuff as well to make me uncomfortable speedying this -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fair enough, but it's the responsibility of the creator to show notability, and it isn't shown here. — ciphergoth 14:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:BIO. PJM 15:48, 9 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 05:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norwood Bears Volleyball Club[edit]

Article about a volleyball club, but makes no real attempt to explain why the club is notable. --Pak21 14:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP is not an official team website.--み使い Mitsukai 14:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOT a webhost and picture post for an otherwise non-notable sports club. Oh, delete the pictures as well. --Kinu 17:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, WP:NOT. --Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a suburban volleyball club in Australia, where volleyball is a very very minor sport - see our record at the Olympics.Blnguyen 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Member of South Australian Indoor State League and has played interstate teams. Article might be notable if it could list Olympians or internationals. At the moment, this is a vanity article. Capitalistroadster 02:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable --Mcbridematt 11:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:03, 10 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 05:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bottleguy[edit]

Delete. Non notable website. Xyzzyplugh 14:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

list of shock sites already does have a link to and explanation of bottleguy --Xyzzyplugh 22:13, 10 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 05:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Fin Antenna[edit]

tagged as copyvio, but sadly not. What it is, however, is blatant spam. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've condensed the article down to it's true worth (or perhaps "A shark fin shaped antenna from BMW" would be better?). Seriously, it's quite simply not encyclopedic and should be at most a one sentence addition to the relevant BMW/car model articles. --kingboyk 23:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should point out that my edit has removed the spam JZG was referring to. You'll have to delve into the History for that. --kingboyk 23:39, 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 13:54, 9 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COLT Studio Group[edit]

Keep Why would you even consider removing this? (1) Simply because it ia about a specific company company doesn't make it advertising, and (2) removing it simply because it is about a "taboo" subject is tantamount to censorship. This article in and of itself is not pornogrpahic--it provides information about a topic that is difficult to find anywhere else--as this site does with most of its topics.

More advertizing. This time for gay porn. -R. fiend 22:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as notable porn studio. *cough* ... I researched it. For this AfD. Yeah. That's it :x Rewrite, though. Adrian Lamo · 22:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not advertising. COLT is one of THE oldest, most consistently porducing studio in Gay porn with an archive of almost 40 years worth of material. The history and aesthetic of COLT has been incredible influential on the medium as a whole. It should be listed with other influential porn studios. - OldBattler

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 13:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Influential gay porn studios"? Oh, please - 20th Century Fox this is not. Strong Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 14:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisment, non-notable studio. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that these folks' charge for deletion comes from a place of homophobia. Jim French's COLT Studio group wrote the book on gay male erotica for the past 40 years. Go to ANY bookstore - gay, adult or otherwise and will see COLT titles.

  • Keep, articles about companies are not inherently advertisement, and it's needlessly derisive to imply that a gay porn studio is incapable of being influential. Adrian Lamo ·· 20:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be notable in the world of gay porn... which seems to be notable as a subject, even to those who don't like it... The article is somewhat aneimic on the historical details and significance, but real world references seem to support notability here. Georgewilliamherbert 21:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. COLT & Falcon are two of the oldest and biggest gay porn prooducers still churning it out. One might well call them "seminal". Should mention its residual emphasis on straight muscular trade models somewhere. ("Cowboys", construction workers... it's "Village People" with muscles and less annoying music.) - Outerlimits 21:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Blnguyen 00:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as well known in gay circles as Penthouse (magazine) or Screw magazine are in straight ones. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 10 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 05:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ginny Mule Pictures[edit]

Trivial article which could easily be merged into The Accountant. Delete: Gaius Cornelius 17:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would think that it would be the other way around, wouldn't it? Merge both into this article, then rewrite and keep.--み使い Mitsukai 17:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable film studio. Stifle 01:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Stifle, ad. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per TerenceOng.Blnguyen 00:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on what planet is a film studio which produced an Oscar-winning film not notable? Kappa 07:26, 12 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 G4. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowbrow.com. GTBacchus(talk) 06:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lowbrow.com[edit]

This page is advertising for a website. Steve 19:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article nominated for deletion by User:Stevegallery. Incomplete editing, am completing editing.--み使い Mitsukai 15:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 15:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence that the site meets WP:WEB. Alexa rank 457,387. Some Google hits but none appear to be from notable sites. Advertising, unsourced, no indication of other significance. Barno 00:37, 10 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 05:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thick (band)[edit]

This article does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Cannot find mention of the band or its albums on allmusic. No further assertion of notability. Listing here rather than db-band just in case. Lbbzman 15:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If this vote is succesful, we should also nominate Skitz O'Fuel for deletion. He only appears in WP because of his role in Thick.--Johnnyw 18:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:NMG. [26] PJM 15:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Apparently, they have released at least one album that's available [27] but was published by an unknown indie label ('Toostupidtoplay Music'). Google delivers roughly 800 hits when searching for 'Thick "the Kings of Texas Schwag Rock"' [28]. Couldn't find any info about whether or not they ever toured outside Texas.--Johnnyw 18:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleteper nomAnlace 22:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn per nom.Blnguyen 00:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Car salesman 14:46, 12 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 05:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CRIXP Corp.[edit]

Not notable. Less than 1000 google hits. Advertising. Sleepyhead 15:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Too few google hits for a notable software company. A school in rural Benin clears more google hits. --Ezeu 16:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Blnguyen 00:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete private company, 4 employees, no customers listed Gavwatson 06:12, 14 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 05:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glower mints[edit]

Hoax. Gdr 15:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A naughty hoax, albeit admirably elaborate. --Ezeu 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed. One shouldn't advise hoaxers, but it might have gone unnoticed with a more plausible name origin than the alleged glowering effect. For instance, it could have derived from glaur, Scottish for "mire", in allusion to its preference for marshy habitats. Tearlach 17:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/BJADON. -- Mithent 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Blnguyen 00:36, 10 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 all articles. Mailer Diablo 05:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Better Mod, All-in-One Reloaded, Block Land Mods and Return to Blockland.[edit]

Wrongfully speedied, rightfully unspeedied, but despite protestations of editors I think not notable. Google for "The Better Mod" Blockland gets about 50 unique hits, including mirrors. I would simply merge and redirect, but (a) the mod is already mentioned in Blockland and (b) it's tagged as disputed anyway, and I would not know how much is valid. In the end this is a large article on a very very trivial subject with no apparent claim to wider importance. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 15:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum JzG's comments above apply only to The Better Mod: I've extended this AfD to cover All-in-One Reloaded, Block Land Mods and Return to Blockland per my comment below. I do not think any of them have enough independent interest to support an article, they should be either deleted or merged into a stronger article. Additionally the editors who raised the DRV were concerned that their mod was being treated in an unfair manner by proponents of rival game mods: in the interests of fairness I think it befits us to consider the related game mods side by side. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 16:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Any legitmate info on this should be mentioned in Blockland. PJM 15:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Blockland or a new Blockland game modifications. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 16:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Other game mods exist, eg. All-in-One Reloaded, Block Land Mods, Return to Blockland. Can we expand this AfD to cover these? They should be treated together, I think. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 16:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following disucssion with JzG, AfD extended. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 16:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dUMBELLS: RTB was only partly responsable for this, the admins have the word and should have the word.

Reverted blanking by User:84.69.76.44 - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 17:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how RTB is even remotely responsible for this. Mocheeze 00:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete covering the whole lot, would also accept merge for any that are not already in Blockland. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 17:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable mods.--Isotope23 19:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TBM creators won't allow anyone to remove POV, or talk about it in the article's discussion. Mocheeze 00:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Blnguyen 00:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All as discussed by Charles Stewart. The children that started this little fetish did so out of spite, so their trivial comments about small free game should be removed and more or less relegated to the discussion section of the Blockland entry. Probably with a few links to actual working pages in the mods section of the entry as all legitimate information about a mod would be listed on thier website. Furthermore, these elleged POV comments about TBM are not simple POV, they are unfounded, unresearched, and untrue. Put an end to these childish cock fights, delete the lot of them. MCP 02:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per Charles Stewart -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All a game mod would have to be really really notable to get its own article. Counter-Strike is one of the few examples. Since the host game Blockland is pretty marginal itself, I can't see mods of it having articles. I dint even think there's much here worth merging. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per norm. MCP seems to think if he is going down, he'll bring everyone else down with him. That is uncalled for.-EnCarnate 02:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I say delete it all, and then link to the blockland forums, they can get there mods or whatever there. I fail to see the purpose for all mods to have wiki pages, it seems like pointless advertising to me. Rotondo -
    • LOL nice sneaky comment there Rotondo "link to the blockland forums".MCP 03:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RTB dislikes TBM with there huge community and over shadows them with this delete shit NOW ME FOR ONE, HATE THESE STUPID hypocrites who do that so RTB lay off TBM and we will lay off you alright.by: ClavaTon the really pissed off lad. Translation "Come on RTB, don't you think everyone has had enough of all this jelousy and hate? I know I have."


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 ☎ ) 08:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honey, This Mirror Isn't Big Enough For The Two Of Us[edit]

Not even remotely notable Jim 15:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MLA 15:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; [29]. PJM 15:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This mirror isn't big enough for WP:MUSIC. --Kinu 17:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Delete is probably big enough for the two of them.--み使い Mitsukai 18:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Words fail me Avi 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn, insanity Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 22:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nom- embarrassing.Blnguyen 00:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to My Chemical Romance. Is a notable song and band, but doesn't deserve it's own page. Especially one that reads like this... Bad ideas 05:59, 10 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 ☎ ) 08:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold coins (disambiguation)[edit]

Needless. It is unecessary to list that gold coins are used as currency in one given game. Instead I have added a mention of the use of gold in games to the main Gold Coins article. Jaxal1 15:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pointless dab page. MLA 15:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'd rather see an article listing the games that don't use gold coins as a currecny. Obli (Talk) 19:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, that's not a bad idea. In any case, Delete this.--み使い Mitsukai 20:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless Mechastrikecruft Ergot 20:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Jaxal1, though I think the should not even be mentioned in the gold coins article. -- Kjkolb 00:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing very special about Mechastrike that it has to have a particular mention here. World of Warcraft, for instance, uses them too, yet no-one would suggest we add every game that's ever used gold coins to the disambig. -- Mithent 16:42, 10 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 RoySmith with the reason "hoax, random ramblings". - Bobet 20:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Castle Hangover[edit]

Silly Tc61380 15:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It should have been proded as balls --Ezeu 15:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Nonsense. Shouldn't dis the Castle, either. —Wrathchild (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is an unverifiable and unwarranted knock on White Castle. Grandmasterka 16:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Granted, I don't care for White Castle, but this is needless and completely POV.--み使い Mitsukai 17:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy utter nonsense.--Isotope23 19:35, 9 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 (4 delete votes to 1 keep). moink 20:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McNeill Designs[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable game company whose main product also does not appear to be notable enough (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You've Been Sentenced!), fails WP:CORP. A combined Google search finds 39 hits. Delete. Kusma (討論) 15:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Ezeu 16:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:CORP Criteria for companies and corporations A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. 2

This company has been covered in numerous Newspaper, TV, and Radio stories and reports. Several of these articles are on-line.

Your assessment of "non-notable" is incorrect. *Keep Springheeledjack 18:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Explain your reasoning. See http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060126/CROSSROADS/601260317/1006/NEWS for sample media coverage. Springheeledjack 19:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look at some of the other businesses and such on Wikipedia, then compare yours. Whether you intended to or not, yours clearly sounds like advertising (for example, we have no proof that you are not attached to the company - though that's not necessarily critera, either). Also, how many of these media reports aren't locally-covered articles essentially saying "local boy does good"? Admittedly, the criteria on WP:CORP may need to be reexamined so that such is made clearer, but as it stands right now, the article looks no different than the hundreds of "articles" submitted daily whose whole purpose is free advertising.--み使い Mitsukai 20:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then kindly make some constructive suggestions how to "fix" it, instead of continually trashing it. Or re-write it yourself if it is so completely unacceptable. This is the first time I've written an entry, so cut me some slack here. Springheeledjack 20:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should have said that in the nomination: If the articles end up being merged and only one is kept, I would suggest to keep the article on the game because that is more likely to be written about than the company. The article quoted above is more about the game than the company. Also, I must say I would prefer the guidelines at WP:CORP to be made clearer. Most new restaurants are likely to get an article in a local newspaper, yet that does not make them suitable for inclusion in a general-purpose encyclopedia. Kusma (討論) 20:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edited for a more NPOV. Should now be within current rules for acceptability. Springheeledjack 22:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete NN corp, TV claim vague, oter claims to notability via crystal ball Pete.Hurd 00:39, 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 with 6 delete votes and two keep votes by new contributors. moink 20:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've Been Sentenced![edit]

Advertisement for non-notable game. Only a few hundred Google hits here, not all of which are related. The entry on BoardGameGeek has only comments by "Springheeledjack", the author of this article and McNeill Designs, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McNeill Designs.Delete. Kusma (討論) 15:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Ezeu 16:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with your assessement as a "non-notable" game. As per WP:CORP Criteria for products and services:

A product or service is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. 7

There have been numerous newspaper, TV, and Radio stories and articles regarding this product

Your assessment of "non-notable" is incorrect. *Keep Springheeledjack 18:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertising. At the very least, it would need extensive cleaning to remove POV.--み使い Mitsukai 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' - Either an advertisment, or copied off of marketing materials. Would need a total rewrite to remove bias. Jaxal1 18:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Explain what you mean by "bias". This article is in line with other articles on specific boardgames. What would you suggest as a re-write? I am not connected with the company, and the content was not copied from another website, so this DOES NOT qualify as advertizing or Wikipedia:Spam according to Wikipedia rules. Springheeledjack 19:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have already said you want to keep it. Please don't "vote" more than once. About advertising: "YBS is the first sentence building game that actually works well and has great replay value." is not neutral. Kusma (討論) 19:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kindly provide appropriate alternative wording to meet POV requirements. Or at least list all of your specific objections. This is the first time I've tried to write a Wikipedia entry, and I'm starting to feel that's it's my LAST TIME. Springheeledjack 19:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can assure you I am NOT an oak Tree, a fern, or any sort of other "plant". As far as I can determine, from reading the CURRENT Wiki guidelines, this request for deletion is not valid. I have disproven both intitial objections ("non-notable" and "advertising")and am well within the letter and spirit of the "law", on both entries. Instead of heaping the abuse on a first time poster, and trying to kill my articles, how about actually doing something CONSTRUCTIVE and help me "fix" it! Springheeledjack 20:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, for starters, NO ALL CAPS IN SECTION HEADERS. That screams "we copied from a press release", whether you did so or not. Secondly, keep the language neutral. "The World of YBS" is market-speak. "Public reaction" or something like that is neutral. Lastly, again, look at some of the articles on games, then compare it to yours. Yours does sound like a press release. Tone down the language and keep it neutral. Sentences like "The YBS website even solicits people to submit new variations and games using the contents of the YBS box." aren't going to cut it, while something like "On the website, the company allows for the posting of variations and modifications to game rules" might work better. Granted, YMMV, but I'm hoping you're seeing what I'm getting at.
Also, lastly bear in mind that none of this is personal. We've all seen dozens of articles like yours, all without any altrusitic intentions whatsoever. You may be the lone exception to this, but past experience of many editors here, unfortunately, is not on your side.--み使い Mitsukai 21:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edited for a more NPOV as suggested. Springheeledjack 22:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nominator. Most Google hits are unrelated, and the rest seem either "local boy makes good" or from non-notable sites. Most BoardGameGeek game pages have much more indication of interest from people other than the designer. For contrast, see Diplomacy (game) which has indications of notability and widespread influence, and many external sites that are real references and hobby-service sites (not just advertising and fan-speculation sites). Barno 00:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. No doubt at all that this is a real, released product. But the press link cited above says that it's sold just 600 units after nearly a year on the market, and it's had no attention on Boardgamegeek--not even any Personal Comments, which even the most obscure games usually have a few. It's a little hard to say where the line should be drawn with things like board games, but I'm sorry to say that I don't think this one makes it yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:CORP only states that "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" need to exist for it to be "notable". Those sources clearly exist. There is no requirement for a product or subject to have a "wide spread influence" or to sell above a certain number of units, for it to be "notable". If that were the case, at least 30% of Wikipedia should be deleted immediately on the grounds of "wide spread influence" alone. So, until the WP:CORP is altered regarding this, your objections are completely unfounded. Springheeledjack 01:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Car salesman 14:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising for NN product Pete.Hurd 00:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement Ruby 01:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. reads nice -- Marvin147 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 Delete--Alhutch 16:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bumhording[edit]

Obvious blatant hoax File Éireann 15:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete as requested by creator. Chick Bowen 01:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Peace Plan[edit]

Original research. The author stated that this article would have been deleted once a suitable home for it is found, but it should be deleted from the main article space in the meantime. - Liberatore(T) 16:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Research" is a kind word for it. Flapdragon 16:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Its a good idea though. We came up with something similar at the pub yesterday. --Ezeu 16:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR + nonsense :) The authors should get their own wiki to discuss this, not use wikipedia. MLA 16:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well, if it's going to be deleted eventually, I think we should oblige them and save them the bother.--み使い Mitsukai 16:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR Avi 22:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. Entire arguement seems to boil down to "war will go away if we can get refugees to feed themselves." Or OR at best. Ergot 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR.Blnguyen 00:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR, and offer article's creator a Rubber_Biscuit. Barno 00:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm the author of this wiki and I've moved it to http://www.seedwiki.com/wiki/world_peace_plan/world_peace_plan.cfm If you think the argument is so nonsensical why don't you contribute this much needed sense? And if you think this is a in need of better research why don't you contribute some? Geoinline
I already contributed everything that I have to offer to the World Peace Plan on this AfD page. I am not interested in contributing to the article itself as it is far outside of my interests and areas of expertise (I am mostly interested in writing bios of West African political figures). Furthermore, anything that I might contribute to said page would almost certainly be deleted as vandalism, as it would begin with "This proposal is unworkable because...". At any rate, the author of the article asked for it to be deleted, which I beleive is grounds for speedy deletion. Ergot 19:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed a criteria for speedy deletion (G7). But, why bother? As you noticed, Wikipedia still lacks coverage of important areas... - Liberatore(T) 00:46, 11 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 ☎ ) 08:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ovasho Bens[edit]

Does not fulfil criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia:Notability (music) File Éireann 16:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Google returns one hit about the birthdays of two dudes in their late teens, one called Ben and another called Ovasho. --Ezeu 16:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Blnguyen 00:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cites no sources, and, like Ezeu, I cannot find any sources. We don't even get as far as determining notability. This article is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 13:20, 10 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 ☎ ) 08:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Rudden[edit]

This "supermodel" has no hits on Google. Sounds like a hoax to me File Éireann 16:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. She could be a model (what dy'all know), but she definitely ain't super. --Ezeu 16:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For "the most photographed model in the world", she certainly doesn't have a lot of media coverage. I couldn't find a single hit on google refering to her. --lightdarkness (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for your boyfriend to kiss your ass. By the way Helen, you aren't all that cute. --Aaron 16:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and block for 217.207.178.173 (talk · contribs), who just attempted to delete this AFD.--み使い Mitsukai 17:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If she can be a model, she can be a model, she can be a model so can I!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by South london white (talk • contribs)

*Dont Delete. I say let it be. --User:Mustapah islam 17:33 9 February 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.207.178.173 (talk • contribs)

Good on you. Image has been tagged appropriately.--Ezeu 19:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, not WP:V bio... and man that is cold Aaron...--Isotope23 19:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as extreme nn vanity.Blnguyen 00:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Supermodels attract 1000's of Google hits not 8 see [30]. Capitalistroadster 02:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Ian! See what u have caused - I'm afraid my (thinks he's funny) boyfriend and his (thinks he's funnier) friend have used a private image and ammended a description from a REAL supermodel. But by the way AARON who ever you are - calm down, its obviously a joke, nothing to get catty about!! - Helen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.20.115 (talk • contribs) 10:08, February 10, 2006

  • Delete as nn hoax and grumble about the lack of CSD. Turnstep 04:02, 14 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. moink 15:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epoque hotels[edit]

NN Hotel representation corp, article contains forward looking statements MNewnham 16:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but clean up to comply with WP:NPOV. At "over 170" hotels (per their website [31]) it does appear to be notable, and hence belongs here. ikh (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Google for "Epoque hotels" gives 175,000 hits. Tagged page for cleanup. Turnstep 04:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs significant cleanup/expansion and NPOVing... but is at least a noteworthy subject.  ALKIVAR™ 00:20, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 05:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richcraft Homes[edit]

Advertizing, part of "Homes" adspam, including already deleted Claridge Homes and Phoenix Homes, and prod'd Ashcroft Homes-- Babajobu 16:42, 9 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 ☎ ) 08:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of the 1st Parliament of Great Britain, part two[edit]

This page was created by a user who last edited it 1 Jan. It is obviously incomplete and a total mess and should IMHO not be published to visitors by Wikipedia. Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 16:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; Disorganized, non-encyclopedic mess. Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 17:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reasonable explanation of context given for this largely incomplete article. If it is improved significantly in the next few days I would change my mind, but until such an occurance, delete. --Fire Star 17:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of members of the 1st Parliament of Great Britain, provided that the information is verifiable. Delete, contains no info ikh (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; What information are you reffering to? I don't see any in the article. Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 18:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per --Fire Star. Punkmorten 19:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Probably safe to say that almost any article ending in ",part two" is highly suspect. Turnstep 04:07, 14 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 ☎ ) 08:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted's Kiddush[edit]

This kiddish club lacks notabily and does not belong on wikipedia Jon513 19:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, if the assertion that its notable around the world can be verified perhaps merge somewhere, otherwise just delete it. Thryduulf 13:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I posted this for deletion since I live in Jerusalem and have never heard of it, nor have anyone I know Jon513 21:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possible speedy as {{nn-club}}. Stifle 12:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion on WP:DRV I've restored this article and am re-opening the AfD discussion. Please note that this should not close until five days after this date. howcheng {chat} 16:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:(this user is a member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians) Billingdude 01:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Billingdude's only "contributions" have been to this AfD. --Aaron 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How is that relevant? Stifle 15:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though it can't be speedied due to the WP:DRV discussion, I agree with Stifle that it qualifies for {{nn-club}} as an A7. --Aaron 18:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above; there's not a single reference to this particular "kiddush club" on Google, which seems odd if it were true that "Jews from all over the world make special visits to Ted's Kiddush in Jerusalem." (the only claim of notability in this article.)—LeflymanTalk 19:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a sudden slew of seemingly newly-formed accounts have appeared to vote on this AfD, please be aware that the basis of whether an article is qualified for inclusion on Wikipedia is not one's personal opinion/experience, but Verifiability of the content, based on citation of sources-- which is neither provided, nor available for this article. Additionally, sockpuppet accounts which are created solely to vote on AfD tend to be looked upon with extreme prejudice. Sorry.--LeflymanTalk 00:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* I live in Philadelphia, PA and have heard about Ted's kiddush club in Jerusalem. The club is a wonderful club and brings in people from all walks of life and provides them with food and drink. Its the ultimate club!

(this unsigned comment by User:Goldameir, who appears to be a sockpuppet) -- RoySmith (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Listed - I live in Jerusalem and travel around the world for work. This club is world renown in Jewish circles. Billingdude 21:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(another sockpuppet, only contribs from this user are to this AfD -- RoySmith (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't take personal experience as a valid source to verify all this. Please cite reliable sources. - Mgm|(talk) 22:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Listed Obviously since I asked that the speedy delete be reversed on this one I feel it should be re-listed. It doesn't surprise me if there is nothing on Google as the club is based on word of mouth. Personal experience has to have some value - if 100 people attest to something isn't that better than one website?? Just my 2 cents --Listedit25 23:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(this user's only edits are related to this article) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Listed - I live in New York and have traveled to Jerusalem a number of times on business and pleasure. I have attended this Kiddush along with up to 50 other people on a given week. It is not in fact renowed throughout the Jewish world, however, it is well known among a wide circle of Jews from all walks of life (though mostly single) in major cities throughout the world, so I'd vote to keep it listed. Especially since this "Kiddush Club" is not a group vying for greater visibility, a Wikipedia reference for this topic is not an attempt at self-agrandizement. I think it could be useful reference for on off-handed remark by someone in this clique on a website, such as "My wife and I met at Ted's Kiduush about 4 years ago." Without this article, the rest of the world would be lost. Consider it a piece of jargon from a select subculture, an anthropological nugget, if you will. -- dovwas 00:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(this user has contributed a total of nine edits; this is the only one within the past year) -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete as non-notable sockpuppet magnet. Adrian Lamo ·· 01:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote, in deference to User:Kiddush Ted's unusually (for AfD) polite post. Adrian Lamo ·· 11:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Listed - ARE YOU KIDDING? Anyone who's anyone knows about Ted's Jerusalem Kiddush club! (Ted also known for an abundance of other fabulous qualities: he has the most quietly hilarious sense of humor; he has a secret recipe for a much-talked-about chulnt and he is the world's greatest steeler's fan). Definitely keep this item. (UTC)

    • — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Billingdude (talk • contribs) (this user has 5 contribs, 4 to this AfD and the first relating to this article when it was at WP:DRV - not a noted haunt for most new users) Thryduulf 01:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Billingdude has also already voted above. Thryduulf 01:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*** I did not post this unsigned comment! I do no know how that "fact" was established. I have no need to post multiple comments. My comment above is enough for my views on the matter Billingdude 04:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Actually, as a correction, the preceding comments were by anon user 222.65.101.41 (whose only contribution is this AfD, so yes, another dubious vote) —LeflymanTalk 05:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not established (I do not count sockpupets as proof). Pavel Vozenilek 02:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pavel Vozenilek - sockpuppets do not satisfy WP:V -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any verifiable information into the Kiddush Club article. Crypticfirefly 06:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Listed As a frequent visitor of Jerusalem for the Sabbath, I look forward to opportunities to join Ted's Kiddush whenever I can. Furthermore, IMHO, notability can be considered a subjective topic and I find that those who are unaware of the importance of Ted's Kiddush to the Orthodox Community of Katamon simply need this wiki as a reference that may just possibly spark their souls to join!-- hubscubs
(unsigned by another single contribution anonymous user) -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Listed I live in Jerusalem and Ted's Kiddush is an institution. Obviously not everyone in a city of 800,000 people would know about it, but it is very well know. I had heard of it for years before I finally attended what is certainly an 'event' in Jerusalem, not to be missed. It's not unsual to see people for half a dozen countries at Ted's kiddush. trauring 2:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

(I'll give you one guess how many contributions this user has) -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. Look, folks, I'm sure Ted is a very nice guy, and I'm sure the Kiddush is important to the small circle of people who frequent it, but that doesn't make it a topic for an encyclopedia article. Let me try an analogy. I work for a company which has a wikipedia article about it. It deserves the article because it's an international company with 25,000 employees worth $30 Billion. But, my particular office doesn't have an article about it. It's a nice office. It's very important to the 100 or so people working in it, and I can certainly count people from more than a half dozen countries. We even have three (that I know of) husband-wife pairs, although I don't know for sure that they met while working here. We've probably got Steelers fans, and I know some people here who are good cooks, some of whom probably have a good chulnt recipe or two on their hard drives. None of this makes the office worthy of having a wikipedia article written about it. The goal of Wikipedia is to document things which are important, not as a tool to make things important. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Lol. Roy I appreciate the humor of your response and get the point. I also accept the logic. I realize that you (and the others) are probably extremely annoyed by what you call "sockpuppets", but realize that the people who posted here were not trying to manipulate the process by making something seem more important than it is. They were simply trying to counterbalance Jon513's claim that it must not be a notable group because he lives in Jerusalem and has never heard of it. If THAT was the basis of the decision to remove the article then the decision was flawed. But if, as you have all clarified, the criteria for proving notability is citation of sources (and not personal experience), then the group probably does not meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. One thing to consider, in general, when you all debate the idea of notability - perhaps "Google" should not be the test of notability for ALL things. With or without Wikipedia the kiddush will go on, and I invite Jon513 to come and enjoy (drop by Chovevai synagogue around 11ish and ask around). And Roy, if I promise not to write "keep listed", will you promise not to point out that this is my only contribution? Regards from the Holy Land. --Kiddush Ted 18:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite the claims made by the sockpuppets, nothing has changed which would cause me to think that this subject has established its noteworthiness. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For ease of reading, I've gone in and stricken all false votes by sockpuppets/meatpuppets. Nothing's been removed, just crossed out. --Aaron 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is with regards to user Aaron who has decided to take matters into his own hands and cross out statements made by sockpuppets or meatpuppets. well, my comment was crossed out above and i am neither. i have contributed in the past and have only one username. so, get your facts straight first. secondly, i find it inappropriate to have a balanced discussion if the comments that he finds unfit are crossed out! please do refrain from this kind of underhanded practice! --hubscubs
  • Additional note: "hubscubs" has a total of 10 edits (including the one above), with major edits only in "Kiddush"; he was not logged in when voting, and has changed the anon IP above to his name, which was not the case when the comment was struck. Thus, I have removed the strike tags. However, I would suggest he reflect on the policy of Verifiability. Wikipedia is not a tool for promotion of clubs. —LeflymanTalk 19:26, 11 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 ☎ ) 07:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people described as neoconservatives[edit]

Many reasons to delete: This entire list is an inherent WP:AWW violation ("This is a list of prominent public figures frequently referred to as neoconservatives"). At least half the list fails WP:V, and most of the rest are considered "verified" based solely on the fact that they are members of a single think tank. In the past, various people have been randomly added and removed from the list depending on the POV of whatever editor was interested in the page at the time. A good argument can be made that the list's very existence violates WP:NPOV, given that there are several competing nebulous definitions of "neoconservative". And given those competing definitions, there could be libel issues if someone on the list disagrees with his/her listing there. Lastly, such a list can never be truly encyclopedic; it's just a random collection of whatever names have come to mind over time (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). Aaron 17:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as fails WP:POV.--み使い Mitsukai 17:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but seriously clean up. The list is interesting, and not inherently unencyclopedic; problems with WP:NPOV and WP:V could be dealt with after proper cleanup, referencing and deletion of unverifiable entries. Turning it into something like "list of self-described" neoconservatives may be appropriate, with proper references etc. ikh (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Kalsermar 20:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. "List of self-described..." as suggested by ikh would be useful if complete, but often times you won't hear neoconservatives label themselves that; I think citing self-descriptions would be almost impossible or lead to noticeable (uncitable) absences from the list, rendering it unauthoritative for those aware of this movement and misleading to those seeking information. --Derek 23:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per POV.Blnguyen 00:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have heard of people who describe themselves as neoconservatives. If sources can be found for such individuals then limit it to them and keep. If that can't happen then delete.--T. Anthony 02:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No way in the world that this can be encyclopaedic. It's a list with arbitrary inclusion criterion, apparently created just for the sake of having such a list. In other words, it is listcruft. Stifle 15:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very weasel-worded list. I can tell someone I reckon Britney Spears is a neoconservative, and add her? -- Mithent 16:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1st, why does the "List of Neoconservatives" redirect to the weasel-worded title of the article whose deletion is under debate rather than vice-versa? 2nd is Neoconservative a defined enough term? we do have lots of lists of people, but mostly the lists are pointing to something defined enough that we can attempt to lump people either in the list or out of it (e.g., List of left-handed people where some may debate the existence of handedness or whether a person should or shouldn't be included on the list, at least we know what we're debating). Until we as a community are convinced that "Neoconservatives" means the same something to most people, the list is of no value. Carlossuarez46 18:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conserve as it is perfectly possible to maintain a page with good references and citations: Wikipedia is full of them. I fully support removing unsourced entries, but no need to delete. Turnstep 04:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP IT— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.208.61 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep if the individuals named have a problem they can edit it it insults no one ... what facts are in dispute each individual named has espoused polcies consistent with the label — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.222.74.246 (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 05:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Institute of Intellectuals[edit]

Vanity page for a non-notable, non-existant organization. Page text only contains links to the creator's homepage and a newly-created messageboard on a public hosting service. User has deleted 2 previous deletion tags without adding significant content. Ryanjunk 20:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 20:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Flapdragon 20:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. --Aking 20:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable WP:VSCA. --Kinu 20:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - evident autobiographical/advertisement/vanity article. Also the poor spelling suggests that they are not particularly impressive intellectuals. MikeRM 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I'm amazed that no one has shown up to inform us that we're obviously uncultured buffoons for not appreciating their institute. Adrian Lamo ·· 21:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per AdrianLamo.Blnguyen 00:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Bad ideas 05:56, 10 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 ☎ ) 07:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeviceWall[edit]

Delete. This article is an advertisement masquerading as an article and should be deleted as per WP:SPAM. --TexasDex 17:43, 9 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 ☎ ) 07:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chee Yiliang[edit]

Can't find any info on this supposed dog breed under any spelling variant online or in dog encyclopedias, plus the idea of a wild ("habitat shrinking") hairless dog in Nepal is hard to swallow. Elf | Talk 18:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ""Delete"" No info vanzetti 19:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can prove that this isn't a joke. --Kinu 21:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as possible joke.Blnguyen 00:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The IP number under which this article was written, has a long story of vandalism. See it's talkpage. So I bet this is another try. vanzetti 04:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

no its because my isp is using proxy which means others can use my ip( author )


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Almost the entire article is just singing the praises of a company. "...takes on more adherents eventually" is probably a good argument to delete it until it has done so. -Splashtalk 20:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viable Vision[edit]

Contested prod. Very unclear page about a new management concept bordering on a neologism. The page itself and searches all refer to Goldratt consulting as well. Delete. Dr Debug (Talk) 18:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertisement.--み使い Mitsukai 19:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - reads like advertisement. Theory of constraints is notable; but not this application of it. ChemGardener 23:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move into the Theory of constraints page. I started the Viable Vision article, and it's been modified a bit. Agreed that it appears to be an advertisement for a service only available through Goldratt Consulting. There is the hope that Viable Vision takes on more adherents eventually. I suggest the move into the Theory of constraints page as an example of how ToC is being applied. Jackvinson 15:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Jackvinson or delete. This is not a keep vote. Stifle 16:25, 10 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 ☎ ) 07:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roommate Wars[edit]

Non-notable, unverifiable; Google lists no hits for search string ' "Roommate Wars", Tyler ' ikh (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, appears to be vanity at this point.Bjones 18:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. at $2500 it is unlikely to be a professional movie. Dr Debug (Talk) 18:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions that it's a fanfilm. Nothing need more be said. Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 18:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is still not finished. And will be verifiable as soon as I can get it's website up. The journal link is just a place holder till I can get something else up. Plus there are other fanfilms listed here.Tyler Gilmore 18:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "And will be verifiable as soon as I can get it's website up" is not supporting your position. Other fanworks listed on Wikipedia, from George Lucas in Love to Ragnarok Battle Offline are notable in some way other than their creators threw up a website to be verified. You're going to need a lot more than that for notability.--み使い Mitsukai 19:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable fanfic.--Isotope23 19:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Reyk 19:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do I even need to explain? If so, you must be new here. --Kinu 20:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per nom. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 9, 2006, 21:41 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.Blnguyen 00:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but try not to WP:BITE. I wish Tyler Gilmore all the best with his/her movie project. Stifle 16:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator is not verifiable. Yamaguchi先生 02:46, 14 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 (speedy deletion criterion A7). howcheng {chat} 18:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Knoer[edit]

No encyclopedic content, assertion of notability or anything. Schnee (cheeks clone) 18:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under A1 and A7 criteria ikh (talk) 18:33, 9 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. JPD (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahtab[edit]

This was tagged with {{prod}}, but this would seem to be an encylopedic topic (like Smith and several other family surnames). However, it is in its current condition almost an A1 speedy and unverified. I'm just bringing this discussion here so more eyes can have a look at it. No vote. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as A1 per Titoxd. --Aaron 18:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably speedy, per Titoxd ikh (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP 98,000 google search links Google Search. I agree with Titoxd, this seems like an encyclopedic topic like Smith and other names as seen on Wiki. Madangry 19:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom MYSELF (Better? Now stop YELLING!). Smith makes sense as an article, as it is universally accepted as common, and it also serves as a disambiguation page. This does not seem to establish itself that way. (Am I the only one who thought this said Matlab at first?) --Kinu 21:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC); updated Kinu 21:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Just because Smith is in English doesn't mean it is Universally accepted as common and furthermore does not also mean that names derived in other languages and VERY common in 3rd world countries are not common simply because they are not in English. The daughter in the Sally Field and Alfred Molina movie Not Without My Daughter was named Mahtab. See cast list on IMDB. Also, if nominating for deletion PLEASE STOP PUTTING "PER NOM" The nominator was a NO VOTE. Madangry 21:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not put words in my mouth. My rationale had nothing to do with the fact that Smith is English. Would you feel better if I compared to Gonzalez or Patel or Wang? My vote stands until you can make a stronger argument. --Kinu 21:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not intend to offend you nor put words in your mouth. Touche for the other names. I'm still a BIT confused as to why you and the nom are comparing this first name with surnames though...if you could clear that up I'd be most appreciative. If Hollywood and Google aren't convincing enough for you that is fine. We will see what the admins think when they see this talk page. Yes? Madangry 22:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries, and I apologize in turn if I seemed a little curt myself. Anyway... this article actually does look a lot better than when I origianlly saw it. In fact, I'll do a little cleanup myself, just to bring it up to standard and make it more in line with some of the similar name pages. As for the "surname" thing... I actually did think it was one, since I didn't realize from the context on the page that it was a given name. The cleanup helped a lot. :) Oh yeah, keep now that the article is less of a dicdef and is definitely more encyclopedic. --Kinu 05:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added more to article for added notability aside from Google test. Madangry 22:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Madangry. -- JJay 05:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as improved. Crypticfirefly 06:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Madangry. Dr Debug (Talk) 07:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fixed version, tag as {{disambig}}. Stifle 16:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as changed. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:11, 14 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 was delete.   -- Lear's Fool 01:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Theaker[edit]

Daniel Theaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite having been around for five years this article remains an autobiography with no independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:COMPOSER, and is autobiographical. Creator also created many other articles that could be considered self-promotional and which have remained unreferenced to this day. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity page for non-notable person. Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. moink 15:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon Park[edit]

Not notable. Probably an attempt at an advertizement. Jim 18:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. I'd say the memorials makes it notable, especially so the one for the Titanic's captain.--み使い Mitsukai 18:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep apply WP:NPOV, categorise, general cleanup really. "Beatufiul" sounds POV. But I'd say it's worth the time to cleanup. Deskana (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep large parks are notable. I've done some clean-up probably requires more by someone more familiar with the park. TMS63112 20:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is a notable large park Yuckfoo 22:27, 9 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 as copyvio. Have a nice day. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NetSupport 24-7[edit]

WP:SPAM Jim 18:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Kinu 20:44, 9 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 06:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamerzplanet[edit]

  • Delete - Content appears more promotional than encyclopedic. Speedy was contested, then both tags removed (by apparently different users). Alexa rank is 64,261. Page claims 50,000 users (no citation) but does not establish notability under the criteria in WP:WEB. If kept, it needs a heavy re-write and wikification, as it reads as promotional content, with links to 7 pages at gamerzplanet.net and has no internal links. Csari 19:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Csari 19:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as forumcruft per nom. The real giveaway is when it claims to be the "largest gaming community ever on the Internet"... please, that's what every self-serving article on this topic does. --Kinu 20:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "all your (my) online gaming needs" do not include keeping this article. Adrian Lamo ·· 21:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment had to revert after User:24.168.130.129 wiped all the votes.
  • Delete Forumcruft. FCYTravis 09:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as history of a random forum. Also per Kinu. This belongs on the forum's own website, not on Wikipedia. Stifle 16:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu Ruby 16:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Page has been redone and designed pretty well, now goes to Wikipedia standards. NerveBand 12:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
*Comment Page looks better since you reworked it, NerveBand, but still doesn't establish notability, which is what it needs to do if you want it kept. Please see WP:WEB.
  • Delete per Kinu Aaronw 17:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just not seeing notability here. Turnstep 05:15, 14 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 userfied by Howcheng - Bobet 20:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COOLer[edit]

Nothing more than personal promotion Jim 19:16, 9 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 as repost of content deleted here. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podfading[edit]

Sent to {prod}, disputed by anon editor, bringing here instead. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep please or merge to podcasting this is a popular word now Yuckfoo 19:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. --Aaron 19:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I could swear an article with the same name (or something very similar, perhaps "podfader") was just deleted a couple of days ago, possibly qualifying this as a speedy delete. Is there an easy way for a non-admin to check something like this? --Aaron 19:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism.--み使い Mitsukai 19:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neologism, as per original prod. —Whouk (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Aaron. It wasn't worth an article then, it isn't worth an article now. --Kinu 20:29, 9 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 01:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer E. Spreng[edit]

Advertising nonnotable author. I also VfDed her book Joestynes 19:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN --† Ðy§ep§ion † 20:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Kinu 20:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This (probably vanity) article makes the mistake of actually pointing out its own non-notability: "best known for writing Abortion and Divorce Law in Ireland", qv AfD. Flapdragon 20:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn per nom.Blnguyen 00:47, 10 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 01:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion and Divorce Law in Ireland[edit]

Advertising nonnotable book. I also VfDed the author Joestynes 19:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,350,562 in Books. Wikipedia is not free advertising. --Kinu 20:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Flapdragon 20:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Blnguyen 00:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Practically empty. Pavel Vozenilek 02:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what is the notability standard for scholarly works as opposed to popular works? Crypticfirefly 06:15, 10 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 ☎ ) 07:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antigravity RC Racing, Inc.[edit]

Seems non-notable and possibly advertising. Taking a look at the page it does not seem to be worth an encyclopedia article. Deskana (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as I nomintated it for deletion. Deskana (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and vanispamcruftisy. --Kinu 20:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible speedy delete -- Malber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. Makemi 21:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a corporation and should be allowed a description of the services provided. (example. Tamiya, Inc., Novak, Losi)
I suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability. This is not a notable company. Deskana (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Blnguyen 00:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and for crimes against gravity. Adrian Lamo ·· 00:59, 10 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 ☎ ) 07:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little white popsy[edit]

Non-notable game. Google finds no mention of this "semi-nonsensical game". Was prod'ed, tag removed without comment. Weregerbil 20:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Should read: "Little White Popsy" is a semi-nonsensical article... --Kinu 20:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Flapdragon 20:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not for things made up on the playground. Makemi 21:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, it's more than semi-nonsensical! -- Mithent 22:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's funny and interesting and I've seen stranger articles. What harm does it do to keep it there? I can't think of any reason to delete apart from being a spoilsport. -- User:Caleby 13:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being funny isn't reason for keepin an article -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:54, 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 01:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crank city[edit]

Non-notable self promotion GunMetal 20:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above.--Adam (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. PJM 20:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Kinu 20:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Makemi 21:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Blnguyen 00:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Bad ideas 05:51, 10 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 arguments made for deletion are thorough, compelling and cogent. The arguments made for keeping signally and uniformly fail to address a single point the deleters make. One of them even agrees on one of the substantive points! For the votecounters, even if I count every single vote, there's still well more than the two-thirds level and with any kind of commonplace treatment, it'd be higher still. -Splashtalk 20:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hogwarts[edit]

I’m renominating Battle of Hogwarts for deletion. I have stated most of these concerns on the talk page months ago but they have not been responded to. I’ll recap the highlights here.

First, I feel that a sufficient summary of the book exists on Muggles’ Guide to Harry Potter and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince as well as the Harry Potter Wiki which are the appropriate places for a book summary which literally tries to include every substantive detail. I believe that not only is the article name non-canonical but the framing of this part of the book as a "battle" constitutes POV original research, essentially providing a blank check for fans to add non-canonical analysis and interpretations of the text.

I'll refrain from calling it "Potter-cruft" (but it is You-Know-What). In the first vote, the result was no consensus; the key vote there was Guettarda who felt that the material belonged on wikipedia even if the article didn't. As I've stated above, the content is on wikipedia in other appropriate places.

There are three main arguments against deletion. The first is precenent: Battle of Endor, Battle of the Pelennor Fields, as well as Battle of the Windmill all have articles, and the last article is a non-canonical name. I am fine with all of these articles, but I would like to point out that the key distinction is that the Battle of the Windmill is canonically agreed to as a battle even if there is no definite name for it. That is clearly not the case with the Battle of Hogwarts. There is just as much justificaiton for making the end of HBP a battle as for making Battle of Home Alone for the end of the film Home Alone.

The second is that this is an important part of the plot. That may be true, but this is not the proper method of article forking. The proper process should be to put all the plot content in the main article for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Then, if there an overflow of notable plot details there the daughter article of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince plot should be created. However, the apparent community consensus judging by the first six books is that the main article should contain a shorter plot summary with a more detailed one in the Muggles' Guide.

The third argument is that this content is too long to be merged into the main article. That concern collapses into the second one which I have addressed above. However, I would like to add that part of the reason for the extreme length of this article is that the arbitrary format of a "battle" imposed on it. If this article were reduced to a mere plot summary, it would be shorter. And of course, even then, this would be an innapropriate method of content forking.

Please do not simply vote merge on this article unless you have read both articles and personally intent to merge the contests. Merges have been proposed in the past on multiple occasions but they are never followed through on and the merger notice is removed hourly by vandals. Savidan 20:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Don't know wnough to vote on this but if, as the article itself says, "the series of events are never referred to as the 'Battle of Hogwarts' in the books", the title/concept would surely have to have achieved a lot of currency to be legitimate. Flapdragon 21:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with Flapdragon. The Rabbit of Caerbannog from Monty Python and the Holy Grail is better known as the "Vorpal Bunny" (a name never mentioned in the film), because the name gained currency that way. If everyone's calling it "The Battle of Hogwarts" even if the name isn't mentioned in the book, that's a sign that it's significant enough to become noteworthy on its own. As for myself, I don't have a vote on it one way or another.--み使い Mitsukai 21:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. I'm a fan of the books too, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, this is definitely Pottercruft. Delete. If some more motivated soul than I cares to rewrite it and put it on the Harry Potter Wiki, they can go right ahead. And I never heard this name until I saw this article. Hermione1980 21:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One scene from one book of a long series. This can be sufficently covered in the article on the book. Gamaliel 21:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avra deleta. Battle is such a strong word. Scuffle, maybe, or altercation. Call this a battle and you'd call closing time in Southampton a battle. Seriously though, non-canon name for one scene that is covered elsewhere in wikipedia. Un-needed and unlooked for splitting. And back to Azkabam for me for using the unforgivable edit. Sabine's Sunbird 21:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Seems like a good topic to me. JohnnyBGood
    • User's first edit —Wahoofive (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And?
        • And it means that the closing admin will take into account that you magically appeared just in time for this AfD. Nothing more, nothing less. Hermione1980 01:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good for them.
  • Delete cruft. The summary of this one scene is as a long as the entire plot summary on the HBP page. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an overdetailed plot summary under a title with no currency. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Corinthian 00:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per second paragraph of nomination. Barno 01:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Good article on a pivotal fictional event.Gateman1997 03:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to HBP. Plot summary is good, but this is absurd; if there's anything that needs saying in here, merge that into the main plot summary. If a reader really wants to know every single detail of what happens, they can read the book, for fnord's sake. Zetawoof 04:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A redirect isn't necessary for a non-canonical name. - Brendan OShea 04:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would support a redirect to deter recreation. Savidan 11:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To call a plot element in the story "The Battle of Hogwarts" reeks of fanfiction. --Carnildo 05:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per extensive nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight merge or delete. If it's deleted, please replace with either {{deletedpage}} or a redirect. Stifle 16:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't have a problem with each book having its own page, or even with each major character having its own page, but things like the Knight Bus are really pushing it, and this article goes way over the line. Turnstep 19:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the HBP article. -Sean Curtin 06:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Integral to the series, at least in my opinion, but doesn't warrant a page. Marira 18:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just can't see an article for this material, though it is part of the book. FloNight 20:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the HBP article is good enough for this topic, if anyone wants more in depth info then surely they can just read the book. --Jpowell 21:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper. This article contains significant information that is not contained within the HBP article. I would cost a handful of bytes to retain this additional information on the plot of a book that is a significant part of popular culture. I agree, however, that the non-canonical designation of it as a "Battle" is very suspect. I would be very receptive to renaming the article to something less indicating original research or to merging this article with the HBP article. (I don't directly commit myself to doing that, but merging would be greatly preferable to deletion). -SocratesJedi | Talk 01:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with SocratesJedi fully. 68.192.117.112 01:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • IP votes? Savidan 01:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Usually discounted unless they add something compelling to the discussion. Hermione1980 01:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it's not called Battle of Hogwarts in the book, then this topic should be covered in the book article Ruby 01:36, 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. Those who point out there isn't actually any encyclopedic commentary in this article are correct — whether it is Wikisourceable or not, I am unclear as I do not work on that project (although I suspect it probably has all the biblical source material it wants by now). Thus, I think this is an AfD that does deal quite specifically with this version of this material. There seems to be a formative, but currently insubstantial suggestion that something similar to this could be done very much more satisfactorily, and possibly under a different title. -Splashtalk 20:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis 1:1-3[edit]

If I have marked this for deletion in error, please forgive me. However, this article seems like something that should be on Wikisource, not here. Or perhaps merged with or linked from Genesis? -Danaman5 20:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Thank you for that helpful information, Kinu. Genesis 1:1-1:3 all have individual articles (see the links at the bottom of this article), and all have similar comparisons between different versions of the verses. However, Genesis 1:1 especially has some information that could be worth keeping. Perhaps keep this article with added commentary, keep Genesis 1:1 for notability and good information, and delete Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 1:3 as unnecessary? -Danaman5 21:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. I have two comments. (A) Yes, I agree that this page is redundant with 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, but I vehemently oppose the idea that every Bible verse gets a separate Wikipedia page. So I would rather delete 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3, and keep the Genesis 1:1-3 page. (B) Before deleting the article Genesis 1:1-3, take a look at what links to it: [32]. It seems to me that this article is not really about Genesis 1:1-3. It is about a comparision of major Bible translations. Notice that the pages that link to it are linking for that reason, and indeed Genesis 1:1-3 has a much more comprehensive list of Bible translations than do the individual verse pages. So I vote to keep it but rename it something like "Old Testament Translation Samples" or something along those lines. Lawrence King 03:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lawrence King - Wikipedia is not Wikisource -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you clarify? You said "delete per Lawrence King", but my vote was to keep and rename. Lawrence King 06:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I used your reasoning, that it's merely a list of translations, to come to my conclusion. Nothing to explain. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not again. Source text belongs on Wikisource. Comparisons are original research and belong on the creator's website, or Wikibooks at best. Get going. Stifle 16:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Is everyone here comfortable that there's no copyvio here? I'm not. Carlossuarez46 18:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having an article for every verse might be a copyright violation. An article that quotes several verses for a specific purpose is not. Lawrence King 00:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is of course no copyright violation of taking small quotes from almost any book, and that is really what this is. Many of the translations themselves expressly state just how many verses can reasonably be taken. For example, the Good News Bible states that: "Use of up to 1000 verses from the Good News Bible is free, provided that they do not comprise a whole book, nor more than 50% of the work".Brusselsshrek 16:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — lacking in critical analysis, neutral interpretations, historical nuggets, &c.; non-encyclopedic. — RJH 18:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELTE, we already have a Genesis article. 132.205.45.110 20:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Important biblical verses which have probably been the object of enormous amounts of theological interpretation and allusions in art and literature over the centuries, but none of that is in this article. Genesis 1:1, OTOH, is a useful article (but could no doubt still be expanded). u p p l a n d 13:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep.
  1. This is an extremely valuable page to see a different old testament translations compared. I think that the all the Wikipedia articles on Bible translations would be severely diminished without a single page where examples of each of the translations can be easily compared. The comparison of versions shown on Genesis 1:1 is nearly worthless due to their similarity. I do not support having hundreds (or even thousands) of verses on Wikipedia, but I do think that these particular verses are the most obvious one's to allow a comparison of Old Testament translations, and thus serve an extremely valuable role in the whole Bible translation domain.
  2. I understand Lawrence King's point that the page is really about a comparison rather than about a particular attempt per se to explain these verses, nonetheless, for the name to be consistent with other verses (such as John 3:16), I think they have the correct Wikipedia title - by all means have a redirect page called "Comparison of Old Testament verses" or do a link of the type [[Genesis 1:1-3|Comparison of Old Testament verses]], but leave the name as is.Brusselsshrek 16:11, 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.

Darrin Atkins[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. JPD (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detica[edit]

was listed on {{prod}}, but User:87.74.56.201 removed the tag. Original reason given by User:James084 was "Clearly spam." Peyna 21:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not spam it is information about Detica
  • Weak keep, notable company, terrible article. Adrian Lamo ·· 00:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:CORP, but I might be persuaded otherwise by information lacking from article. Alexa rank for Detica's website is 496,638. Many Google hits, but most of the first-page ones do little to indicate notability. If their team in their research park's local football league make the first page, how significant are the rest likely to be? Barno 01:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - revenue of £43m according to their most recent interim report. Some external mentions ([33], [34], [35], [36], etc.) for what they're worth. -- Jonel | Speak 04:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jonel's research. Stifle 16:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I'm concerned, no real reason given for Prod + no reason given for removal of Prod = no need for AfD. This is a publicly traded company with significant turnover, possibly in the neighbourhood of £100m this year. There are hundreds of articles mentioning Detica's reports and work for the UK insurance industry among other clients. It is an obvious player in its market and fully deserves inclusion here. -- JJay 21:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jonel and JJay. 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 06:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libby Hoeller[edit]

Nothing important or signficant here. I think it goes against WP:LIVING. Rob 21:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agreed (ESkog)(Talk) 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, possibly could be classified as a legitimate internet phenomenon, but the information in the article is not WP:V. There is no evidence her real name is even Libby Hoeller. If you take out everything that can't be verified you get "college chick who danced around naked to crappy early 90's music in 5 videos". Minorly notable perhaps, but I don't think having hordes of boys spank it over your misappropriated videos quite meets WP:BIO. --Isotope23 21:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ESkog. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 21:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems (barely) notable[37]. Adrian Lamo ·· 21:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At the least, this counts as one of those porn fads along the lines of "Drunk Girl at Mardi Gras" and "Psycho Girl". Pervasive in some ways, yes, but not encyclopedic IMHO, and not notable otherwise like Paris Hilton or even Severina Vučković. Boy, I know too much about this topic... --Kinu 22:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2 examples of when having hordes of boys spank it over your misappropriated videos is notable...--Isotope23 23:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; way too much speculation in the article, not encyclopedic Ergot 22:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if you follow the underground porn, this is significant thing. Should porn fads NOT be documented. --vossman 22:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen 00:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't think that she is notable enough. In recent times, Wikipedia has set a rather high standard concerning pornographic performers. If only it would do the same with bands and non-pornographic actors. -- Kjkolb 01:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 03:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. You must be kidding. One of the great internet porn memes, discussed on Howard Stern by Stern and Jimmy Kimmel back when it was more famous. Completely insane that this would be deleted. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lack of verifiability here. Stifle 16:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending citation of a good source to show that the various factual claims of the article could be checked. --W.marsh 20:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per badlydrawnjeff.  Grue  13:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Even if the actual events can not be verified, the phenomenon can be. Internet events are hard to link to real life people and places because of the anonymous nature of the internet. But the event happened, this discusion is proof of that, as is 41,500 results on a google search for Libby Hoeller. I am sure that the other spellings of her name would bring even more results. Getting information on obscure subjects such as this are one of the main reasons why I find Wikipedia such a valuable resource. I do agree that information needs to be verified, but in this case the phenomenon is a fact even if some of the details are not. --Kyle k 22:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Nees slight revisions, but if you delete this you should delete all internet/cultural phenonomon's such as the Star Wars Kids, references to Urban Legends, etc.
  • Keep. notable internet meme. Regularly discussed on numerous online messageboards even to this day. --Madchester 19:43, 14 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 06:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't sleep, clown will eat me[edit]

This entry seems to be nothing more than a once-used line from a cartoon. If this is worth keeping then we might as well let anything go? It's pointless trivia, and even that is praising it too much Gretnagod 21:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep, phrase is eminently notable, with 191,000 Google hits[38] -- encourage withdrawal of nomination. Adrian Lamo ·· 21:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Actually, only 35 of the Google returns are unique. The rest are related to the Wikipedia user User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me - see [39]
  • Keep Phrase is in moderately common usage, and the article has the origin, other usage, etc. I learned something reading it seeing the AFD nom. IMHO, the subject is sufficiently notable and the article is a good article regarding it. Georgewilliamherbert 21:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't this already on AfD and kept, not long ago? Keep. Jonathunder 21:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing on the talk page. So what is your reason for keeping it? I repeat, only 35 of the Google returns are unique - has any other Wiki entry got a lower return? Articles have been merged/deleted for having thousands.Gretnagod 21:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it was on AfD recently, I saw it. It was obviously kept as article is still on Wikipedia. Hmmm... Deskana (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Google is not the only source of valid notability in the world; there are lots of things which nobody bothers to put online. The phrase, as a meme, is extremely widely recognized (everyone I know socially seems to know it). Google can be used to show that something is notable, and lack of google hits is reason to suspect it isn't notable, but lack of google hits is not proof that subject is not notable. Georgewilliamherbert 22:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: look, the whole "unique google hits" thing is a total fallacy. I'd really love it if folks stopped citing it on AfD. If we buy it, then Microsoft gets just 512 "unique" hits to my own 493 "unique" results. It's just Google's attempt to present you with relevant results, not any indicator that results beyond that point are totally non-unique, nor am I just 19 hits less notable than Microsoft. Adrian Lamo ·· 21:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't necessarily disagree with your overarching point, but what google are you checking? "My" google returns two billion, three hundred and 40 million unique hits for microsoft. By my calculations, you are 2,429,999,507 hits less notable than Microsoft --Fuhghettaboutit 23:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The expression, as I have always heard it, uses the plural, "clowns will eat me." You'll also find that that formation returns far more unique google hits (if we're still using google as an indicator). Accordingly, even if this article is kept, it should probably be moved to this more well know and used turn of phrase, even if the Simpsons' original derivation was singular. This should probably be coupled with a note in the article to the effect that the plural designation is how the phrase is generally used in the parlance. --Fuhghettaboutit 00:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The same Google you're checking. Do note that I was referencing "unique" hits, not total hits, which are two very different animals :) Adrian Lamo ·· 23:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a general enough usage to merit an article. Would also support redirect to Simpsons episode.--Isotope23 22:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it's a phrase in common enough use, and the article has a fair amount of material. -- Mithent 22:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see above --HasNoClue 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or perhaps Merge I have a problem with phrases being in Wikipedia unless they're undeniably a cultural phenomena (like for example, Wuzzzup). When I think of whether articles should be on Wikipedia I think, would I ever find this article in a book encyclopedia? It's a slippery slope. By the keep votes here, one could make the argument that almost any joke from The Simpsons/Family Guy could be made into its own article (which seems to be a disappointing trend on Wikipedia). Merge seems to be a fair compromise. I've heard lots of people (and I profess to doing it myself) do the "Who else but Quagmire" joke from Family Guy. It's certainly become a phrase. But if you'll notice, they mentioned that detail in the article Breaking Out Is Hard to Do, instead of making it its own article. I see no reason why it shouldn't be done for this phrase as well. Canadian Paul 22:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or merge per Canadian Paul's rationale. I do hope nothing happens to spoil this fancy AfD... --Kinu 07:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is a common used phrase Yuckfoo 22:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for my language, but the phrase "Go fuck yourself" is used far more often, but doesn't get an entry. Gretnagod 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also has no significance or meaning or history or definition beyond the obvious, and WP is not a dictionary; that's not true with "Can't sleep...". Georgewilliamherbert 22:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, While this isn't my personal opinion, I know by past experience that far stupider and less notable (internet) memes have survived afd. We need better guidelines on internet memes or we'll be stuck with an article for every catchphrase and image ever created by Something Awful, FARK, et al. Obli (Talk) 23:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is more than an internet meme; it's a real-world meme, and it has held up for years. --Allen 00:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A friend of mine has this slogan on a metal band around his car's rear license plate. Very well known saying. --Fuhghettaboutit 00:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - found this previous deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Can't Sleep, Clowns Will Eat Me. Not sure if it has any actual bearing on this, though. -- Jonel | Speak 04:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I am a man, but more than a man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.84.190 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess it really goes without saying where I stand on this one.  :-) I would like to thank Adrian for his insightful and somewhat surprising comments regarding the relevancy of "unique Google hits"; I will be bearing that in mind when formulating AFD nominations in the future. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing makes a guy wish he hadn't ranted quite so much like complimenting him on it ; )
Adrian Lamo ·· 09:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what next? Thats another fine mess you've gotten us into? Jcuk 13:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Talk!) 17:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep my god... if a fucking pokemon that was never PRINTED can get an article... and the O RLY? meme gets one... and the fucking FARK Squirrel with the big nuts gets an article... this can certainly stay.  ALKIVAR™ 18:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep — based on semi-popular usage and a decently-written article. I get 560 google hits with a -wikipedia. :) — RJH 18:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- notable phrase/pop culture reference. Though I usually see it with "clown" in the plural. Haikupoet 04:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, If this is worth deleting then we might as well let anything go? bbx 08:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't keep, clown will eat meSceptre (Talk) 16:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, Alice Cooper songs are notable, and wikipedia is not a book encyclopedia. Kappa 20:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Kappa said, Wikipedia is not a book encyclopedia, and this is a very well known meme. As such, it is unique in the "Quotes from Family Guy and The Simpsons" department and deserves to remain an article. 69.138.229.246 03:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alkivar's excellent point and the fact that this is a very well-known meme. Turnstep 04:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable meme. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, the existence of this article is a pretty strange fact. On the other hand, there are all too many articles here that are too trivial for an encyclopaedia. Let's consider this a nec plus ultra: we discourage that people go on creating articles like this but we won't throw it away. Caesarion 12:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You've hit the nail on the head there. People are told not to create these sorts of articles yet these ones are left on. Surely, we're leaving ourselves open to punishment. Pages like this limit how far Wikipedia will be able to evolve, as this sort of article makes Wikipedia look like a playground for self-obsessed teenagers. Gretnagod 14:22, 14 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 01:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Glendening[edit]

No claim of notability, no relevant Google hits. Originally tagged for speedy deletion, contested on the talk page, so I moved it to AfD. Schutz 21:24, 9 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 06:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke William CSA FC[edit]

Non-notable pub football side. They do not take part in any senior competition such as the FA Cup, nor do they play at a proper stadium or charge for admission. Google returns hardly any hits: 8 for "Duke William CSA" and only 1 for "Duke William FC". There are literally thousands of such teams in England alone. Delete. Qwghlm 21:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep True, there may be 1,000s of such sides but why don't they deserve a place in Wiki? The information is quite nicely set out too, so I would keep it. Gretnagod 21:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice formatting is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Notability is. This is just a pub team, in an obscure Sunday league. If we followed your reasoning, any sports team, no matter how insignificant, is eligible for inclusion in WP. Qwghlm 21:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't actually mean the layout as such. But, given that a synopsis of every episode of Family Guy has a listing, why shouldn't all the pub teams. They've gone out of ther way to make an entry, and kicking them off seems a bit harsh. If Manchester United and Liverpool are allowed entries, why are they not? Where do you draw the line? Conference South? Ryman League? Kentish Observer League? Gretnagod 22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator and earlier football project discussion. -- Elisson • Talk 21:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Oldelpaso 22:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no thanks --Doc ask? 23:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Blnguyen 00:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Personally, I couldn't care less about this page but it raises a point - what should be deleted and what shouldn't be? There is a synopsis of every episode of Family Guy for goodness sake, and at least this football team is real. I would rather have every pub team in the UK in wiki than pages and pages devoted to cartoon catchphrases, as we seem to have. Gretnagod 02:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're trying to compare apples and oranges here - pub football teams and cartoon series are quite different things. For what it's worth, a defender of Family Guy could justify its detailed inclusion by virtue of it getting several million viewers (and many more who buy the DVDs), while pub teams are generally watched by the proverbial three men and a dog. WP's systemic bias to things like Western cartoon shows is a problem, but it's not one solved by filling it with articles about the totally obscure. Qwghlm 08:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and the similarity in name between the contributer and the manager is not surprising Andymarczak 10:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, per Andymarczak. Stifle 16:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I would take a wide interpretation of notability in wikipedia with respect to football teams/competitions: as long as it is a serious and known one in real life, it should be deemed notable without regards of whether it is within a league structure recognised by FIFA or its affiliates (eg The FA). --Pkchan 04:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BTW footy project has this to say: "Please use the talk page to discuss which football-related subjects are notable enough to have their own page on Wikipedia. When a consensus is reached, we can put the decisions here." Rich Farmbrough. 15:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although nothing has been laid down yet, there have been ongoing discussions about what qualifies for a club for notability. I proposed having notable players, participation in the national cup, and charging for admission and these were largely agreed with. This club does not meet any of these. Qwghlm 16:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable --Angelo 16:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good article. Kappa 20:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a real football club, and the article is very good. Carioca 23:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. We have a cricket club at the university - it is real - it is possible to write a godd article about it - but that doesn't make it notable.Blnguyen 04:14, 13 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, csd a1

Israel organizations[edit]

Article is unnecessary - it would theoretically be a list of a large number of largely unconnected organisations in Israel. Mithent 21:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article has already been deleted, this should be closed. -- Mithent 22:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, gotta love conspiracy theories. Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 21:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't an article there? If an admin speedy deleted this article PLEASE close this AFD and provide a reason. Mike (T C) 22:03, 9 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 01:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries that published controversial Muhammad cartoons[edit]

This page is pretty useless. No country have yet published the Muhammad cartoons. --Maitch 21:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Strong delete. as per nom. --Maitch 21:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy.Strong delete. Pure POV bait. (changed vote due to no valid reason in CSDs)--み使い Mitsukai 21:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong delete, as per all of the above (changed vote as per Johnleemk and Mitsukai). Schutz 21:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actually this is a bonafide subject, however, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy covers it. --Ezeu 21:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; POV, Bad faith. Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 22:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Countries don't publish cartoons, newspapers publish cartoons. Her girlfriend 23:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nom.Blnguyen 00:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ezeu and Her girlfriend. Barno 01:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Covered, and implausible search term. --Allen 00:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, I can't conceive of a good reason for this to exist on Wikipedia. Adrian Lamo ·· 00:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is a list of newspapers that published the things, no? That should cover everything this article tries (or tried) to do. And what is actually meant with "countries that published the cartoons"? "The Offical Policy of Western Whateverstania is, Attention Citizens, Look at these Stupid Drawings; Your Dictator So Decrees." Right? What is the chance of that happening? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Countries don't publish. Pavel Vozenilek 02:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless. Countries don't print cartoons; publications do, and there's already a list for this. 23skidoo 03:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please cite one of the CSDs when you suggest a speedy delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per everyone else. POV listcruft. Stifle 16:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although the way it looks now wouldn't be half-bad. Carlossuarez46 18:36, 10 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 ☎ ) 07:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Buff Howards[edit]

Originally listed on prod, but removed by User:Monkeymel1003, so relisting for AfD. Fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Peyna 21:39, 9 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. -Doc ask? 14:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Premiere Global Services[edit]

Originally listed on prod with reason: advertising, does not assert importance of subject by User:Oldelpaso; removed by User:Ttishgar. Peyna 21:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article has improved slightly since I prodded it, though it still reads like a press release. As it now mentions the company having listing on the NYSE it is evident that the company is notable, and a cleanup tag is all that's necessary. I'd have no objections to this AfD being closed early. Oldelpaso 22:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the nominator, and after doing some research, I will not be withdrawing this nomination, so an early closing would not be possible. Peyna 23:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, is listed on NYSE on does meet WP:CORP. Bad ideas 05:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bad ideas. Stifle 16:52, 10 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, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim mackley[edit]

Seemingly non-notable gardener. Googling "Tim mackley" returns 600ish results, few related to a gardener. Thus I vote delete. -- Deskana (talk) 21:55, 9 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex France[edit]

Vanity page. Listed here due to creator removing {{prod}} tag. Delete Oldelpaso 22:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, His dad isn't doing a very good job as a PR manager... Obli (Talk) 23:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Blnguyen 00:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 04:01, 10 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 05:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Brown[edit]

The present article as of 2/9/06 on the accused murdered Karen Brown has failed to assert any significance of this person. there has been ample time for anyone interested to expand the article. it seems arguable whether any meaningful expansion is warranted or even possible. Anlace 21:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • support deletion no prominance asserted or likely. do we need a page in wikipedia for every accused murderer???....also keeping this article will cause an absurd and unnessary disambiguation with an article under development on the noted travel author Karen Brown.Anlace 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At the risk of sounding callous, she's not going to be notable unless she's convicted. If acquitted, the public will forget.--み使い Mitsukai 04:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this belongs on Wikinews if anywhere. Stifle 16:56, 10 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 05:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Beyer[edit]

Originally listed for prod by User:Sandstein with reason: The subject of this article has no apparent notability, even taking into account the links referred to in the article; being a wrestler in Japan does not confer notability by itself.; removed by User:Xoloz. Peyna 22:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per my original PROD, see above. Sandstein 22:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kusunose 00:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he were the only foreigner in Japanese Wrestling, that might be notable, but I don't see anything in there that signifies that.--み使い Mitsukai 04:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are wrestlers professional sportsmen? If so, Keep Jcuk 12:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, professional sportman/entertainer, who "defeated 'Flying' Andy Chene for the IAW TV Championship" and performed with his highly notable father in the ring. Kappa 20:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable professional wrestler 3H 05:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable wrestler, needs some cleanup. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:19, 14 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. -Doc ask? 14:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K12Planet[edit]

Originally listed on prod by User:Sandstein with reason: The subject of this article has no apparent notability.. Peyna 22:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Alexa rank 135,844. I suspect that the site is notable in its field, but first page of Google hits are pages of creator's websites, local school districts, and the WP article, rather than feature coverage by major media or major adademic publications. No vote, pending further evidence. Barno 01:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After a couple of days, not much data, so I would suggest a merge and redirect to an article such as "online grade reporting system", per R6MaY89 below. Keeping a redirect would satisfy the user info-vector that Kappa identifies below, without needing to focus on the brand more than its importance requires. Are there other similar systems which are in hundreds of other high schools? I don't know enough to help edit the move/merge. Barno 02:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • From the article: "K12Planet and other similar websites (such as Thinkwave and MyGradeBook) have revolutionized grading by allowing parents continual access to student performance rather than just at the end of the quarter or through a parent-teacher conference." Doesn't make it sound like this one is dominant nor sole pioneer. Can some educators comment? Barno 02:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not the dominant one, all of the companies are essentially the same. My school has used all three (K12, MGB, ThinkWave) in the past four years and I have noticed that though each has some advanced features, they all do the same job. Do we need an admin to end the AfD or can we just move it without a formal end to AfD? --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 03:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as advert. Stifle 16:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep — it appears to be a notable topic as it is part of the daily operation of hundreds of high schools in the US. Maybe we could instead move and expand the article under the title of Online grading system or something similar. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 03:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in use by many schools and school districts, so students and parents would want to be able to look it up. Kappa 19:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per norm. 3H 05:20, 13 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 ☎ ) 07:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideacodes[edit]

Originally listed for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion by User:Sandstein with reason: The subject of this article has no apparent notability. Peyna 22:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advert, per Sandstein. Stifle 16:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete ad Pete.Hurd 00:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement Ruby 00:45, 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 01:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Crossing Community on Gamespot[edit]

Forumcruft. Has a total of 944 members. Fails WP:WEB. howcheng {chat} 22:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This could be archived as a textbook example of forumcruft. Obli (Talk) 23:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. MLA 14:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as material relevant only to forum members. Belongs on their own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle 17:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Elfguy 18:31, 10 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. OK, this is an excellent illustration of the problems which come of merging the article before the AFD is finished. Moink pointed out that the text is a copyvio. Therefore, I will also remove the section in the Taylor County article. One other thing, Taylor County is not the only county to have had white only proms, the same practise has taken place in Toombs County, Georgia as well, and so redirecting this to Taylor County won't make all that much sense. If a new article is to be created here I recommend that it be about segregated proms in general, and not just about what happened in a particular county. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whites only prom[edit]

Delete because article is about a single incident in a Georgia county. I have moved most of the text, and the links, to a new section of the article about that small county. John Broughton 22:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC) See - Taylor County, Georgia[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I think the info is interesting and noteworthy but not really deserving a seperate article and should be moved to another article per above --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 23:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Potential POV bait.--み使い Mitsukai 04:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mitsukai. Stifle 17:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mitsukai, I don't like articles whose titles seem to be calculated to generate flame Ruby 17:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV and not encyclopedic. Elfguy 18:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect since it's been merged. Kappa 19:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very POV, and an extremely small matter in the grand scheme of things. It mabye deserves one sentence as part of another article concerning segregation in the United States.
  • Delete per nom. Avi 18:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or better still, merge. I don't see anything POV here - just a description of events. It is true that these events occured just in a single place, and so giving it a category of its own seems not quite right. So, in my opinion, the information should be merged into "prom" as an interesting set of facts occuring in a specific place as evidence for some of the problems with the "prom" (which, to someone who went to high school outside the US seems like torture!) Having said that, the article calls itself "white only prom" - and that is *what it was* Duracell 23:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge into the article of the school this occurred in. It is a very important event (national TV recognition through O'Reilly), and should be a full heading in that school's article. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 01:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. bikeable (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a copyvio. The first three paragraphs are from [40] moink 15:45, 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 keep. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warmbat[edit]

Taken off proposed deletion. Only 42 unique Google hits for "warmbat," all of which are sales sites (with no news coverage), so I suggest this fails WP:CORP. howcheng {chat} 23:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This company is a major manufacturer of Sheepskin boots. Warmbat is trademarked in 26 countries and has been in existence since 1969. Do not delete this important entry.
  • Keep It's a real company with google hits, does seem notable enough. Elfguy 18:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, shoes-boots.net seems to take an interest [41] Kappa 19:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This company is a player in sheepskin boots and Australian footwear. They do have coverage and are featured in an Australian Broadcast Commission (ABC) documentary on sheepskin boots in Australia. Additionally, I have seen press releases and articles in print so the internet will soon follow. (Shyets04 20:11, 14 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. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogy of Theoretical Physicists[edit]

Seriously original research. howcheng {chat} 23:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I (the initial uploader) would not say it is "original research that creates primary sources". The information in the page is extracted from the references at the end of the page, SPIRES and other sources. It is "source-based research", as defined in the wikipedia policies and guidelines. The fact it is hard or time consuming to collect (it was) does not make it a primary source. I agree it does not seem very "enciclopedic" in style, but that is a matter of edition. ¿Perhaps to supress the initial parragraph? Arivero 09:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Cleanup The idea of tracking the development of a profession or field (who mentored whom) has the potential to be very interesting to other people who are interested in the history of the field. (Like charting all the different bands that member of "Yes" have been in.) It's not original research IMHO but a particular way of categorizing a field. (You could perform the same function by creating WP categories "Trained with Max Planck", "Trained with Pauli" and so on.) On the other hand, the format is not very user friendly. Can WP accomodate a graphical chart form with hotlinks? Alternatively the author may want to try some alternative text display schemes used by genealogists.Thatcher131 16:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As per above. This entry is not only fascinating, but useful too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gretnagod (talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. This kind is more a collation and rearrangement of info from primary sources than actually original research in the WP sense. Useful and interesting.--ragesoss 19:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and Keep. Some scientists do actually keep track of this kind of stuff (my own sister traces herself back to Bohr), and having it all together in Wikipedia is useful and interesting. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK it's interesting, but what is your source? Who decides the genealogy tree? If it's one or a group of Wikipedia editors, then it's original research. Show sources that say that so-and-so was mentored/influenced by so-and-so or that already has such a tree. If one doesn't already exist, it would be better to have an article about scientific genealogies in the first place. howcheng {chat} 22:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's in bad shape as it is, but it's a simple enough matter of record who was whose PhD advisor, which defines the genealogy. Once of the sources is spires [42] but there are others. –Joke 03:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps the introduction, the methodology and sources could be moved to an entry on scientific genealogy, I can do it next week. They are good enough sources for chemistry, mathematics and some branchs of physics. I am told by humanity colleagues that it is not possible to do the same thing in philosophy (no oficial advisors), so scientific seems the right term. arivero
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. DS 01:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerate Driver Training Limited[edit]

NN Driving School, 12 hits on Google, likely an advertisment. "prod"ed earlier, tag deleted with no comment. Weregerbil 23:42, 9 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, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk[edit]

Was tagged for {prod} deletion, but removed by the original author with the edit summary "konwert seems notable, kogut too" (somewhat misleading since he's not a disinterested third party). Kogut is up for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kogut) and if that goes, this one should too. howcheng {chat} 23:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The person is quite active on Usenet (comp.languages.functional etc). I am not sure whether someone actually uses Kogut (I once took look, didn't understood much and left). Anyway: the article is almost empty to have encyclopedical value. Pavel Vozenilek 02:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article can never grow beyond this stub length. I don't know how notable his programming language is, but the person himself would only have any notability through that. -- Mithent 16:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps any information should be kept on the Kogut page, which should not be deleted. James Kendall 23:17, 10 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_9&oldid=1116878794"