Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 6

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

Purge server cache

January 6

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexting

[edit]

Delete, neologism. - CorbinSimpson 00:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

www.yelram4life.org

[edit]

Website with only 2700 visitors Quaque (talk • contribs) 00:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar articles like this can be found here. Quaque (talk • contribs) 22:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free IP Call

[edit]

NN company r3m0t talk 00:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pieman

[edit]

Unverified comic, possibly a hoax - Rudykog 01:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge to GMail Drive. - ulayiti (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PhpGmailDrive

[edit]

This is an Opensource Gmail applet originally added to preimplantation genetic diagnosis as a disambig. I've split it off and turned PGD into a disambig to accomodate it, but this is probably not notable. JFW | T@lk 10:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page is updated with further references and it should be undeleted.

Relisting to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Mindmatrix 01:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Strong majority for delete and no persuasive arguments for keep. —Cleared as filed. 16:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goth-punk

[edit]

Non existant genre. Neoglism. Barely any description other than to repeat the Death Rock article. Blatant promoting of bands that have nothing to do with Gothic music or Punk music. Leyasu 01:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Cyde Weys votetalk 05:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, non existent genre. Nonsense. --Terence Ong Talk 08:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Goth-punk" gets lots of Google hits, even adding 'genre' and subtracting 'clothing', but as the two subcultures blend into one another that's not surprising. There's no verification of a clearly defined 'goth-punk' genre. --Last Malthusian 18:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further to that, only one of the bands listed, Aiden, is defined in their Wikipedia article as 'goth-punk' (which is one more than I was expecting). Moreover, they've only been defined as 'goth-punk' for two days [1], the definition being added by one of the editors of this article.
  • On an unrelated note, Leyasu, I'm a bit puzzled by your labelling of the edit which added the AfD notice as 'minor', with no edit summary. I'm sure you had your reasons but bear in mind that it won't be apparent from the editors' watchlists that their page has been nominated for deletion - they could easily assume that you were correcting their spelling :-). I've notified them myself. --Last Malthusian 18:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must of clicked it by accident and not noticed. Apologies for any confusion this caused. Leyasu 22:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It must be noted, Goth-Punk is a phrase sometimes used to describe what Deathrock sounds like but non of the bands in the article.

This article has been heavily edited by the same guy who made the "Gothcore", joke article "BatlordCarcas", which is also nominated for deletion at the moment. He seems to try to incorporate his mallcore leaning into every article that he edits, that is why it did say "Goth-punk" in the Aiden article. - Deathrocker 19:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Overcategorization is not our goal. The article basically says "goth punk is a combination of goth and punk." Yeah thanks, we couldn't have figured that out ourselves. DrIdiot 23:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep, but rewrite. goth-punk is definitely a genre and its got a long history. whats being talked about on this page is only a small and not very significant part of it. goth punk has been around as a genre ever since Siouxsie and the Banshees and The Damned who are almost always described as goth-punk. oh and over 300000 google hits.
Youve just repeated the Death Rock article. Well done, as that was one of the reasons this make believe genre was recommended for deletion. Leyasu 23:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the deathrock i know is nothing like what that article says... but since that exists and covers goth-punk, why not redirect goth-punk to death rock? or are 300000 google references wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BL Lacertae (talk • contribs)
Well, this being the Internet, some of those 300,000 pages are pretty certain to be wrong. But carping aside, those Google hits don't prove that goth-punk is what this article says it is, or indeed is a clearly defined genre at all. --Last Malthusian 00:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pangelinan Post

[edit]

Not notable. r3m0t talk 02:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted (twice) by OwenX and W.marsh. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 04:16Z


Devon lynch

[edit]

inserted this for nominator TheRingess 02:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE SPEEDILY. WillC 02:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kith

[edit]

A word with a random meaning someone made up for it. Not a dicdef since I can't find any verification of this use anywhere. - Bobet 02:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Redneck. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redneckistan

[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion as "nonsense", but it makes sense to me. Not sure of its notability as a concept. Kappa 02:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll give you that. There is a citation listed in the article; however, that hardly seems to be enough to make the article notable in any way. James084 02:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if the term can be shown to have widespread use. A single use of the term doesn't make a neologism encyclopedic. It will also have to be made a little more neutral in its POV. Logophile 02:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eject

[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC, according to this, they are unsigned. - FrancisTyers 02:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment a band does not have to be signed to meet WP: Music. Why do people here have distorted perceptions of their own rules? I'm not saying they should be kept, but they should not be deleted because they're not signed by a label. That's ridiculous.--TaeKwonTimmy 04:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Herro

[edit]

Not very sure what this "rising star" does, but he doesn't seem to be a professional sportsperson, which would get a 'keep' vote from me. Kappa 02:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeWitt Clinton High School

[edit]

DELETE not notable or famous. WillC 02:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks-Pioneer Village, Kentucky Tornado

[edit]

Non-notable. Neutralitytalk 02:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A disaster that caused a $100 million of damage seems notable to me. It just needs clean up. CalJW 03:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodlet

[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, or at least we don't know that it does. Delete. --worthawholebean talkcontribs 02:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. BD2412 T 21:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Anthony Paul Methuen

[edit]

No claim to notability. Nonnotable, no accomplishments or actions listed. EdwinHJ | Talk 02:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grove (nature)

[edit]

Delete Content already covered in grove. Uly 03:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was taken out back and shot speedy deleted. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:05, Jan. 6, 2006

Godless Black Metal Band)

[edit]

Badly named article, no Allmusic.com entry, appears to be cut & paste but unable to find source. Possibly notable, but article as written fails to establish notability under WP:Music. In any case, needs to be renamed and rewritten. --Alan Au 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was taken out back and shotspeedy deleted. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:04, Jan. 6, 2006

Godless(Black Metal Band)

[edit]

This is a duplicate of Godless_Black_Metal_Band), which is also up for deletion. - CorbinSimpson 03:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Von Neumann

[edit]

26 Google hits Likely vanity.

Lotsofissues 04:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Bohemian

[edit]

This article seems to be an unencyclopedic protologism. It yields very few Google hits. I propose deletion. Imaginaryoctopus(talk) 04:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True sport

[edit]

A fine idea, but a neologism nonetheless. Lots of Google hits, but none with this meaning. Denni ☯ 04:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speed limit/proposed

[edit]

This page is an old draft of Speed limit. It comes up in searches of the words speed limit. It has served its purpose and does not belong on Wikipedia anymore. Novasource 04:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uman Bakshi

[edit]

absolutely non-notable and possibly fictitious "...his busy company provides personal assistant rental to busy professionals,...In Argentina, they do stray dog removal"! Prashanthns 04:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IAM--The Institute of Advanced Media

[edit]

Appears to be advertising John (Jwy) 04:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Pierce

[edit]

Article about a fictional wrestler in an E-wrestling federation. Per our notability guidelines on fictional subjects, Fanfiction, on the other hand, may well be considered vanity (not by default, but often so), which is grounds for deletion. This includes anything self-published, put on fanfiction.net, or done by vanity press; information about a character in roleplaying or MMORPGs... Unless there's some reason to make an exception in this case, Delete. Megamix? 05:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 22:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gawab

[edit]

Was not sure if this merits an entry Prashanthns 05:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baer's Poultry Ranch

[edit]

Non-notable poultry ranch Prashanthns 05:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Leo Levanas

[edit]

"Alleged, in Venona project files, to have met with a Soviet intelligence officer." Ummm... and so what? Non-notable personage. FCYTravis 05:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As USSR and USA were allies at the time in WW2, surely this would be a routine thing and not a scandal at all, let alone of any magnitude. Blnguyen 06:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. 3 Google hits, only 1 of which is not Wikipedia. (I think the point of the article was to allege that the subject may have been a spy for the USSR.) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 06:56Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing logos of Screen Gems

[edit]

The article is not of interest to the general Wikipedia population and is irrelevant. Stuff regarding these "logo fetishes" should be deleted as they damage the intregity of Wikipedia. There's a similar article regarding Viacom that apparently was nominated for deletion and kept. Anyone who thinks that these articles are of relevance to this encyclopedia should seriously reconsider being a part of the editing process. --James Stanley Barr 06:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article and others like it have no place and no appeal to the normal person who visits Wikipedia and damages the intregity of Wikipedia. Add to that, perhaps the amount of visits on the article should be looked at as to where it's even worth putting here. --James Stanley Barr 19:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as pure hatemongering and as a total rant. - Lucky 6.9 06:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why only Muslims?

[edit]

propaganda and intensely religious Prashanthns 05:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Strong religious propaganda Prashanthns 05:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unintelligible rant--Porturology 05:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Political propaganda/ranting... may be intended to incite violence. Blnguyen 05:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quickly --Ajdz 05:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. I came by as an anon and about choked up a lung when I saw this mess. - Lucky 6.9 06:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge. Ichiro 23:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hillard

[edit]

This there really anything that could be said about this rather minor film character that couldn't be put on the Mrs. Doubtfire page? james_anatidae 05:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The subject of the article is not a minor character in the film where he appears (Mrs. Doubtfire); he is the main character of that film. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as nominated. You could have done it without bringing it to AFD. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 06:51Z
  • Comment the main character in a film is hardly minor I'd have thought, and other fictional characters get articles. However there would appear to be only so much you can say about him.... Jcuk 11:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Mainly throwing my 2d in because I can't resist pointing out that James probably meant that he is a minor film character when compared to, say, Neo, Superman, Darth Vader, etc, rather than a 'minor character in the film'. --Last Malthusian 19:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I agree, that's probably what was meant, but since it would be possible for someone to misread it that way, I thought it was better to clarify. (And, honestly, you never know -- I've seen someone vote delete because the subject was a "minor character" -- well, the subject wasn't an individual character, it was an entire 50-episode TV series... -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment I guess that all depends on the films you watch *G*! I can honestly say I've never even heard of Neo , so to me he's (she's?) far less notable than Danny-boy....but then you get into discussions about POV and all that good stuff... Jcuk 21:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

James Cooper (b.1661)

[edit]

Subject of article is not inherently notable, but is the ancestor of notable people. Wiki is not geneology--Porturology 05:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Porturology 05:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Semitic pagan deities

[edit]

First of all, the whole thing is copied from the link at the bottom and could be considered a copyvio (possibly not speediable since not "blatant"). More importantly, it makes no sense. These are not pagan deities--they are mostly Miltonic angels and devils along with various random creatures from the Bible that were never worshipped by anyone and a few Greek figures thrown in for good measure. They are neither Semitic, nor pagan, nor deities! Chick Bowen 05:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as having no salvagable content - brenneman(t)(c) 07:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal faith

[edit]

Non-notable cult. Fancruft Prashanthns 05:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Melchoir 05:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. no google hits regarding such an organization or a theoretical concept. Either a hoax or a non-notable suburban cult. Blnguyen 06:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete A very important faith which many people follow. Deleting it would be like deleting a page on christianity.
  • DONT DELETE We cant delete his page he has powerfull kicks and dashing good looks!!!
  • Delete. Fancruft? Moar liek faithcruft, amirite? --King of All the Franks 06:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OBJECTION YOUR HONOR!!! all the people that dont like it are NERDS
  • Delete Possibly speedy delete as patent nonsense. eaolson 06:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these non-nerds as unverifiable, non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 06:47Z
  • Delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice Phoenix Wright
  • Dont Delete Keep this page up for all that are sane. Removing it would be like removing our very existence. its murder. MURDER
  • HEY!!! clown guy YOU ARE NOT FUNNEY!. The guy that wants to delete cool people because he's a nerd, you suck. Nonsense guy this site has almost 4 dollars. Frankfurt more like FUCK OFF. NO GOOGLE HITS OH NO!!! just because every one doesn't have the time to publish a website because their to bussy being sugnificant doesn't mean it is worth dismissing. Most of all why do YOU CARE ? let him have his site!!!

LET MY METAL GO!!!!

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

The result of the debate was no consensus default to keep. - ulayiti (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Collections

[edit]

nn flash animations r3m0t talk 22:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 06:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Cricket League

[edit]

Appears to be non-notable sports league. Recommend delete or at most stubbed for cleanup/expansion Atrian 06:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep no consensus. --Ichiro 05:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Cacoon

[edit]

This band looks non-notable. No entry on AMG. Article is filled with info about rumoured releases and about how the band members spread disinformation about themselves. The "real" releases were only released on P2P networks, only had 100 copies of CD-Rs handed out, etc. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 06:42Z

  • "Real" releases are "Genevieve" and "Northsuite" on FMP (a respected indie black metal label), neither of which were limited pressings. The band is notable within the black metal scene, and I would cite from the notability guideline: "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." Multiple and varied black metal and general metal press reports can be found here: [3]. Since black metal has its own page on Wikipedia, I'd assume that it is a notable sub-culture. Also, just as a general note, why would we want to diminish the amount of overall knowledge available on Wikipedia? With all the disinformation spread about the band, an encyclopedic entry is the perfect vessel with which to gradually sort out what's true and what isn't. Keep. Night 09:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. I couldn't tell from casual reading that those two albums were more "real" than the others. Could you reformat that section so that it is more apparent? Since you appear to be the primary author of the article you I assume you know about the subject well. If we end up deciding VC is notable then perhaps you should create an article for FMP as well. Wikipedia has a policy of requiring verifiability; are the claims in this article verifiable if the band lies about themselves? How do we know the band lies about themselves; how can we trust you more than the band itself? Please provide cite all claims, such as that the band really formed in 2002 rathern than 1996. AMG would be good, but VC is not listed in AMG. If someone else can say about the band's notability, that would be nice; your opinion might be biased. A list of press releases is not the same as "frequently covered", and in addition, by your claims about them being not truthful, it's hard to trust that web page, isn't it? :) As for diminishing overall knowledge, see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; many band articles are deleted every day for lack of notability. We have to have some standards, otherwise you and I can start a band today and have a Wikipedia article tomorrow :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 10:21Z

Delete - Band is not notable. Vanity page. --Iconoclast 15:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This group may shortly be notable, so userfying the information might be useful. At present it would appear to have only one actual signed release with "Full Moon Productions" and thus does not meet WP:Music (cf., FMP Prod.) The notability of FMP is also in doubt because of the 40,000 Yahoo! search hits, only ~1000 actually relate to that company (crosslink with search term "black metal") with a number relating to a promotion company based in LA.--eleuthero 21:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep article is completely legitimate, band is legit and verifiable. They're clearly not an unknown garage or local band. No reason for this article to go except for some vague, poorly defined suggestions (not guidelines) as to what is worthy of coverage here.--TaeKwonTimmy 04:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Velvet Cacoon has made some of the best black metal of the last couple of years. Unlike most of you users who are commenting here, I actually listen to black metal (sorry if I am wrong) and am a fan of this band. Even if VC has lied about aspects of the band, or even releases, they still are a band, and a notable one in the USBM scene. I think that the fact that they have lied and formed an image that is fabricated actually adds to their importance. It is a social experiment that shows that we as music listeners are as much attracted to the "hype" surrounding the band as the music they create. All Music Guide is not the definitive source for all music, as it would imply. There is much notable underground music that goes unnoticed. It can only be used as a resource, not the only source for what "music" is. I have also talked to people who have some of the other releases, and they do exist. And I think you can consider them "notable" in the scene, as on FMP's message board, the latest VC thread has 2,140 hits. Pretty high. FMP was the first black metal label to be formed in the US, which takes the wind out of the argument that the label is not notable. This is a strong keep.--Fmalcangi 17:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Velvet Cacoon is a real band, and Full Moon Productions is a real label. AMG/WP are not effective tools to garnering information on underground music. Anybody familiar with underground black metal knows who both VC and FMP are. This shouldn't even be up for debate. --Astrosa 13:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was as this is a debate, Last Malthusian "wins". :p Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Premiere Production

[edit]

Not a strong delete, but don't believe it's as notable as claimed Oscarthecat 10:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC). Expanded / tidied it a little myself. --Oscarthecat 10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 06:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Was heading towards a 'weak keep' when they got a Google hit which described it as one of the 'big four' studios in the Philippines, but it went on to say that those four "...are all virtually closed down due to the proliferation of individual and collective modes of film production". That was the only Google hit I could find that related to this company that looked anything like a possible source for an encyclopaedia article. As it stands, we have no verified evidence of anything, let alone meeting WP:CORP. And of the five blue-linked actors, we have two articles created by this article's author (who might themselves be deletion candidates), two actors with no apparent relation to the studio, and a redirect to a Tintin character. I'd really like to know what the 'keep' voters see in this article that I don't. --Last Malthusian 19:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further to that, it sort of seems from the few (very few) Google hits that this company existed and at least used to make films. But if kept, the article would have to be reduced to a tiny stub, since there's no verification that they a) made those movies b) worked in those genres c) were associated with those actors (those that appear to exist - both of them). And then the article would have to be watched to make sure that the unverified information wasn't put back in. Two last things worth mentioning: the official languages of the Philippines are English and Filipino, the latter of which uses the Roman alphabet, so the fact that Google finds very little isn't a language problem. And the Filipino Wikipedia doesn't have an article on this company. --Last Malthusian 20:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep due to the fact that recent AfD discussion on this article resulted in a consensus to keep.  Grue  08:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games considered the worst ever

[edit]

While interesting to read, the topic is inherently biased, and clearly does not belong on the WikiPedia. DarrenBaker 06:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article simply cannot be made NPOV, unless it is split into two articles - one referring to video games that have received harsh criticism from verifiable sources, say 'List of controversial video games', and another referring to video games that were a commercial failure. You cannot combine the two concepts, it becomes completely subjective. --DarrenBaker
  • Keep. These are games for which there is broad consensus that they were just terrible; I don't think there's much debate about any of them. It's verifiable in the sense that there are plenty of magazine and web articles discussing how just how terrible they are. I am not a fan of pointless listcruft, and I see your point about NPOV, but this is very interesting reading and a good addition to WP. bikeable (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment: this page has been up for deletion at least twice before; last time the vote was 14-5. Just fyi; I'm not saying that that should drive this discussion.) bikeable (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to shit as it has already been transwikied. - ulayiti (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shit eating grin

[edit]

This is a simple slang definition, and so is not WP-appropriate since WP:NOT a dictionary. However, I don't think it's speedyable, so here we are. Delete. bikeable (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep as notable. - ulayiti (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Conglomerate and its redirect Harry Shaw-Reynolds and Jules Pascoe

[edit]

Harry Shaw-Reynolds was originally speedy deleted as nn-bio. Restored by Tony Sidaway without bringing to AfD, although he did notify the other admin this time. Completing process for the original article and its redirect target.

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. See allmusic.com. I note that The Cat Empire lists Harry Shaw-Reynolds as a member, but he doesn't have an allmusic entry, so I'd like to see more info per WP:V. This mentions him but this won't load for me. Delete unless more information provided, in the event that Harry Shaw-Reynolds' member ship can be confirmed, obviously don't delete that article, but "The Conglomerate" would still fail WP:MUSIC as it says "member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable", emphasis mine. brenneman(t)(c) 13:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and same story for Jules Pascoe. No allmusic entry, some links to Cat Empire as well. More information? - brenneman(t)(c) 14:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not major media? I believe it's Australia's largest circulation newspaper. The link is in the article, which I assume you read. The CD was also prominently reviewed by The Age. And frankly, allmusic.com is not exactly an authority on Australian jazz.-- JJay 09:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did read the article, however I had forgotten that that the link was from the SMH. It was so brief, I assumed that you were talking about something else. It's not a major music magazine, which is the criterion I was referring to. See Category:Music magazines.
  • The lack allmusic entry in of itself means nothing, systemic bias and all. It's just an easy way to see if something passes the bar: two albums on major label, international tour, gold album, etc. These guys don't appear to have those.
brenneman(t)(c) 09:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, what's your point? -- JJay 09:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, my point is that these inclusion guidelines were worked out by a very large number of wikipedians over no small amount of time, and if we are going to ignore them in this case it would be nice to know what the reason for doing that is. This isn't straight forward, so I may spread the word a bit to get a wider opinion. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that it is you that is ignoring the spirit of the guidelines. You like to make accusations, but reviews in two of Australia's leading newspapers with combined circulation of over 400,000 is far more impressive to me than a mention in many of the so called major music media in our category. Furthermore, do you really doubt given this exposure that the Conglomerate has been mentioned in Jazz publications in Australia? Have you even tried to confirm this? And why you deny the connection with the Cat Empire is beyond me. At times I can not understand what motivates your zeal. -- JJay 07:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm just trying to be consistant and orderly, as is my nature. I'm sorry if I've offended or insulted you, or if you feel like I've made "accusations". I brought this to AfD because that's the best thing to do with something borderline and I'm simply pointing out how the guidelines apply. It's not personal, nor is there zeal. - brenneman(t)(c) 10:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being extended and relisted to generate a clearer consensus. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primehacks

[edit]

This article is spam. It makes no effort to argue the notability of the web magazine or that it's had much impact in the world at all. Wikipedia is not a resource for drumming up traffic for your site. Needless to say, my opinion is delete. Reyk 07:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Petricevich

[edit]

Many claims of notability but no sources cited. Virtually impossible to verify any details in the article.Delete TheRingess 07:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 23:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Oricon Top 100 Singles

[edit]

There are many music charts on Wikipedia. This is totally unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not some place to look at a radio station's music charts. This should be deleted. Terence Ong Talk 08:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1981, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1982, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1983, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1984, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1985, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1986, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1987, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1988, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1989, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1990, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1991, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1992, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1993, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1994, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1995, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1996, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1997, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1998, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1999, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 2000, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 2001, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 2002, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 2003, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 2004. -- Mikeblas 11:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn in light of Kappa's comments. I missed the significance of the Oricon chart; my error. No vote. Sliggy 21:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and cleaned 'em up. -- Jonel | Speak 22:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge, er, somewhere. Maybe to Soul Calibur mystical weapons? (You lot could express yourselves a bit more clearly on AFDs.) - ulayiti (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Edge (sword)

[edit]

It makes little sense to make two new seperate articles that basically split Soul Calibur mystical weapons word by word. Also note that the mystical weapons article was here long before these and these supposedly "new" seperate Soul Calibur articles just sprung up. Even the Images have been blatently reused again. Delete for redundancy, as any new info incorparated into the "new" seperate articles can be added back into the oringinal. MegamanZero|Talk 08:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough to each warrent an article however. See Soul Calibur mystical weapons, which is the oringinal article; stealing information and making two seperate ones is needlesly redundant. -MegamanZero|Talk 16:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Calibur (sword)

[edit]

Blatent redundancy in the clearest sense of the word. Strong Delete per same reason as the Soul edge article above. MegamanZero|Talk 08:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no reason to split them up into two articles. See Soul Calibur mystical weapons which is the oringinal article that these two were taken from. Also, the Soul Calibur mystical weapons article was here first. -MegamanZero|Talk 15:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Yousafzai

[edit]

is this guy for real? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 08:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Laamu Atoll. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kudafares

[edit]

I have been working on redirecting all the uninhabited substub islands to their respective atolls, personally I think that an article "X is one of the uninhabited islands in Y atoll" is so devoid of content that it warrants deletion for that reason, but I cannot be bothered to start up AFD debates for all of them. Now, this article is not a substub however, there is a claim to notability, but I cannot verify it at all. A Google search on "Patricia Raglin Kudafares" turned up nothing. Suggest either outright deletion or redirection to Laamu Atoll without merging. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete and put more editors on cleanup. - ulayiti (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Greg

[edit]

Not notable Kerowyn 08:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington Academy of Hope

[edit]

lovely organization but the article sounds like a press release and it's non notable. We can't include *every* charitable group and this looks like a generic one. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. --Deathphoenix 14:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew L. Kireker

[edit]

non-notable, fails WP:Bio Krich (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sakurani Gallage

[edit]

Appears to be about a Bollywood actor. Problems are no Google hits, no references and so perhaps unverifiable. In addition, the filmography does not look particularily impressive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I watch bollywood movies quite often, read about stars in magazines etc and I've never so much as heard about this woman, let alone seen her in a movie. Qwertyca 10:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax. The IMDb entry for Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna gives full cast, and there's no mention of her or the character it's claimed she plays. Tearlach 12:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable/hoax per Qwertyca, Tearlach. As a caveat for Google searches: sometimes Indian names have grossly varying translations. I once found an article whose subject as spelled had 5 unrelated Google hits, but I eventually found him in IMDb under a similar name. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 00:45Z
  • Delete. NeoJustin 18:45, January 7, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tavisha Hewa-Gamage

[edit]

Same concerns as with Sakurani Gallage (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sakurani Gallage). Trouble with verifiability and filmography is not particularly impressive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zornik

[edit]

Was nominated for speedy, bringing it here for a vote...appears to be minor band with a few googles. Delete MONGO 10:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline:
  • Has won or placed in a major music competition.
Article:
  • The band made it to the finals of HUMO's Rock Rally rock contest.
Same guideline:
  • Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels.
Article:
Perhaps the article could use some cleaning up, making it clearer that Zornik meets the guidelines. - MB (Talk) 19:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Bracey

[edit]

The article is fake. I am from Thomasville and this is a local resident who is still alive. Nothing is verifiable. Gogogadget55 10:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robotherapy

[edit]

A thinly disguised ad; the only real references on Robotherapy that I can find all point to that same website. Mikeblas 10:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gegger

[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable neologism with very little currency. Stifle 10:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete "just being a bishop is no assertion of notability, just like being a singer alone isn't". -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Stevens

[edit]

No assertion of notability, not notable bio. --Gary Kirk (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of city nicknames in the United States

[edit]

This article is a list of loosely associated topics (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information), many of the entries appear to be original research, and it sadly fails to meet the verifiability policy. Any nicknames for a city can be placed in the city's article, where they can be properly referenced and reviewed by editors familiar with the city. In practice, it is impossible to maintain this article up to Wikipedia standards. Dalbury(Talk) 11:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All of the nominator's arguments are wrong imo. It is not indiscrimate because it is restricted to nicknames of cities in the United States. That's a pretty clear set of parameters. I totally fail to see the relevance of the point about original research; any of these names must be widely known so many people could have added them without doing research and many are also given in many secondary sources. If both of these ways of sourcing information are prohibited every single wikipedia article will have to be deleted. The claim that it is not verifiable is patently false. If there are some that are not verifiable remove them as errors, otherwise read the articles about google to discover how easily facts can be checked on the internet. Finally the article is edited almost everyday, and many different contributors have participated, so prospects for continuing improvement are excellent as it isn't just one person's random idea. ReeseM 14:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please read What Wikipedia is not, No original research and Verifiability, which are official policies of Wikipedia. -- Dalbury(Talk) 14:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, a better recommendation would be to read Wikipedia:Citing sources. Despite the assertion above that these nicknames are given in secondary sources, not a single one of them is accompanied by a citation in the article. Indeed, there are only two or three sources cited in the article at all (one of which is a source cited to disprove an element of the article). It would not be unreasonable for editors to come along and remove almost the entire content of the article and require that nothing be re-added unless a source was cited for it. This has happened to other lists. I strongly recommend that the authors of the article begin citing sources for each nickname immediately in order to prevent this. Uncle G 21:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as ReeseM. Skyscrap27 14:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Interesting list, but probably needs some attribution, etc B.ellis 16:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've read the policies and IMO this violates none of them, plus it's interesting in its own right. 23skidoo 20:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This List of City Nicknames is so interesting, alot of them are right and some of them are wrong. I would hate to see the article on List of City Nicknames get deleted. It would be very sad to see that happen. JeffreyAllen1975 21:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It's right on target with the city nicknames I know, including the caveat that natives never call San Francisco "Frisco." Could use better sourcing, but on the whole an above average Wikipedia list. Durova 21:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator should review Wikipedia policies about reversions and deletions. I noticed he or she removed several recent additions to Florida including the Jax for Jacksonville: I've reinstated that with the obvious link to the city's international airport code. Durova 21:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Did you also notice that 'Jax' was just one of three nicknames I reverted, none of which had any citation? [[Wikipedia:Verification clearly says that I would also note that airport codes are not the same thing as nicknames (I've never heard anyone call Tallahassee 'TLH', for example, although I did live there for a while). As it happens, 'Jax' has a long standing as a nickname for Jacksonville (well before the airport code was assigned), and I have a reliable hardcopy source for it, but I have to find the book, as I don't add unsourced material to articles. I'll add the citation after I find the book. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Excellent use of the list format. -- JJay 00:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. And I disagree about airport codes -- they aren't often used, but they're pretty well established where they are used. Around New England PVD seems to be pretty universally understood as shorthand for Providence. Haikupoet 02:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This was a completely unacceptable nomination for afd. The nominator should have his/her editing powers suspended.--TaeKwonTimmy 04:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I agree with some of the other posters that this probably needs some work, but several of these are well known (at least regionally).Rt66lt 01:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Very useful and encyclopedic list. Of course WP:NOR and other WP policies are applicable here, and that means improve, not delete. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep older≠wiser 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Verifiable place nicknames are a valuable and legitimate entry, and this is a good use of the list format with strong and narrow parameters, and I can easily see this as a reference source for many Wiki users. Nhprman 07:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. nothing is invented in this article. all the information exists. it is just being brought together under one list. it is NOT original research. according to wikipedia, original research is "novel narrative or historical interpretation". that's not what this is. Kingturtle 09:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as noted above.--Mitsukai 18:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Oricon Top 100 Singles

[edit]

Delete Music charts are unencyclopedic, they do not deserve a place on Wikipedia. Music charts can be viewed somewhere else but not here. Terence Ong Talk 11:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Oricon Top 100 Singles

[edit]

I don't see why Wikipedia needs articles about music charts. This is unencyclopedic, though an inclusionist, many of these article needs to go. This articles are nuisance to Wikipedia. Terence Ong Talk 11:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Oricon Top 20 Albums

[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine or some music chart board. This is unencyclopedic by nature and it does not deserve a place here. So speedy delete this article. Terence Ong Talk 11:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 18:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Ryu-Ha Shin-Ninjitsu

[edit]

I found this on CSD. It doesn't look like a speedy candidate, but it is basically an advert so it probably should be deleted. JeremyA 2 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)

  • Probably advertising, definitely not notable. Delete. Fire Star 2 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)
  • Delete This is pure ad, and not notable -Harmil 2 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:35 (UTC)
  • Delete promo. Tobycat 3 July 2005 00:37 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge into crossbuck. - ulayiti (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crossbuck safety

[edit]

content doesn't seem to be encyclopedic in nature – delete – Klparrot 11:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead says: "This article is examining Crossbuck Safety, comparing different crossbucks used around the world, to see which might be better and which might be worse." This sounds like a research project to me. JoaoRicardotalk 20:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nonsense (by another admin, i'm just closing the AfD page). DES (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon wiley

[edit]

Unverifiable slang term, maybe fake. WP:NOT a dictionary anyway. Delete. Kusma (討論) 11:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 22:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem syndrome

[edit]

Delete This article is expressing a theory derived mainly by one source (Bar-El), which isn't credited and reputable - also the study conducted isn't enough to prove there actually is a syndrome since there were few cases studied - in type III only 42 persons in 13 years period, and there was no actual evidence they had not mental problems before. As for the other types when thre are million of tourists going to jerusalem every year, some are bound to have mental problems of their own - and that's hardly news and certainly not a theory! Ricardo Silva 12:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After re-reading Wikipedia principles and the article in question I was convinced by the opinions expressed by the voters below. Unsigned by Ricardo Silva on January 6 2006
  • Keep. This syndrome has been debated in peer reviewed medical literature (see yurl.com/abh49 articles on PubMed). The talk page also makes clear it's been the subject of works of art / film as well. Disclaimer: I'm one of the original authors of the article, but I thought it's worth pointing out the existing literature. Unsigned by Vaughan on January 6 2006


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. r3m0t talk 15:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Near Life

[edit]

Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. Melchoir 12:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Pyramid of Giza: alternative theories

[edit]

An absolutely clear-cut case of original research with no presentation of evidence or verification of allegations. Delete Zunaid 12:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 12:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 18:43, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • rewite / build This is in the process of being re-written and has received some initial amendments. However, some people would serve themselves and (more importantly) the audience of Wikipedia greater if they examined the mainstream version they are necessarily protecting, examined the evidence offered in some of the alternatives, and didn't simply dismiss something just because Graham Hancock also wrote it in a book! This page can and is being re-written - it is a process, just as some tweaks to bring neutrality were necessary and made to the 'main page'. Build the page, correct the bits that are not NPOV, and allow it to house the bits that otherwise will overflow to the 'standard theory' page. It is, after all, mostly arguable theory on both sides of the coin. FYI I am perfectly capable of writing neutral prose, although i do have my opinions; sometimes they sneak out. I'm sure you wouldn't do the same...--Genesis 17:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thought I'd have a go at trying to rewrite the article to achieve NPOV and remove unverified evidence, but I had to give up after only a few paragraphs. The article is just too POV (e.g. "These archaeologists claim that this amounts to sufficient evidence to state their model as though it were fact.") and makes both "extraordinary" and EXTREMELY VAGUE claims without citation (e.g. "The problem for any dating is that the age of the rock is of no help...") . You'd have to remove so much of it to get it into an encyclopedic state that you'd be left with no more than a few lines. Zunaid 07:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment NPOV doesn't mean it must adhere to the standard point of view, yet in this case it has to state itself as different from the standard. Making any mention of its claims (apparently, dating an ancient building based on the discovery of a small amount of circumstantial evidence, from debris found excavated near by, DOESN'T comprise an extraordinary claim then?) is interpreted as against the neutral, yet its actually just against the common view. Not so long ago, the NPOV was that women were less important than men... to suggest different would have been considered outlandish, and any proof offered through logic considered unsubstantial. Things change. Sometimes. FYI what is 'wrong' about the statement 'dating the rock is no help'? it's a fact, surely! Dating the age of the rock is completely useless in dating the age of a building! this is an example of an un-neutral viewpoint taking editorial action on a piece; the veracity of the statements doesn't actually matter.--194.73.217.241 (Genesis) 09:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the sentence again. As it stands here. Or in the article. It seems entirely counter-intuitive in both cases. IANAArcheologist but surely the purpose of dating is to determine the age of the rock, so how does that statement make any kind of sense? Zunaid 13:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...they don't date the rock itself; they don't date the actual building!? They date circumstantial evidence from the surrounding area; usually this has some authority, because the finds are clearly related. However, in the circumstances of the Great Pyramid on the Giza plateau, the evidence has been very meagre to come by. Thus they have found very little by way of viable archaeological finds, with nothing substantial to tie them to the actual building of the pyramid. Usually, with tombs, they have plenty of evidence by way of carvings or painting on the walls, non-gold artefacts left by the raiders... they have actual evidence tying the location to a person or event, even a god. It is not the case with the Great Pyramid. The question raised in some of the alternative theories of the age has been how valid the dating of these finds is. Yet, according to all the above, and discussions elsewhere, stating this is deemed outside the NPOV. That is to misconstrue, however, the meaning of NPOV. Neutral is not merely the mainstream view. Neutral is balance between opposing valid arguments, where they exist, and having the articles not express personal opinions. It is also exposing weaknesses in arguments where they exist. I am endeavouring to do the same to the alternatives, but at the moment I spend more of my limited time defending their right to exist than doing this. --Genesis 16:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete as a non-topic. - ulayiti (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal_body_disposal

[edit]

WP:NOT Not really notable, not really a topic. May be possible to expand, but as it stands, there's just nothing of substance here. Justin Eiler 13:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad Tepes (band)

[edit]

Though the article states the band has 10 releases, most appear to be demos[4]. Abstain. PJM 13:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus default to keep. - ulayiti (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farm_cove_observatory

[edit]

WP:NOT There may be some notability, but the article was originally nominated for expansion back on 4 Dec 2005, and there's been no activity since then. It's been asserted that the article was originally created as part of a wiki-war. I'm wondering if there's anything here worth keeping. Justin Eiler 13:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 23:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Pearce

[edit]

Non-notable; he may have been notable 150 years ago, if slightly, according to the article. CDN99 14:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overinnovation

[edit]

Non-notable word/topic. 156 Google hits. ComputerJoe 14:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 17:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brigitte Peucker

[edit]

Not a notable enough person to warrant an enyclopedic entry. Crunch 14:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 22:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cap and Gown Club

[edit]

Is an eating club from Princeton really that notable? I don't think so. This article attempts to establish notability by listing some celebrities, and it's been around for a while, but I wanted to nominate it here to see what the community thinks of the notability of this club. --Deathphoenix 14:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe2.com

[edit]

Great concept, but is it really notable? Wrathchild 14:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and Steel

[edit]

Vanity. (Author's only work. Only one author, except one edit. Non-notable.) Skyscrap27 14:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 23:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purananoorru

[edit]

This appears to be a hoax. Bachrach44 14:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shamaranne Park

[edit]

while verifiable, is a trailer park encyclopedic? Seems a lot like advertising to me.-- Syrthiss 15:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 23:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ShixxNOTE LAN Messenger

[edit]

Non-notable program, ~500 Google hits, vanity (article is written by the programmer) r3m0t talk 15:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Key Characters

[edit]

Non-encyclopedic / Non-notable KHM03 15:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arena51

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Punkmorten 17:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baldati

[edit]

This page was nominated for speedy deletion by Khoikhoi with the reason "It is advertising...". This is currently not a criterion for speedy deletion so I have moved the nomination here. No vote. Stifle 14:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy kept NSLE (T+C) 10:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Grammar School

[edit]

This page is subject to high levels of bias towards this establishment. Wikipedia's goal is to give only the facts to readers, not an article creator's view of the facts. This line if of particular disturbance however: "the school's success is due to a well-rounded curriculum, skilled teaching staff, strong work ethic and a school-wide academic focus". No lines such as this should be featured in Wikipedia articles, as not only do they offend patrons of this online service, but they have no basis or evidence to support them. The reason this article should be deleted instead of changed, however, is because much of the information is misleading and/or deceptive. For example, the information that "BGS has consistently outranked all other Queensland high schools" is false. How is this statement justified, and upon what is it based? Also, "In most sports that BGS competes in, it ranks well compared to other schools". Where is the evidence? I have checked records of the school and found that in many sports it does not rank well, rather faltering quite near the bottom of the GPS competition's ladder. In conclusion, much, if not all of the Brisbane Grammar School article is plagued by bias and clearly deceptive information. This article cannot be redeemed, and must be deleted. Paaerduag 11:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article on the whole seems appropriate. If there are incorrect or over stated claims, they should be corrected.--agr 15:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and clean up, as per the schools policy Jcuk 15:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Notable and appropriate, perhaps cleanup B.ellis 16:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 17:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Remove incorrect statements, not whole articles! If you think this has a high level of bias, who haven't seen some of the other articles that get created. JPD (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User contributions are this afd and user page edits - the whole thing smacks of a bad faith nomination. Please stop wasting time, there are far more productive things we could be doing. Natgoo 19:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • More likely someone has just gotten a little fuzzy on the distinction between AfD and cleanup. Let's assume good faith. rodii
  • Keep and clean up. rodii 20:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Jcuk ComputerJoe 21:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - are you seriously suggesting that you want one of Brisbane's Greater Public Schools deleted entirely because of few lines of bias!! Mate, simply remove the lines in question, place a notice at the top of the article and leave a message on the talk page just like you would with any other biased article. Do not put it up for deletion, especially if it is a high school. This school far and away meets the requirements of WP:SCH so therefore this article should be KEPT!!! Thankyou -- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the standard reasons above. -- JJay 23:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep because consensus is strong keep per WP:SCH, and nomination is for cleanup, not for deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 00:49Z
  • I am fully aware of the ability to clean up an article, but this article needs to be deleted. I have the sneaking suspicion that the comments above have been posted by patrons or teachers at the school. Stop now, because Wikipedia does not tolerate such disgusting deceptive behaviour. 'Jcuk' made an alarming statement: "clean up, as per the schools policy". This only confirms my belief. What you are doing is absolutely disgusting. This is Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not conform to some school policy, it conforms to the Wikipedia policy. Now, unless you actually have something to say, all of you Brisbane Grammar School users keep your patriotic hoopla to yourselves. --138.130.222.209 00:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Jcuk meant by "per the schools policy" (note lack of apostrophe) is not "per the policy of the Brisbane School" but rather "per the Wikipedia policy regarding school articles". Also, those of us that are here often and the administrator who will make the final decision can easily tell who is a meat/sock puppet. Please be civil; I don't appreciate your accusing us of "disgusting deceptive behaviour" on behalf of the school. I never even heard of it before this AFD. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 00:54Z
  • Look, I am Paaerduag, and the above comment is mine. I am sick of you accusing me of things, because i didn't know at first what to do, and timestamp didn't work. keep your critical analyses to yourself, because i am Paaerduag, and I am admitting it.
  • I'm sorry, I didn't mean that as an accusation of bad-faith puppetry - it was pretty obvious you were most likely the same user. I just meant that you should be careful in accusing the rest of us as meat/sock puppets. I'm willing to reconsider my position if you provide some real arguments for deleting the article (not just that the article is not NPOV). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 01:00Z
  • Keep It wouldn't have taken as long to amend the article as it did to write the nomination - which was certain to fail. CalJW 02:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per everyone else here pfctdayelise 03:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --King of All the Franks 04:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep What a joke! Why not discuss this on the talk page? Not delete the article. I sense this nomination was inspired by a personal dislike of the school. Smerk 13:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article as it stands is shows no bias above what is to be expected given Human Nature. I suspect, given the Tall Poppy Syndrome that surrounds the School, that Paaerduag is simply trying to harm the School (and satisfy himself) by putting this page up for deletion. While the page could be expanded (which is happeneing slowly), it should not be deleted.Theheadhunter 06:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you even dare to mention that I am leveling ENVY towards whatever this school is (I actually live in Canada), I resent you. I simply point out faults in the article, and that is all I have done. For you, 'Theheadhunter', to think I am guilty of a personal dislike for the establishment in question, you would be severely mistaken, and I think that YOU should keep your comments outside of this page because it is YOU that has emotional attachments to this school. Oh, and incase someone else is going to criticize me of lying about my identity, I assure you ALL that I am Paaerduag.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ichiro 23:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East-West dissimilarity in Ukraine

[edit]

it should be coverd by 2 articles.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please Plaese Please!!! Modify it! Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Jonel | Speak 23:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, Grand Cayman

[edit]

DELETE not very academic. WillC 02:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intracranial

[edit]

Merge, at best...with the page on the brain. WillC 02:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Roby

[edit]

Her only "notable" act is that she lives in the town where a mine disaster took place and she talked about it to a CNN correspondent. All of this is already mentioned in 2006 Sago Mine disaster. (Even the article of the sole survivor of the disaster is being VFD-d, although I think he's more notable.) Alensha 14:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 16:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monaco Forever

[edit]

Merge, at best...to the JCVD page unless this gets really fleshed out. WillC 02:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MERGE. -- Jonel | Speak 23:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My gym partner's a monkey

[edit]

I afd'd this because the grammer is off, the show is called my gym partner is a monkey. I created that wiki and copied the text from this one


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numerals invented by Hindus

[edit]
LOL, there's hasn't been any such edit war! deeptrivia (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries going back through early December show edit warring between several other editors. The point of contention seems to be between those who find "Arabic numerals" biased for whatever reason and those who argue from common usageI took the recent push for "Hindu numerals" to be as part of this. If not, then sorry. --C S (Talk) 03:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was a revert war mainly between two obscure editors who have since then disappeared. Their edit histories show that they never edited anything on wikipedia except that article. However, their revert war had nothing to do with naming of the article. I don't fully understand what exactly they were fighting for. Their discussion got hopelessly mixed with an independent discussion, in which there was a consensus built to rename the article to "Hindu-Arabic numerals", based on reasons that are summarized here. After this name change, there was another vote to change the name back to "Arabic numerals." The name was changed back to AN despite a verdict for HAN, but the admin reverted that change later. The current name change was done by another editor, and currently the matter is under discussion. At no point, however, did anyone propose "Hindu numerals" as the title. All I can remember is a comment by the editor who created this fork, asking why is there the word "Arabic" at all in the title. This editor didn't contribute to the discussion at Talk:Arabic numerals apart from his vote and this comment. deeptrivia (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Original (single)

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was presumeably because it's a single from The Original Doll (AfD discussion). Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Okumura

[edit]


Yuki Okumura is a outstanding Japanese postmodern artist of the Post-Murakami generation. That's why I deemed appropriate to write an entry about him.

Kaishin (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 keep and cleanup. Johnleemk | Talk 08:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Women in Yugoslavia in the Twentieth Century

[edit]

Personal essay. Punkmorten 15:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 23:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of laboratory animal suppliers in the UK

[edit]

Wikipedia is not the Yellow pages. This is almost certainly a method to co-ordinate terrorist activity. Slashme 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so bear with me. You mean like this: Wikipedia:Category? So each company would have its own page, with a bit about their history, and they would all be put into a category which would automatically generate a list of them? I hope eventually to write something about the history of the battle between animal rights and laboratory animal breeders in the UK, which has been in the news a lot over the past 10-15 years at least So this would need a page to itself, but then this page could be linked to the Category? So it acheives the same result by different means? Arfan2006 17:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look into categories and it seems that a category can't have an introduction that ties it all together and explains the context and history behind the category as a whole. Also it requires that each member of the category have its own separate page, and some members may not warrant this, although they would still be noteworthy within the overall page. How is this problem usually handled? By having a standard entry *and* a category entry? Arfan2006 13:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've experimented with some categories and you can put an intro but the problem is it requires each item to have their own individual page and that isn't really appropriate e.g. I'd like to list all the Harlan premises that have closed separately, but at the moment they are all listed together on the main Harlan page, as I don't think they warrant their own pages. Arfan2006 19:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Terrorist activity? Please cite some ways in which a page violates Wikipedia guidelines before bringing something to AfD. Turnstep 00:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Because animal welfare groups have previously been known to attack places like those listed here, I think it is a valid page to be brought to AFD. I don't have an opinion on it, I abstain. Stifle 01:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally think 'WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors' can be extended to 'WP:NOT censored for the protection of anyone'. An early version of this article included full addresses including street and postcode, which I removed, though the current version includes area/city/county locations. --Last Malthusian 08:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The information is already available without any intro's etc from many websites on the net - this would provide a good list for linking the current Animal Rights related articles to. Claiming it could be used for terrorist activity is like claiming a map could be. -localzuk 19:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. useful. Kingturtle 09:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

NO VOTES IN THIS SECTION, PLEASE.

I've changed my vote to a keep as above. Moving this down for reference. Essexmutant 21:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's simply no purpose to this. Essexmutant 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Wikipedia guidelines does this article break? I think it is of historical interest given the political climate in the UK over the past decade. There are many pages which have lists of frivolous and trivial things so I can't see why this should be disallowed. Should it be written as an article rather than as a list? I could add it to one of the animal rights pages but I think they are full enough already. Many of the companies mentioned have their own pages - this just ties them all together. I think that the suggestion it be deleted is just due to political bias and an attept to censor information. Arfan2006 17:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You make some valid points. Perhaps you can expand the introduction somewhat to give it a greater sense of context, and then I will consider changing my vote. Furthermore there are two links that need to be disambiguated. Essexmutant 17:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change of vote to weak keep. I would like to see a stronger and more comprehensive argument regarding the notability of the companies regarding their status as suppliers to organisations such has HLS without an animal rights bias. -- (aeropagitica) UK 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this list and I am sure that more comprehensive versions are available in directories available to those organisations who require laboratory animals. WP is not a directory service. If required, the companies could be linked by a category rather than a listings page. -- (aeropagitica) UK 17:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY MERGED. -- Jonel | Speak 23:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet Willy

[edit]

Characters appears in three episodes and shouldn't have their own article, based on the WP:FICTION guideline. --Whouk (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venclate

[edit]

Non-encyclopedic / Non-notable KHM03 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (should of closed it at that yesterday since there were 13 votes). Ichiro 15:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of firearms in first-person shooters

[edit]

Listcruft, list of some weapons in some first-person shooters, with links to articles on the real weapons. Wikipedia is not gamefaqs.com WP:NOT (half of them from WWII themed shooters and the other half pretty much made up of various MP5 variants etc). Scoo 15:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It can be a useful list in giving a user who knows nothing about games a taster on the types of weaponary in games. It also looks like quite a bit of work has gone into research and creating the list, which is a shame to go to waste. Roger Dangerfields 16:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: this user account was created on Jan 5 2006, edits consisted mostly of vandalism and was subsequently blocked on Jan 6 2006 (Block log), note by Scoo 21:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of considerable interest to gamers and firearms enthusiasts. The fact that we have articles on most of them confirms both the interest in them and the need for useful lists and cross-referencing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what this list provide is a selection of weapons in 17 computer/video games (and 2 computer game mods). User Just zis Guy, you know? say it very well here why some lists fit wery well on Wikipedia, while others do not. Some of the content in the list might be summarized in a proper article on first-person shooter weapons, provided that it is backed up by facts & findings from sources such as www.gamestudies.org and similar. On a sidenote, today most games can be modded or receive expansion packs etc. that add new content to games. Thus, a list such as this serve little purpose on Wikipedia. Scoo 19:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I say it's a nice comprehensive list, however several game articles have a weapons list that should be put into this article. Also, I've put a LOT of work into the article, and to see it removed would make me disappointed. Maybe a rename such as List of real-life weapons in video games could work? Because then we don't have to limit it to just first-person shooters, and maybe third-person shooter games (and certain other games such as Resident Evil) could be listed as well. TonicBH 20:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since I didn't want the work to be wasted, some of the pages that didn't have weapon lists or had partial/incomplete ones now have complete weapons lists (see Nightfire, Soldier of Fortune II: Double Helix, Urban Terror). If anyone wishes to add other ones (like for the Call of Duty games, for example), that would help. TonicBH 12:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Close call and subjective: if this list had been created with less care then I would have deleted and possibly speedied. It's organized and developed enough to serve as a reference for gaming and firearms enthusiasts. To the list creator: I suggest conversion into table format. Durova 21:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

child-K|Wrathchild]] (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Christadelphians

[edit]

Religious group with no claim of notability. Googling "Dawn Christadelphians" gives 369 hits, 85 of them relevant. - Bobet 16:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda or self-promotion JoJan 18:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I dont see any propaganda or self promotion, unless you count the statements of belief as propaganda, in which case we may as well delete all articles about religious groups, as all are going to deal to some extent with that groups belief system. Plus, plenty of people are interested in "minor" religions, and an encyclopaedia seems to be the logical place to look for such information. Jcuk 19:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My Google search turned up only 79 unique hits, most of which were copies of each other and several of which led to 404 errors. There seems to be no evidence of this denomination existing other than a couple of its own websites and some open forums. I suppose this group is real but it's really unverifiable. If they'd like to merit a Wikipedia article I suggest they do some community service and get a few stories with a local newspaper. Durova 21:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Christadelphians--eleuthero 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like a very minor fraction of the Christadelphians, which are a small denomination in themselves. As comparison, "dawn christadelphians" gets 441 Google hits, while "christadelphian" gets 94,000. It may be me mentioned in Christadelphian, but not on this level of detail. (It already has an External link for their site.) JoaoRicardotalk 19:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable group. Stifle 01:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of this information is already included in the main Christadelphians article.RJB 22:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep and merge. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heijunka

[edit]

Keep: Heijunka is a technique that is used in the lean manufacturing business model. It is NOT the same a Just-in-time, so should not be merged with that. The description given is not at all clear, though the examples of how it works are correct. Not notable. r3m0t talk 16:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boarhouse

[edit]

Tagged for speedy delete with {{db-club}}. I do not belive this qualifies for a speedy delte. However, the notability is not IMO well established by the article as it stands, and seems to be dubious at best. Delete Unless notablity clearly established, and some effort made to convert this to more of an encyclopedia article and less of a travle guide entry. DES (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deleted as copyvio.

Axel Kuhn

[edit]

Attempt by someone to use Wikipedia as a buzz location for Kuhn campaign. Wikipedia is not a bulletin board for political campaigns.--Mitsukai 16:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Ichiro 02:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captain "Jag" Jai'Galaar

[edit]

Minor character, does not fit WP:Fiction guidelines for own article. No clear consensus as to where this should go, as there are no pages for minor SW republic characters. Could be merged into a future List of Minor Republic characters in Star Wars or the like, but as it stands, no. Mitsukai 17:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OGA (Office Golf Association)

[edit]

See the first AfD on this article, which closed without consensus because only one vote was cast.

At the time of the original nomination the article looked like either an article about a non-notable "sport" or a hoax. The addition of poorly Photoshopped pictures to the article now supports the second theory. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheebear

[edit]

Hoax/joke JPD (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D-503

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable! band? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 17:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friendspeak

[edit]

A neologism. Not verifiable, etc. Sliggy 17:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Delete per Quarl. Stifle 00:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 16:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thursdaymas

[edit]

A neologism, not verifiable etc., delete. Sliggy 17:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New MGS on Xbox 360?

[edit]

I can think of no reason that this should be on wikipedia MNewnham 17:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmadatabase.com

[edit]

This is a webportal for martial arts. Alexa and google have never heard of it. Doesn't come remotely close to meeting WP:WEB (so Delete) Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -- Mikeblas 18:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technobangman

[edit]

Probably nonsense, non-notable (0 Google hits), unverifiable, maybe an attack page. David Johnson [T|C] 17:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Hey. Thought id mention, being from the same areas mentioned in the Technobangman section and working in the film industry myself, i have heard whispers that two very well known forces in the British film industry are making a similair film (comedy). Apparently, the pair are fed up with the cinema critics giving them special attention, based on previous work in the industry. As a result of this frustration they may have used unknown names and an unknown production company to use during shooting. However, this could all be just a load of rubbish but i thought id mention it in case its useful. Will Hughes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.178.59 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 6 January 2006
  • Comment. Hello I am Liam Burbridge, one founder of technobangman. the reason i have not been searched for on google is because I'M NOT FAMOUS. we are a low budget film production company and are trying to start out with barely any funds. a place on wikipedia would mean we can be searched for on this site and google and would be a great help. i would be happy to add sources to make technobangman more authentic if you told me how. thanks ([email protected] —the preceding unsigned comment is by Liamcb (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Hi there, i would like to mention that Technobangman does exist and that I, Sean Brophy are in fact a background artist on Pegface, the company has only recently started and is yet to establish itself, if you were to give it a chance and not doubt its credibility then you will see that in a few years it Mr Burbridge and Mr Hullait will be hitting the Hollywood scene. Thankyou —the preceding unsigned comment is by 83.216.91.74 (talk • contribs)
    • comment then in a few years we would be glad to have an artilce about them or this project. Wikipedia does not generally have articles about things that are not in some way already notable or of encyclopedic value. Things or people that might be notable someday are nor normally included. "I'M NOT FAMOUS", "trying to start out", and "yet to establish itself" all pretty clearly indicate that thsi does not belong in wikipedia. If Technobangman has recieved significant coverage in major media, please indicate this in the article, providing dates and story titles/headlines, and links if the content is online. Otherwise this looks like a probable delete to me. My previous vote is only strenghtened by these comments. DES (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks. Obina 01:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antagonistic comments

[edit]
  • "comment" you people are odd. what sort of hoax would this be? we just chose a name that Joe invented that we thought was funny. and in what way is it nasty? i dont see any evidence toward this being sockpuppets either. stop being so paranoid, we aren't hurting anyone. liam. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Liamcb (talk • contribs)
  • why are you accusing us of this skullduggery etc? what was on another website? we are not trying to alter anything. it is tragic that people would waste time with this. if you delete us technobangman will come down upon you with great vengeance and furious anger. thank you. liam.
  • a movie poster will be on the page soon. word up. shout out to all the technobangmans, this poster is gonna BANG in your FACE. ble$$ 1. 1 peace 1 love 1 pride. one earth. don't pollute it. get me. love you. don't delete, increase the peace —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.110.149.183 (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 as [WP:VAIN|vanity]]. - ulayiti (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Silver

[edit]

Tagged for speedy, but "internationaly exhibited artist" is IMO a clear claim of notability. However this is about a very young artist, and I am not at all convinced that the articel as written establishes notability. Delete unless clearer notability established from verifiable sources. DES (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But posted by User:JenSilver. And that site says "submit your own profile". [16] -Jcbarr 19:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the inherent anonymity involved with posting things on the computer (even with user id's), I don't see how anyone could be certain either way. PJM 20:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to verify claims. Only external link is to the creator's personal website. Durova 20:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to see the article reflect some of the critical appraisal that the artist has received during her career. This would then make a statement for notability. At the very least, the article needs to be Wikified and cleaned up as it is very hard to read. -- (aeropagitica) UK 21:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 16:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zachmus

[edit]

Neologism, some kind of local joke holiday; school-wide at most. - Pureblade | Θ 18:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 16:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ewido

[edit]

advertisement JoJan 17:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP, unfortunately. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War on Christmas

[edit]
  • Delete nonsense. paranoid delusions from the circus of right-wing extremism. --Revolución (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - They're extreme right-wing paranoid delusions, I agree. But they're notable extreme right-wing paranoid delusions. FCYTravis 03:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - The article is encyclopedic and well supported by citations. [removed user box as it was interfering with keep border - JOG] Endomion 04:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep NPOV disputes aren't a basis for deletion. - FrancisTyers 04:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article should be modified to be more NPOV but it is an issue that has come to a head in 2005. Supported by citations, provides useful info for those doing research on this. Happy holidays, everyone! Drmandrake 04:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The argument is very common these days, and there can be plenty room for both sides in the article. To use reductio ad absurdum, there's an article on holocaust denial and the wikipedia is not actually denying the holocaust. (I'm not stating the view that the two are equivalent; I am just making the point that the subject is very relevant, and it's existence does not imply the support of the belief that Christmas is under attack.)
  • The article is a morass of POV garbage - it's initial creation was someone making a point. Nevertheless, it is decidedly notable, so Speedy keep it is. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep* The Anti-Christian groups are trying to hide the facts that they are suing us over Christmas. I received threats to not put up Christmas lights on my house, or else I would be sued. Check court records and see how many lawsuits are filed over Christmas, then you will see that there is a real war on Christmas. Ironic that the vote to delete this article was made on Christmas, when most Christians are busy and not on Wikipedia to defend the article. You can really see the bias there by the Anti-Christians and their hate. --Charles Schram 01:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 16:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Dark Source

[edit]

Completing malformed AfD nomination. I have to side with the nameless IP who began the nomination; this game mod has nothing to warrant an encyclopaedia article. Anville 18:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete as reposted material (should maybe have been speedied). - ulayiti (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy V

[edit]

This page has already been deleted once (previous AfD vote); I can only suppose it got recreated. The "new" content does not represent an improvement. Anville 18:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 16:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Book

[edit]

Original article has multiple links to website where this "program" is sold. I trimmed out those links but this remains little more than an ad, non-notable. Delete. Ifnord 18:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 16:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buy something awesome

[edit]

Reads like an ad.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as nn-bio (ESkog)(Talk) 19:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Moran

[edit]

Hoax/vanity created by a user who keeps adding similar things about himself to football articles Oldelpaso 18:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 16:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Fournier

[edit]

Bio of NN exec of NN juice company MNewnham 18:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 23:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Manor Farm F.C.

[edit]

non-notable football club ComputerJoe 19:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete spam. - ulayiti (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content Control Room

[edit]

advertising for NN software MNewnham 19:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 16:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Hodge

[edit]

Totally unverifiable claims to notability, wasn't this on AFD a couple of days ago? MNewnham 19:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Babajobu - Bobet 02:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin James Stark

[edit]

Vanity Nv8200p talk 19:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. -- Jonel | Speak 23:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Child sexual abuse and sexual orientation

[edit]

1. Article contains no information, actually. 2. The subject is not worth a separate article. 3. POV. Anthony Ivanoff 19:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MattsMenus.com

[edit]

advertising. if it is deleted, make sure you remove the redirect page at Mattsmenus.com as well-- Syrthiss 19:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compos Mentis (Australian Band)

[edit]

Non-notable, but due to the fact that one member of the band has gone on to become an Australian celebrity, does not meet speedy. A search on Google for the band turns up nothing, a search on Google Australia turns out a heavy metal band of the same name not related to this one. Might be worth a merge into the the article for Tim Harding, but not otherwise. Mitsukai 19:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 23:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]


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

The result of the debate was sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Punkmorten 16:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ASTPCC

[edit]

Badly written article on extremelly obscure subject. Google test lists 6 results on "ASTPCC" and 88 on "Asterisk-based Pre-paid Calling Card System". Completely non-notable and looks too much like original research. Mecanismo | Talk 20:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brent S. Tantillo

[edit]

vanity page about a Congressional aide who appears to be maiing POV edits about himself, his boss and other members of Congress TMS63112 20:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy Project

[edit]

nn not for profit organization created by Congressional aide Brent S. Tantillo who is himself non-notable TMS63112 20:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. -- Jonel | Speak 23:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5-hydroxyindolacetic acid

[edit]

spelling mistake in title by author has made it redundant to 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid, which is covered in serotonin Ianvitro 20:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Zobel

[edit]

Apparently non-notable Filipino actress. No IMDB entry. Two relevant Google hits from one site, both of which are 404s and have to be looked at via Google's cache, which show her as low down on the cast lists of a couple of films, which I don't see as evidence of meeting WP:BIO, and there is certainly no verification for anything in the article other than "she exists". Created by the same author as Premiere Production, which is also up for deletion. Last Malthusian 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Ichiro 15:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armona Union School District

[edit]

Rambling, POV article that seems to have something with one particular school. There may be an actual AUSD, but this article doesn't even give that information. Meets WP:NOT in every way possible. Mitsukai 20:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crysp Entertainment

[edit]

Not notable production company (web designer?) with stub website and less than ten links in search engines. Mikeblas 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 23:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest empires

[edit]

Has potential, but appears to have been abandoned by creator, and may be prone to POV even if completed properly. Mild delete. --Nlu (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was moved to redirect for deletion. Ichiro 23:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey-Blood

[edit]

senseless redirect Adam (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brantmeyer

[edit]

Just a surname listing, not even geneology MNewnham 20:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screamtrigger

[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete (22/31) as OR. An AFD over a year ago makes no difference. - ulayiti (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision fetish

[edit]
Circumcision fetish was nominated for deletion on 2004-11-28. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circumcision fetish.

No reliable sources for this article exist. Several users are attempting to get rid of it by redirecting it to sexual fetishism, which isn't really relevant, as the only mention of this is a link to this article. I'd rather delete it. Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two references in the foreskin fetish article. One is to a general definition of fetishism which could also be used in the circumcision fetish article. The other is a link to a 1965 article on Jake's personal pro-circumcision advocacy web site. The overwhelming majority of articles listed in the Less common forms of fetishism section of the sexual fetish article do not have references. Why should the circumcision fetish article be judged by a different standard? -- DanBlackham 12:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DanBlackham 22:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which encyclopaedic sources have identified these as 'circumcision fetish websites', Dan? If none, please explain the difference between your position and that of a person who presents a photo of the moon and a photo of a similarly-coloured piece of blue cheese as a 'source' that the moon is made of blue cheese. Clearly, in that example, it is not a source, it is merely evidence that requires considerable interpretation. Jakew 22:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jake, I think most reasonable people would agree that the following is a good example of a circumcision fetish:
The Ultimate Circumcision Video. Filmed in Phoenix, Az after a heated contest between the Champion, Max, and his opponent, Jon. The raging battle for the conquest of manhood where only one will walk away a MAN ends in the loser being CIRCUMCISED. His glans bare and a scar to show his defeat.
Max, the Circumcision Master, preps the still warm, pink loose foreskin for it's exicution. First the Betadine, then the EMLA cream to numb the sensative nerves. The audience of 20 naked men (mostly CIRCUMCISED...ready to welcome a new member to their people) gasp as the Tara KLamp is placed over the doomed foreskin...then clasped...then......CIRCUMCISED!
http://www.circlist.com/resources/videos.html
There are much more evidence of the reality of a circumcision fetish on the CIRCLIST website. -- DanBlackham 22:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so, Dan, but it doesn't answer my question. The standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Perhaps we have a skeptical reader who looks at this and thinks, "pretty strange stuff, but I wonder if it's really a fetish in the technical sense". What scholarly sources exist to allow him to verify that this is indeed a circumcision fetish? Jakew 23:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.depression-guide.com/apotemnophilia.htm does. Searching google for apotemnophilia+fetish and apotemnophilia+circumcision gives quite a few links but I don't have time to see if any of them are useful atm. There seems an indication that apotemnophilia is a fetish and that in some cases circumcision can be classified as apotemnophilia. Before you claim that saying 1+1=2 is original research I've already given a link stating so. --Scandum 02:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Many view the circumcision fetish as a form of apotemnophilia, particularly in the case of an adult male being voluntarily circumcised." [23]
A vague reference to unspecified people having an opinion that an undefined term is a form of apotemnophilia is not the best basis for an article, is it? Jakew 12:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the Short Circumcision Stories on the CIRCLIST South Africa web site is evidence of circumcision fetishism. The Cutting Club web site is also evidence of circumcision fetishism. The following from the main CIRCLIST web site is also evidence.
"Like me, this guy also had a circumcision fetish. He loved thinking about it and planning it. So, our first sex play began with you show me your skanky skin, and I'll show you how one looks after it's had an adult circumcision. He worshiped my scar with his tongue. He sucked my flared, bare head. He begged me to fuck (dock) inside his boy-skin. I eventually bent him over and fucked his uncircumcised boy-ass. Our first time together was all about foreskin and circumcision. It was very hot. During future activities, we always included talk about my circumcision and his pending circumcision in our play. We even began simulating his own circumcision....tying him down and placing film canisters under his skin, etc. Eventually we bought a Gomco and a Tara clamp for our play. After about one year, we actually had him circumcised, which was very hot."
"Now, we look for other "boys" who still have their little baby-skins. We enjoy playing with them and helping them to get circumcised too (if that's what they ultimately want.) It's amazing how many uncut guys have a circumcision fetish (or can at least be turned on by fantasy play about circumcising them, usually ritually) Even if they would never want to ultimately get the cut, like my friend and partner did, many enjoy fantasizing about it. That's why we like uncut guys!" [24] (emphasis added)
Please note that the author even uses the term "circumcision fetish". It seems to me like that is evidence that this fetish really exists. -- DanBlackham 01:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block dude

[edit]

Delete. This is a puzzle for a calculator, and although verifiable, is not encyclopedic. Mindmatrix 21:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Programs for calculators are not encyclopedic. -Share Bear


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Babajobu - Bobet 02:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline morant

[edit]

recreation of deleted article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Caroline Morant MNewnham 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DarkSoul Kingdom

[edit]

Seems to me like original research about non-notable fiction. 141 google hits, which isn't very good since their main publication channel is a website (with no alexa rank). - Bobet 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pearlene

[edit]

Insignificant person, text dumped from another site. Justin (koavf) 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stoost

[edit]

Delete. Neologism. -Rebelguys2 21:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X Cards Advance

[edit]

Nonsense Justin (koavf) 21:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied. r3m0t talk 00:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X Cards Advance Characters

[edit]

Nonsense Justin (koavf) 21:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (contigent on consensus above). Again, needs to be wikified for and needs a LOT of work, but isn't exactly nonsense. May have some notiablity issues.--Esprit15d 21:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a band asserting no claim of notability whatsoever. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:19, Jan. 7, 2006

Rammsund

[edit]

Band article, previously speedied, now re-created. Likely notability issue, may not meet criteria, I haven't researched. -- Curps 21:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur's Hall

[edit]

Promotion of NN Blog/Forum, Forum has 45 registered members MNewnham 21:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikology

[edit]

Admittd neologism. No google hits. No good evidence of widespread usage or notability. Delete unless verifiable evidence establishing wide use or other notability is provided. DES (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-light

[edit]

This article starts out discussing travel and the speed of light (which has already been covered in detail in other articles), then spins off into a bizarre conspiracy theory that takes up the majority of the article. I'd vote to delete. - Bootstoots 21:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tel3advantage

[edit]

Total spam. Esprit15d 21:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC) ===Silence Dogwood=== 813 312 0464 Someone has suggested that Silence Dogwood be merged with Benjamin Franklin, however the pseudonym is incorrect. It should be Silence Dogood which is already redirected to Benjamin Franklin. Anthopos 21:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saveonprepaid

[edit]

Blatant advertising. Incorrectly tagged as speedy. Delete. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 11:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RED CORNER 2

[edit]

This is spam. Esprit15d 22:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of solar eclipses seen from China

[edit]

Seems NN, no other similar pages for other countries, Delete. Colonel Cow 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would only be notable for historical records of eclipses, from the dawn of time until 1900. 132.205.45.110 22:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely useless. Alr 22:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I don't see anything in the deletion policy that forbids this. However, I do agree that it is somewhat arbitrary. If it were up to me I would keep it because I see no harm coming from it. DrIdiot 23:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft Sceptre (Talk) 23:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's verifiable and interesting. Needs to be cleaned up to standardize dates but otherwise looks good. Ifnord 23:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain, but two things: firstly the future redlink eclipses should be dewikilinked, as creating the articles would be crystal balling, and secondly the article needs to be renamed, as the title uses the past tense even though the article includes to eclipses 800 years in the future. --Last Malthusian 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sadly, we cannot dewiki the future dates due to the poor design of MediaWiki in overloading the brackets to indicate not only internal links, but date preferences as well. Turnstep 01:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually this would be one of the very few legitimate exceptions to the crystal ball argument. Eclipses really are predictable centuries in advance. All it takes is physics and mathematics. Durova 07:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • From WP:NOT: "Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alex (2010)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise." That seems to match future eclipses perfectly. --Malthusian (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, it's not a perfect match. While the chance of a tropical storm occuring in 2010 is extremely high, the chance that future eclipses will happen is orders of magnitude more likely. You could almost say as likely as the sun will rise tomorrow morning. :) Unless some *extremely* improbable event happens, such as the Earth being destroyed by Voguns, these eclipses will happen. I still wouldn't link to the dates, however. Better to link to a single page on future astromical events or something. Turnstep 18:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Maybe I've misinterpreted, but I interpreted that sentence, specifically "even though it is virtually certain", to mean that crystal balling does not necessarily exclude articles about subjects that are certain to happen. --Malthusian (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The exact wording is, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Basically what it would take to alter this schedule is a collision with a very large comet - a collision on a scale neither the earth nor moon have experienced in hundreds of millions of years. So yup: this article falls within Wikipedia's narrow exception. Durova 02:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per precedent on lists of eclipses (see below) and inability to make this article conform with crystal ball policy. --Malthusian (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I hope someone could extend this article to the whole world. — Yaohua2000 03:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well that's exactly my point. The Solar eclipse article already has a list of recent and upcoming (to 2020) eclipses across the world. The question I ask to the Wikipedia community in this AFD is whether or not a separate article is needed for China, with eclipses ranging from 1001 to 3000. --Colonel Cow 03:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solar eclipses can be seen from worldwide area is very different from solar eclipses can be seen from a specific location. For worldwide, total solar eclipses are common, about once every one or two years, but for a specific location, they are very rare events, about once every 300 years. So it makes sense to list these rare events in a separated article. — Yaohua2000 09:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But one could just check the Solar eclipse page and look for eclipses in their region of the world (it says where the eclipse will happen on that page). Now, it doesn't go as far into the future as this article, but whether or not a list really needs to go to 3000 is a separate debate (which I'm sure those at the Solar eclipse page have already debated). --Colonel Cow 14:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always wondering when I can see a total solar eclipse in my hometown when I was a child, total eclipse is rather rare, and it is not easy for a layman to work it out with enough precision, for people with similar questions, this article focuses on the previous and next total and annular solar eclipses from a specific location on the Earth, Solar eclipse doesn't contain such information, and such information is also rare on the web. Wikipedia and this article gives the answer. So I think it is useful, and perhaps encyclopedic, if it has a worldwide view some time, it can be a great article. — Yaohua2000 20:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solar eclipse does in fact have that information (or is being added). If I were someone in New York, I could go to the Solar eclipse article and look for the next time an eclipse will occur for me in that list (by looking for "North America"). Same thing if I were anywhere in the world. If I were in Beijing, I'd go and look for eclipses under Asia. Solar eclipse already has this worldwide view that you speak of, and so pages like this aren't needed in my opinion. --Colonel Cow 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you did some research on this topic, you might not think so. Absolute most (> 95%) total solar eclipses in North America is not total in New York. Even in Beijing, Beijing municipality is far smaller than North America, but during A.D. 1001 and A.D. 2000 period [28], 7 total eclipses occured from somewhere in the municipality, but only one visible in the urban area. So for someone only check total eclipses visible in North America, or even State of New York doesn't make so much sense to total eclipses in New York City. — Yaohua2000 21:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So then a column on the Solar eclipse page e.g. "Total eclipse viewable in" would be a good idea, but it still doesn't change that a list about China itself (when the information could be put on the Solar eclipse page and represent a worldwide view) is "listcruft" in my opinion, as Sceptre put it. --Colonel Cow 21:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can create such a column in solar eclipse, but make this column as a separated article would be better. — Yaohua2000 22:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This list navigate aid articles in Category:Solar eclipses. — Yaohua2000 20:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categories in themselves are navigational aids, so they don't need pages redirecting people to them. --Colonel Cow 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article not only a navigational aid, but also provide additional information to the readers. Why don't you think it is a great article, but require to delete it? :( — Yaohua2000 22:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a category for this already, why keep the list? Plus, this would lead to an infinite series of lists of eclipses visible from location X. And I'm sure people won't stop at countries, they will want to include their hometowns as well. JoaoRicardotalk 00:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should stay because this list organizes information in ways that no category could emulate. It's an excellent example of the sort of information a good list can provide. Durova 20:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 00:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These six cities have a combined population of 81 million people. How is that obscure? Durova 22:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CTB flying squad

[edit]

Advert for Australian business consulting group MNewnham 22:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted before discussion reached five days. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National socialists party of canada

[edit]

unverified and likely a hoax given that the World Socialist Movement a) already has an outfit in Canada called the Socialist Party of Canada and b) is unlikely to accept a name like "National Socicalists". Homey 22:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William G. "Bill" Bailey

[edit]

Vanity page. Snalwibma 23:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This company seems to have little significance, although it does exist. DrIdiot 23:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even though Bill will sell YOU supplies for LESS if you call NOW. Sorry, per nom. Obina 23:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you are not associated with the timber, logging, arborist or forestry industries I can understand why you might wish to delete. If however, you were associated with one of these industries/communities/culture or if you were one of the 100,000 or so customers of his, you would not likely consider deletion. Within these communities Bill is a bit of a legend. He has at times spoken before the US Congress to improve safety standards in our industry and has served on numerous timber and forest industry boards over the years. Additionally, his company is a small business success story. Current annual revenues are over 25 million US$. While this certainly isn't at the level of a Sam Walton, it is a success nonetheless. I had hoped to expand the page with more information and accomplishments at a later time and mainly put this page up as a placeholder. I've certainly seen many lesser-known and completely obscure people with pages. He also published a book now out of print, Reflections of a Timberfaller. That's my two cents and incidentally, in the interest of full-disclosure I do work for Bill, but I put up this page on my own without any coercion. --Jcon95482 00:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 01:41Z
  • Keep. I am amazed that this man, this mortal man started a timber company. This has an enormous amount of relevance to life in general. Every joe soap on the planet should be listed. Is there room for 6 billion entries??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.47.32 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 7 January 2006
  • Weak delete, possibly notable enough but it seems that it is a vanity bio. Stifle 00:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I will defer to the general consensus as Bill's book was self-published and his presentations before Congress were prior to 1994, which is only as far the online Congressional record goes. His work with Congress was in the late 70's and early 80's when safety in the timber industry was mostly non-existent. He fought to upgrade safety standards for forest workers during that time. Anyway, delete per nom.--Jcon95482 23:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ludvig Strigeus

[edit]

Non-notable. Already covered in µTorrent, doesn't even merit a merge. Delete. Ifnord 23:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. -- Jonel | Speak 23:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikislap

[edit]

Nn neologism, references have not been provided. the wub "?!" 23:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Panick

[edit]

The only relevant Google hits for +"John Panick" +Tour are to this article and to a stub category it's in [29]. Googling for +"John Panick" +cycling gives a link to a mechanic in Bakersfield, California [30]. This person is probably the subject of the article. However, I'm afraid that being a cycling mechanic is no sign of notability. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP, as no longer a collection of external links. -- Jonel | Speak 23:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[edit]

List of nothing more than URLs to external LDS pages StoatBringer 23:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Value has been created. Keep -Visorstuff 00:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a list of external links. --Last Malthusian 00:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the page because I found articles for Bern Switzerland Temple, Chicago Illinois Temple, Freiberg Germany Temple, Kona Hawaii Temple, Laie Hawaii Temple and about 8 others. There are basically a smattering of random articles on about 10 of the 120 operating temples out there, and no comprehensive List Of article anywhere. I initially made the article to be a list of the temples that could link to other Wikipedia articles, but saw that with just a little effort I could make external links to the LDS pages. Please don't interpret it as a dump of an LDS page, it is meant to be a foundation for a Wikipedia article that links to richer Wiki articles on each temple. It needs to be expanded. I think that the external links add value, but agree that at the core the page needs to point to Wikipedia articles. Maybe a table with the external link and with the Wiki link. I haven't done tables though, I spent an hour on it as it was, and I thought that it could be done later. If you delete this, I think that this article will eventually be created. Bhludzin 04:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a legitimate topic for a list, and the chronological order makes it useful in a way that a category couldn't be, but is now a directory of external links, which (as already pointed out) is something Wikipedia pages are not supposed to be. Keep, but only if the items are all turned into internal wikilinks, provided there is enough to write an article about the temple, or just unlinked but with some data in the list itself, whenever too little can be said about the temple in question. Making it into a table may be a good idea. u p p l a n d 08:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC) No reservations anymore. u p p l a n d 18:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Moving my keep vote to beginning of line to make it clearly visible. u p p l a n d 00:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup; keep, but needs to be wikilinked. now that it is more wikilinks than external. —akghetto talk 10:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and DrIdiot who has the stronger argument: this article appears to be a copyright violation, as it is copied from an external website: [32]. You can't just cut and paste material from other web-sites into Wikipedia!!! Also, I doubt Wikipedia should be a repository of directories. We wouldn't want to see a list of all the Walmart stores on here (temples to consumerism), or a list of all gyms (temples to fitness), or a list of all the streets of the world (the paths to all temples). But links to websites that provide them would be more appropriate, if in context for the article(s) those links appear in. Provide a link to the external site that presents the list in question, and remove the list itself from Wikipedia. Go for it! 12:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think a simple list like this can be copyrightable. There is also an obvious difference between important religious sanctuaries and Walmart stores. As far as I understand, only the most central Mormon sanctuaries are called "temples", which is why there is in many cases only one in each country. u p p l a n d 12:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Facts are not copyrightable. Additionally, the organization has subtle but significant differences to the presentation on the cited page. Trödel&#149;talk 11:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK - I updated the page so that it's a table with the Wiki links and I added the Temple's current status. As a future update I want to add the construction style/type as a column. If this is acceptable, please remove the AfD status. If not, let me know why. Bhludzin 16:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is this list comparable to a list of Christian Churches, or more akin to a list of Christian Cathedrals? I ask cos I seem to think that lists of churches are discouraged unless the church itself is notable for something or another. Jcuk 17:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This would be more akin to a list of cathedrals than a List of Ottawa churches. There are about 145 LDS temples currently operating or announced; this list up for deletion is missing the newest to be announced. I didn't count, but there is roughly the same number as on the List of Buddhist temples article. Val42 17:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of notable stories for each temple, which make it more than just a list of buildings. There are the stories of miraculous events at the dedication of the Kirtland, Nauvoo and Salt Lake temples, Wilford Woodruff said he met with the signers of the Declaration of Independence in one, Lorenzo Snow said he met the Savior in another, plus probably thousands of journal accounts from less prominent people - I am assuming that there will eventually be Wikipedia articles for all of the temples listed. Bhludzin 18:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was answering the question as to scope; roughly how common temples are. Hopefully, there will be enough information about each of the temples, in the future. But for this vote, we will have to consider the fifteen articles about temples that already exist. Val42 18:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with requested clean-ups. I think that people will want information on LDS temples, in chronological order. If this list isn't kept, then (as unothodox as this may be on Wikipedia) I think that a single link to one or two such a lists should be included on the Category:Latter Day Saint temples page. Val42 17:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into Temple (Mormonism). JonMoore 19:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it seems to almost be an external link list only.The Scurvy Eye 20:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. Too many redlinks. Stifle 23:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting, verified list with a chronology (and red links) which discounts use of a simple category. Turnstep 01:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, I removed all red links, and added square feet. I want to keep the official LDS links because they link to the church page with the current temple hours, phone number, etc. I want to add architectural style as a column in the table, but please give me a break! I have frantically spent about 5 or 6 hours on this page in the last day trying to keep it from being deleted. Please spare it so that I can have a break and come back and do the architectural style information in several days (I do have a life outside of this). I also intend to start doing Wikipedia temple pages, where I can add Mormon historical events relevant to each temple (unless of course I have to frantically fight to keep each one from being deleted). This will also clean up some of the temple red links in the Mormonism articles in general.Bhludzin 02:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Despite the re-formatting, still mostly just a list of external links. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to do the Temple articles. I think it seems natural to have a list that indexes and links to them. But, (correct me if I'm wrong) if the list includes external links then the list must be deleted? The external links supplement the list with "live" information. If this is the approach taken, then after I did articles on all 120+ temples, I would be allowed to create the list to link to them? Bhludzin 04:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP but Merge with some material from Temple (Mormonism) about temple construction and history into either article. WBardwin 06:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a useful list with the dates and other stats. I was just wondering if there was a list for this; it's much more useful than categories, and it can be a complete list, unlike many that we maintain. Merging with the general article on Mormon temples would overwhelm that article, which is meant to describe temples for the entire movement as opposed to a list of buildings for the LDS Church in particular. Cool Hand Luke 08:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I removed the "list of links" nature of this page - and updated the table in a few other ways. I also added wikisectioning so that individual rows with specific temple information can be individually edited and directly linked. I suggest that these changes address the concerns of the nom. Agree with Cool Hand re merging with general temples page - additional useful columns could be added such as number of Ordination rooms, number of Sealing rooms, existence of visitors center, existence of Holy of Holies, etc. Trödel&#149;talk 10:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep seems a reasonable enough list now I know what it is. Jcuk 12:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Useful reference for those interested in such stuff. Needs to be improved to meet Wiki standards. Dr U 07:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Seems valuable and useful. Tom Haws 18:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote summary as of 17:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC), Delete 5, Keep 10, Abstain 1, Merge/Move 1


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediashout

[edit]

WikiPedia policiy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. Alancookie 22:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with cleanup tag. 46k google. although the article is currently about Corporation MediaShout 2.5 rather than Mediashout itself -- Astrokey44|talk 05:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From what I can tell the product is called MediaShout, but the company is MediaComplete, so it still needs cleanup/clarification Alancookie 10:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising, also most of the Google results are not unique. -- Kjkolb 13:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the topic worship presentation program which describes this genre of software along with external links to various software, including MediaShout. This was my solution after putting some thought into it, but I'm only making this suggestion if it would be appropriate Alancookie 06:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the media coordinator at our church, and we use Mediashout in our worship services. I vote Keep, as I rely on Wikipedia for anything I think of!!! Also, I don't quite think this is anything to do with the company. Probably someone who had no idea about the wiki's standards, and thought Wikipedia was some kind of "copy 'n paste" place. But can't we fix it instead of DELETE IT??? --66.82.9.82 23:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_6&oldid=1234127719"