Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 2

< March 1	March 3 >

Purge server cache

March 2[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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NightMist[edit]

not enogh info Melaen 23:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-20 01:00:40Z
delete NN (also, note this page blanked and replaced with copy of article by 66.170.8.8, which I've now reverted). Pete.Hurd 07:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 16:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Šinec[edit]

From WP:PNT. Discussion from there follows. Delete per Pavel. Kusma (討論) 00:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found in the category. Croatian?, about a Croatian musician. Kusma (討論) 21:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the text is in Croatian xompanthy

Hmm, a guitarist. What's interesting on him is the way he helds a guitar (says the article). Not even birthdate. Cruft. Pavel Vozenilek 01:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per me. Pavel Vozenilek 01:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vozenilek. Grandmasterka 03:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alpha269 17:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 16:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guler[edit]

Appears to be complete bollocks. Only Google hit returned for "Guler Kingdom" is this article. Delete as nominator. Hynca-Hooley 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. No Guru 00:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as very bizarre complete bollocks. Almost reads like something out of some SF alternate history universe. Mythical country with impossible history. Slightly different version of it appears here [[1]] attributed to a Stanford professor who doesn't seem to actually exist. Fan1967 00:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Jedi6 00:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable possible hoax. Capitalistroadster 00:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:BALLS. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 01:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Ziggurat 02:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, {{hoax}}. (aeropagitica) 06:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as hoax and nonsense. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Adbarnhart 19:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Eivind 05:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Urbandictionary link Fan1967 found makes this a copyvio. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure about that, as a good deal of Urbandictionary seems to have been copied from WP Fan1967 21:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax. -- Alpha269 17:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rather complicated, really. Citing this discussion (yay!), I have moved the AfDed article to 1978 American League Championship Series, and changed the resultant redirect into something more appropriate. Note that none of this required AfD. To Hell with "process". If anyone reckons an article title should be redirected, but doesn't want to blank the content, they're quite capable of performing the move and altering the redirect themselves; the only reason I'm doing it is because some silly sausage brought it to AfD.

Note that the current 1978 ALCS article is lacking a lot of context and could do with a fair amount of cleanup. Whelp, that's some work for you all to do. Your time starts ... now. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Massacre[edit]

This article describes the 4 game sweep of the Red Sox by the Yankees in the 1978 World Series. It was prodded but after less than 10 minutes another editor blanked the article and redirected to the historic Boston Massacre. I don't know if the baseball content is original research or is worth merging to a better sports article, but completely blanking it seems totally out of process. At the very least someone should have a chance to see if the content is worth saving in some form. My vote on the baseball content is ~~Abstain~~. Thatcher131 00:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect page to Boston Massacre. Merge content to 2004 World Series. I added a d.a.b. link on the Boston Massacre page already. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's talking about Boston's loss in the ~~1978 World Series~~ 1978 ALCS, not the win in 2004. Thatcher131 00:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 1978 World Series article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.112.23.9 (talk • contribs) .
Redirect page to Boston Massacre, merge content to 1978 World Series. Ziggurat 02:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ziggurat. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boston Massacre and ~~merge content with the 1978 World Series.~~ create 1978 American League Championship Series and move content.Capitalistroadster 03:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boston Massacre; move content to 1978 American League Championship Series, since the series in question was not the World Series but the round before. —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It may be worth noting that when contributions made in one article under GFDL are merged into another article, the attribution history of the merged text must be preserved. This is normally achieved simply by maintaining the history of the original page (once it is turned into a redirect). If we turn the redirect page to a third article, I'm fairly certain we'd have to find some way of crediting the contributors properly. In this case, I think the important action is redirect to Boston Massacre. An editor who additionally wishes to merge text into a suitable article on the 1978 Series may also consider doing the following:
1. merge text appropriately in target article
2. copy the history of The Boston Massacre, and paste it in the Talk page of the target article, with a note explaining that "text written by these contributors has been merged into this article" or some such. Link to the history page.

It might be a good idea to check for copy vio; large chunks of this article were uploaded in single edits. However, I couldn't find anything through a quick google search. —Encephalon 08:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boston Massacre. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boston Massacre, but only after moving the page (w/ its history and talk) to 1978 American League Championship Series. ×Meegs 10:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the process, moving the current article to 1978 American League Championship Series will preserve the history as if the article had that title all along, and leave a blank redirect page at The Boston Massacre with no history. We can then change the redirect page to the historic event. I think that satisfies Encephalon's concerns. I change my vote from Abstain to Move per Meegs. Thatcher131 12:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're absolutely right Thatcher, we can do it that way too (note incidentally that the resulting redirect at The Boston Massacre actually would maintain something in its history log—a single entry stating that a move was performed. This is fine). The main issue is having the attribution history accessible from the target article, either in its own history logs, the talk page, or from a redirect that points to it. There are 3 or 4 ways to do these things; I remember writing a longish post on this somewhere way back when—I ought to reread it. ;-) —Encephalon 02:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC) NB. Looking at the AFD it appears to me that we're all agreed on the redirect; all that is left to do is determine a suitable target article to merge this text into. I don't see a problem with Capitalistroadster's 1978 American League Championship Series, so this is one more "vote" for the text to be moved there per Thatcher's excellent suggestion. —Encephalon 02:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Thatcher131. Chris Chan.talk.contribs 16:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into New York Yankees (although it would need to be pared down) - article is not about the 1978 AL Championship Series it is about the 1978 regular season. I also think it's a copyvio copy and paste job. No Guru 16:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move+Redirect per Thatcher131 unless copyvio. Carlossuarez46 22:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move and Redirect per Thatcher131. Sorry 'bout the out of order redirect.Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 22:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ad Redirect per Thatcher131. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above -- Alpha269 17:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 16:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D.S.G Justice[edit]

Nonnotable backyard wrestler, vanity, fails WP:BIO. Prod tag removed so send to AfD. Thatcher131 00:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Combination of PHWA and D.S.G. Justice returns a single link on google, which I believe is back to his own website. Non-notable athlete, of a non-notable league in a relatively minor sport does not deserve an article. Not my leg 00:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable wrestling bio; "...he hopes to beecome one of the greatest backyard wrestlers ever." Aspirational rather than a discussion of notability. WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 06:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, self promotion, etc, etc,. --Bachrach44 18:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alpha269 17:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 16:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jango Jamboree[edit]

Since the {{prod}} tag was removed from this page, I guess this bit o' vanity must come here. D e nni ☯ 00:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity...definitely my favorite sin. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 02:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per article itself. Nothing verified, nothing gained. Ziggurat 02:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 03:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. --Blue520 06:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "...no information has been verified." Non-notable & non-encyclopædic. Leave it on myspace. (aeropagitica) 06:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. -- Alpha269 17:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brokat AG[edit]

non-notable Grocer 01:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If a few references could be added, the article would make an excellent addition to Wikipedia. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. The article reads somewhat like a trainwreck, but notability is there. With a little cleanup, it will work well as a viable article.--み使い Mitsukai 05:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am a former employee of Brokat and edited many parts of the entry. I would like to know which wikipedia policy was violated.
Keep, Brokat has been a notable company for almost half a decade. JIP | Talk 13:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I added a cleanup tag. No opinion on inclusion/deletion, but this article is crying for a complete rewrite for formatting, tone/language, and notability/sourcing. I'm in IT and while reading this I found myself wondering why I should care about this company or its products. I'm not trying to be offensive to the author, but you need to make a better case for why this company and their products are important. Also, adding sources for this information would be very helpful.--Isotope23 19:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just clean it up. --Krashlandon (e) 21:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Brokat AG. - Bobet 16:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twister (Software from Brokat AG)[edit]

non-notable Grocer 01:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am a former employee of Brokat and created this entry. I would like to know which wikipedia policy was violated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wroemer (talk • contribs) .

Some people here use notability guidelines as a logical extension of WP:VAIN (since it's unlikely that an unconnected observer would know about something that's genuninely non-notable) and/or WP:OR (since things which are non-notable can not be documented to encyclopedia standards). Others who believe in notability might cite WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information or the "self-promotion" clause of WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. I hope that this explanation makes sense to you. -Colin Kimbrell 16:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Brokat AG. Jedi6 07:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Jedi6. There is still room in Brokat AG for a brief description of their products. JIP | Talk 13:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Merge into the Brokat AG article, after it's cleaned up. -Colin Kimbrell 16:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge.--Isotope23 18:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jedi6. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge.--MaNeMeBasat 15:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surjan Singh Bhandari[edit]

non-notable bio Grocer 01:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Only 559 Google hits, but that's English Google. It's verifiable, and I'd say the award confers notability. --djrobgordon 04:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and verifiable. Monicasdude 04:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But rewrite slightly as it sounds a little like a memorial in places. Jcuk 10:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs some cleanup, but I think the award confers sufficient notability. -Colin Kimbrell 16:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jcuk. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the others. Piccadilly 17:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per others. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 17:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the others.--Dwaipayanc 15:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom (Talk) 01:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Degenerate[edit]

Redirect created as personal attack. Editor has done other vandalism. Crumbsucker 01:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 16:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 21 (U.S. series)[edit]

Has been proposed for deletion several times, it seems to be back at the top of the log yet again now. Original reason for PROD still stands-- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Hynca-Hooley 01:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Crystalballism, all pure speculation, just the authors favourite songs. --light darkness^(talk) 01:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oh dear god, we have all the others. I fear for civilization. · rodii · 01:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a crystal ball. Ziggurat 02:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total crystal-ballism. Cnwb 03:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the fact that the article itself states, "this is a prediction list," is ... yeah. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 03:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Schizombie 05:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if this is of any use, but Amazon has the album cover on it's site. [2] May it be worth just altering this page to the artists featured on the cover?
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (*), albeit with only known facts included, and *totally* rewritten. It has a projected release date, and cover. Whilst this in itself isn't enough to justify keeping it, the thing'll be released very soon- at which point someone will probably make it a proper article. Hardly seems worth deleting (and possibly dealing with the problem again). Fourohfour 15:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (*) Comment: NB This assumes that Now! albums are individually notable. I wasn't convinced of this personally; however, since my attempts to get concensus via both Wikiproject albums *and* an RfC didn't attract sufficient interest, and since the number of (and work done on) articles has grown quite a lot since then, it seems that the time for objection has passed. Fourohfour 15:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the one who originally tried to PROD this, original reason still stands. Petros471 22:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Alpha269 17:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 16:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitty[edit]

Delete Catchphrase of a TV show, belongs in the playground not in Wikipedia Gsd2000 01:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, even if the school in this case is fictional. Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 02:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not from a fictional school. The character in question is a fully grown man. Regardless, it's a short-lived sketch, and not notable enough for Wikipedia. Cnwb 03:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete neologism, not notable Schizombie 05:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as yet another TV-created neologism/portmanteau that isn't notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn catchphrase among many phrases from a notable sitcom. Will probably never be notable as it's among the weakest sketches on Little Britain. MLA 10:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable catchphrase. In Finland, tea is drunk, not eaten. JIP | Talk 13:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Very common word used nowadays in Britain and if this fails the Google test I just won't believe it. J.J.Sagnella 18:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.J - Wikipedia Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary Gsd2000 22:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked myself in Google and for that reason i must change my vote to Delete J.J.Sagnella 07:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alpha269 17:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A big fan of the show, but unless the word has become common parlance, I say delete 66.95.139.107 16:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Skiffle music. Rynne and Zoe are most persuasive. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skiffle bands[edit]

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Of the entire list, only The Quarrymen and Tommy Steele are internal links. All external links appear to be mirrored from skiffle.net/links, the main page of which is already linked on skiffle music. Delete as nominator. - Rynne 01:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Change to Redirect to Skiffle music.--み使い Mitsukai 02:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skiffle music. Cnwb 03:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skiffle music. Capitalistroadster 04:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Skiffle Groups, and verify per lists such as List of British hard rock and heavy metal musical groups or performers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcuk (talk • contribs)
Merge to Skiffle music with redlink deletion. Ewlyahoocom 18:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of skiffle groups. No similar list of such groups exists on the Internet, and is thus a valuable resource. External links exist for the purpose of giving the reader more information about each group (since most bands do not have their own Wikipedia article), information about which is available generally only on German language websites that are difficult for English readers to negotiate. Badagnani 19:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Most of the linked sites aren't written in English anyway. If English speakers can't negotiate the German links page, then the linked websites in German, Swedish, etc. are going to be completely useless ([3], [4], etc.). Furthermore, the links to English pages are all for modern skiffle groups which fail WP:MUSIC ([5], [6]). This list of NN and non-English websites is not a resource which is necessary or useful to Wikipedia. - Rynne 01:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, not completely useless. Please speak for yourself; I do not speak German myself, yet these sites are useful to me as a Wikipedia user. Babelfish allows one to translate texts from German to English and I have also emailed some of these groups in order to gain more information about this style of music. You're correct that most, if not all, skiffle groups, as performing a music that is not of mass interest in popular culture (i.e., it doesn't sell large numbers of records), might not be "notable" enough to merit their own articles here; this is all the more reason why the genre deserves special treatment in our encyclopedia, as information about the genre is very difficult to find elsewhere. We are building something that will have information on all genres of music, not simply the ones that are most popular at a given time. Badagnani 06:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of skiffle groups, per Badagnani's rationale. Adbarnhart 19:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of skiffle groups, per Badagnani's rationale. dadwasp 20:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: dadwasp has made only two edits: this discussion and Skiffle bands (Special:Contributions/Dadwasp). - Rynne 02:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skiffle music. See no need to merge any of the content. -- Krash (Talk) 01:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skiffle music. If this article were actually a list of Wikipedia articles, then the rename option would be appropriate, but this is a list of external links, something specifically considered inappropriate at WP:NOT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This statement is inaccurate. This is a list of all skiffle bands in the world that are known about, supplemented with links. You do not come out and say "delete all the bands" in the redirect; is that what you mean? Why not just say it? I must admit that it is very upsetting that another Wikipedia editor would simply vote to throw away such a large amount of effort that went into collecting these band names and locations; it's not something I would ever do to you or another editor. And are you not aware that there are Wikipedia articles with lists of bands in many other genres? Why is skiffle being singled out for deletion? As mentioned above (which no one has addressed), roots musical styles are often culturally and historically significant, while commercially unsuccessful (meaning most bands will not meet WP notability requirements for their own articles). It does not mean that the content about the bands should be deleted. Badagnani 20:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry you went to all the trouble, but collections of external links are not appropriate Wikipedia content. If you want to write articles about all of those people, and they pass WP:MUSIC, then a List of Skiffle bands with links to the Wikipedia articles is a valid article. But a list of external links is not. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the genre. If you think there are other lists of bands that are only external links, please let me know on my Talk page, and I'll nominate those for AfD as well. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is inaccurate. It is not a list of links but a list of skiffle groups around the world, which contain links to their websites, to assist users in finding out more about them (as these sites are often not easy to locate). It is very disturbing that you seem to gain gratification from trying to destroy the contributions of another editor. And, even worse, that you simply ignore what I had said above about skiffle being a roots musical form that is not well understood, and deserving of coverage here (in the same way that lists of numerous other musical genres have articles here at Wikipedia). I would not treat another editor here in such a way. Badagnani 05:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of martyrs[edit]

unmaintainable, potential POV-war flamebait. The truth is, while many of the people on this list could be seen as martyrs, many may disagree with that. It also invites vast controversy (9/11 hijackers - terrorists or martyrs?), as well as possible loss of control by people adding pop-culture "martyrs" (Tupac Shakur, et al). み使い Mitsukai 02:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list is not consistent with the traditional view of martyrdom and is totally POV. Capitalistroadster 04:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High potential for flamewar, per nom. There are already names listed who do not meet the Merriam-Webster definition of 'martyr' (for instance, Matthew Shephard died neither "voluntarily" nor "for the sake of priciple"), unless you use definition three which defines 'martyr' as a synonym of 'victim', in which case,... just delete this list as inherently POV. --CrypticBacon 04:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an actual list of martyrs would be useful, but that's not what this is. A martyr is a person who willingly dies for a cause. Most of these people were assassinated. --djrobgordon 04:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A martyr is whatever a martyr is defined as being, to risk being circular. The page doesn't define martyr. Not sure about this one, but leaning towards delete as NPOV. Schizombie 05:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list will be perpetually incomplete even if it grows to enormous lengths as the categories are too general and tend towards POV. One person's martyr is another's terrorist, so WP:NPOV violations are inevitable. Could see an argument for splitting the list in to seperate articles such as 'list of Christian martyrs', 'list of Muslim martyrs' an giving strict criteria for inclusion so as to reduce possibility for NPOV bias. (aeropagitica) 07:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-ish Needs total reorganization based upon the existance of multiple sences of martyr. It should consist of a short list of real martyrs, with possibly an even shorter list of famous ones first, followed by a much longer list of notable people who have been refered to as martyrs. JeffBurdges 16:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even as a rather apolitical person who hasn't even heard of 1/3 of the people on the list, I can see myself taking issue with about 5 of people there. (There are also several notable omissions). The crux of the issue is of course the fact that there are variable definitions of who is and isn't a martyr. This makes the page a NPOV violation and a massive flame war and vandalism target. --Bachrach44 18:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, CrypticBacon, and Bachrach44. I expect that maintaining this list and keeping it up to encyclopedic standards would be difficult, to say the least. Also, no way to keep it NPOV, given disagreements as regards qualifications for martyrdom. ergot 18:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Isotope23 18:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only use I see is to have it as honeypot for warriors. Pavel Vozenilek 21:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no objective criteria for inclusion/exclusion. Carlossuarez46 22:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Krash (Talk) 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the real martyr here would be whichever poor editor tried to maintain this list ;x . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Alpha269 17:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, the list will perpetually remain incomplete.--Dwaipayanc 05:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, protect and block perpetrator. The only good thing is that we have been free of this for three months and they will eventually run out of variant titles. See Special:Whatlinkshere/St. Noels Parish Hall for the background. -- RHaworth 03:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Noel's Parish Hall[edit]

Delete. No context. Personal references. Wickethewok 02:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)WickeThEwok[reply]

Delete. Does not establish notability. A Google search reveals very little. Cnwb 03:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom (Talk) 03:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob P Secrest[edit]

Non-notable and possibly autobiographical. 523 google hits, a number of which are for an unrelated college football player. There's no corroboration for the Zero Wing story DMG413 02:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Nobody[edit]

Non-notable musician. Prod tag removed by User:69.164.231.195 with the edit summary "Just because he is an underground musician doesn't make him unnotable" Cnwb 03:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC --light darkness^(talk) 03:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Guess who made the article. --SYCTHOS ^talk 04:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comments from lightdarkness. (aeropagitica) 07:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But failing WP:V, WP:RS, WP:MUSIC does, sadly. Del. —Encephalon 08:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hes a nobody - lol. Defunkier 13:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But there's Nobody to delete, so we can't delete this! Let's try anyway. Delete. JIP | Talk 13:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --Bachrach44 18:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Detroit has a completely kick ass noise rock scene but unfortunately Mike doesn't have enough WP:V info out there to meet WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 19:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:MUSIC and insert requisite "nobody" joke here. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a nobody afterall --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn -- Alpha269 17:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico Avenue (Washington, D.C.)[edit]

Non notable small road Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oddly humorous, but not notable. CrypticBacon 04:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no notability asserted, or that I'm aware of. Expect a lot more of these stemming from recently-kept red link farm List of state-named roadways in Washington, D.C.. ×Meegs 10:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn small road. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We seem to be keeping all roads - from Ohio Drive to Kentucky State Highway 2259. Why should we single this one out for a higher sandard of notability? --Bachrach44 18:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability asserted Dlyons493 Talk 18:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Bachrach44. If Kentucky State Highway 2259 is noteable, so is this. If every train station is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, then we can hold on to Puerto Rico Avenue. NoIdeaNick 22:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment state routes get kept, this normally don't --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bachrach44 and NoIdeaNick Keep Eivind 06:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The roads named after states and territories form a small set of "notable" roads. This one in itself is rather "non-notable" except for its presence in the set. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SPUI, likely to be searched for, no reason to disappoint. Kappa 04:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn -- Alpha269 17:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was given a speedy injection of admin deleting medicine for vanity, recreation of previously deleted material, etc. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Picnic[edit]

Non-notable band Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Recreation of deleted content, CSD G4! --light darkness^(talk) 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete qualifies under db-band. -- JLaTondre 03:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Per Speedy criteria A7. Cnwb 03:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable band. --InShaneee 04:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skex[edit]

Delete. The said band is not notable. Unlike most music vanity articles, though, the band likely exists. La Pizza11 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - CSD A7 - nn-club --light darkness^(talk) 03:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrance O'Sullivan[edit]

delete not notable enough Mayumashu 03:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the last sentence indicates a vanity article. --djrobgordon 04:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless unverifiable. Listing by multiple independent sources as leading figure in his profession ought to be sufficient to demonstrate notability. Article certainly asserts notability. So fix it. Monicasdude 04:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for vanity and notability. Leroy Jenkins 07:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it seems that the man is at least somewhat well known in the area in which he works. Certainly could use some work, but very salvagable. TheConsortium 08:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity and nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unremarkable vanity. -- Krash (Talk) 01:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only if verified / cleaned up. If it comes back to AfD in a few months, delete. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete nn Brcreel 04:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a copyvio (actually I can't believe no one checked this) from [7] with about 3 words changed and a sense of humour inserted. Unfortunately we didn't catch it quickly enough to WP:SPEEDY it away. Cursive 23:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn -- Alpha269 17:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:The Epopt; list at DRV if this is a problem. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JT Woodruff[edit]

already speedy deleted twice, extremely short nn-musician-- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This musician is apparently notable and the speedy deleters seemed to be a little quick on the trigger finger. Please check out Hawthorne Heights and this Google search. In the future, I suggest administrators do a little research when a claim of notability is made in the article, even if it is a stub. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A notable band does not a notable musician make, hence why there's so little to say in this article. For the most part, especially for newer bands, anything that needs to be said about them can be said on their band's page. --InShaneee 03:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see the logic in this. There are many musicians who are notable simply because they are in a band. In fact, that is one of the best ways to become famous: start a famous band. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is very true. However, I don't think this guy is one of those people. I've heard of Guns 'N Roses, and I've heard of Slash and Axel Rose. I've heard of Hawthorne Hights, but I couldn't name a single member, and I think as of now (aside from the band's hardcore following), that's pretty typical (for reasons enunciated by the voter below, most likely). --InShaneee 04:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not because the musician isn't notable, but becuase he hasn't had a career independent of Hawthorne Heights, and I therefor find it doubtful there's anything to put here that isn't already in that article. --djrobgordon 04:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hawthorne Heights unless he does something of note outside the band. His credits on Allmusic.com shows that he hasn't done much outside the band [8] and the current article is a substub. However, he is a person who is likely to have people search for information on so we should have him as a redirect. Capitalistroadster 04:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JHMM13. Subject notable, article needs work. So fix it. Monicasdude 04:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Burke[edit]

Delete This 15 year old chap is apparently "famous" for his language abilities and the revolution he caused in Russia in 2006. Did I miss that? Avalon 03:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably a hoax. --djrobgordon 04:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are some Google hits for "Danny Burke" Russia revolution but nothing verifying this. [9]. Google News is totally unaware of it [10]. Capitalistroadster 04:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely hoax; even if it is real, he hardly seems notable per WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. There was a similar article up for AfD recently that made similar claims regarding Zimbabwe. MLA 10:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxiest hoax that ever hoaxed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor attempt at a hoax. ergot 18:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very poor attempt at a hoax, apparently by someone who believes Russia is still a communist country. Fan1967 19:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just plain Crap. --Z.Spy 00:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Complete bollocks. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Eivind 06:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dekete as per above. Hoax --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete this one it because it is a hoax Yuckfoo 00:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax -- Alpha269 17:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 05:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koizumi family[edit]

Vanity Page Bladeswin 03:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's not a vanity page, as most of the people listed have legitimate articles of their own. --djrobgordon 04:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. This article is legitimate and functionally no different than one on the Bush family, save for length.--み使い Mitsukai 05:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per above Jcuk 10:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Junichiro Koizumi, where it can bloom into its own article or wither away. Ewlyahoocom 18:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. I just tried to format it better, but wasn't really happy with the results so I'll let someone ellse do it. -- Krash (Talk) 01:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not vanity. Legitimate topic for article. Fg2 03:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Ewlyahoocom. Harr o5 22:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this is a legitimate topic Yuckfoo 00:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Scranchuse 21:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't merge. Kappa 04:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henley and Thames[edit]

Non-notable; a hoax, perhaps. Poorly written, no refs. +sj + 04:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense and I'm not going to assume good faith here as the references suggest it's someone who thinks they're clever/funny because of the university they attend and the sporting club they're a member of. The made up in school one day guidelines need to cover university/college students explicitly. MLA 10:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense and hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{hoax}} Channel 5 didn't exist in 1986! (aeropagitica) 17:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as {{hoax}} per above.--み使い Mitsukai 19:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. name is possibly usable as a redirect to Henley-on-Thames. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn -- Alpha269 17:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 16:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agnostic Pedestrian[edit]

Previously prodded. Delete as a nn-club. Or possible hoax. No significant ghits. ---J.Smith 04:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverified and not notable regardless. CrypticBacon 04:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 05:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and CrypticBacon. Schizombie 05:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so very non-notable. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn, or hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and everybody else. GRuban 14:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 20:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this clearly looks like a hoax--Khalid hassani 15:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax or non-notable Jfiling 20:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alpha269 17:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Town Meeting Season in Merrimack, New Hampshire[edit]

This article can never become anything more than a stub on a non-notable town meeting. Non-notable in its own right. Ral315 (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ral315 (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Ral has a vendetta against me, so he takes it out on articles I have to do with. This is an annual town election, just like any other, the winners of it will become notable, why not the election they're involved with. Karmafist 04:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No vendetta here. But it's a non-notable article. I could write a similar article about thousands of cities across the world, and I feel that the subject is non-notable, and can't be expanded beyond a basic voter's guide (and, after the election, a news article reporting the results). I find your assumption of bad faith here disturbing. Ral315 (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What I find disturbing is that you don't write a similiar article about the thousands of elections occuring like this across the world instead of just blithely slapping a tag on it despite the fact that you likely don't care either way. Karmafist 05:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I do care. I would have nominated this whether it was you, or an IP. I would not write such articles, because I know they don't fit notability. My city of 75,000 people, and the neighboring city of 200,000 people, don't even have articles on their respective mayors- not because they couldn't be written, but because they're not automatically encyclopedic. Ral315 (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's where we disagree. Anyone elected to any public position is notable, as well as elections that elect them. I've put a transwiki to Wikibooks already, just as a backup in case this afd continues the way it's going. Karmafist 06:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Delete. Dogcatcher is an elected office in some localities[11] -- should we also include those elections? Ewlyahoocom 14:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable Merrimackcruft. Would be appropriate for Wikimerrimack if there were one; Karmafist should make that part of the platform! ~~But good luck in the election!~~ (Stricken in light of recent comments.) Schizombie 05:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's alright, i'm a darkhorse in any case. But if caring for my town and trying to help its voters get some NPOV and V information costs me the luck of someone, I'm willing to accept that. I'm sorry i've offended you, that was not my intent. Karm a fist 13:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smalltownelectioncruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. CrypticBacon 05:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The winner of the elections will not automatically become notable. The method of city government is worth a mention on the town's article. Discussion of the elections for a particular year is probably of interest to residents but not many others. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from WP:BIO

Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage. The question is, what is "significant"? I can almost guarantee 4-6 local papers will be covering the results, along with possibly a few radio stations and WMUR. Is that significant enough? Karm a fist 06:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to say no. Significant, as I interpret it, refers either to national coverage, or extensive regional coverage (i.e. days of coverage at the state level). Ral315 (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a community noticeboard. --Carnildo 06:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local politics, not encyclopædic in scope & an expectation of notability for candidates is not the same as notability itself. (aeropagitica) 07:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I dont know much about american politics. Would the winner of the election be equivalent to a British MP, or more like a Councillor Jcuk 11:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, a councillor. Ral315 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic. Hello, we are an encyclopedia, not some notice board. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as legitimate background information of a Wikipedia user. Unless the town gets significant media attention (as the school board did a while back IIRC), it is not notable. NoSeptember ^talk 13:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete who cares! Guys running shouldnt create stuff even if its not an ad for them. Defunkier 13:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability outside the locality of Merrimack, New Hampshire.--Isotope23 15:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was elected a student council representative in 6th grade, where's my article? But this isn't even an article, it's an indiscriminate collection of junk that's being defended. Grandmasterka 17:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per NoSeptember. youngamerican (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We keep this up and eventually we're going to have to keep track of articles on Congressional and Parliamentary elections and...oh, wait. We already do. My bad.--み使い Mitsukai 19:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unimportant as written. Perhaps a rewrite and rename could create a meaningful article on something to the effect of government affairs in Merrimack for 2006, but even that's dubious . Cool3 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local politics, local political meetings, local political clubs, local schools, local churches, are not inherently notable. Carlossuarez46 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not userfy. What's next? The minutes of my mother's TOPS meeting this morning? User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: individual sittings of a town meeting are not inherently notable. Jonathunder 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Scm83x ^talk 11:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Badgerpatrol 14:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
De-freakin'-lete. C'mon Kf, you've gotta have better things to do with your time here on WP than this or, maybe not. hydnjo talk 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Alpha269 17:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Votes by users with no previous edits were disregarded. Postdlf 00:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Control Monger[edit]

Non-notable. GameSpot, GameSpy and IGN show nothing on this game. It seems the game hasn't even been out for very long, as the article was previously deleted in December, when the game was "coming soon". Drat (Talk) 04:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure how to use this as Ive never used Wikipedia to contribute, but Id say to keep this listing. From what I have seen, it is the same as many other created games which seem to be on here. Some of which are less known, but have never been brought up on this issue. An example that came to mind was Blade Mistress, a rather simplistic FREE multiplayer game. Considering it is a free game, this entry has grown over time thanks to the players of the game.

Cheza 21:43 CST March 05, 2006

- That other "less worthy" articles are still here is not really a good reason to keep this one, but rather suggests that perhaps those other articles shouldn't be here either.) —Wrathchild ^(talk) 13:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I get 25,000 hits on Google for the game, including reviews on quite a few game sites. Is there Wikipedia consensus that GameSpot, GameSpy and IGN are somehow "the places" that determine a game's notability? GRuban 15:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. A freeware independently produced video game is very rarely notable. Most of the hits I see for it are for download sites which list just about anything anyone uploads to them. Same with the review sites; they'll review anything. Doesn't mean anyone actually plays it. http://gameinfo.wikicities.com/ might be interested in it though. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This game does not appear to pass WP:SOFTWARE. If we could find some sources that prove its notability, I would be more than willing to change my mind. Isopropyl 20:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Alliance Video Game[edit]

Delete. All information actually contained under more accurate name of X-Wing Alliance Thefourdotelipsis 05:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and blank the text as it is less informative than X-Wing Alliance. (aeropagitica) 07:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 11:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 01:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic negotiation[edit]

An earlier deletion vote resulted in no consensus; all three 'keep' votes hinged on a rewrite. Over a year later, no improvement has been made; it's still a circular definition with questionable usefulness. Deltabeignet 05:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending the lack of a complete overhaul with sources cited. I'm not claiming this is original research, but it kind of gives that impression. If it really is a notable topic, someone will come along and recreate it anyway. CrypticBacon 05:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks of sources. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I disagree. Electronic negotiation (sometimes called automated negotiation) is a very hot research topic at the moment in the Artificial Intelligence, electronic commerce and multi-agent systems research communities. I promise I will personally try to rewrite it. The truth is that I need to delete a lot of the existing text for the result to make any sense at all. Of course, you will do as you please, but in my opinion deleting the whole entry would surely be wrong. User:Papertiger
- comment the above editor has 4 edits, all involving this article, its AFD or its prior AFD. RJFJR 20:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to respond to this comment: I have edited many more Wikipedia pages, but without having an account (so I was logged by IP). In general, I prefer to edit pages where a lot of specialised info already exists and I can use my expertise to build on that (e.g. the Game Theory site). Electronic negotiation really requires complete clean-up: I simply hesistate undertaking this task (I assure you I have an expertise in scientific paper writing, but anonymous writing is not my thing, usually). I could look at it when I have time, but no promises. Papertiger

Weak keep I see potential for the article but it needs work. I added an econ-stub and tech-stub tag and did a little clean up. Not really in my area of expertise to add material. Question: is there an article we could redirect to? RJFJR 20:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable topic, the stub tags will help to get it cleaned up, also hopefully it can be de-orphaned. Kappa 04:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarzreich[edit]

Originally a {{prod}} candidate. This band seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Claims a discography, but also admits "currently recording its first professional demo." Wikimirrors aside, most search results are about other people with the name. Delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think their existing albums are self-made. Most of the google results are either bulletin board fare or brief mentions in articles about their ex-guitarrist's church burning. He might be notable, but the band is not. ×Meegs 10:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 19:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They meet the following Criterea

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

They are the most prominent Chaos Metal band in Victoria

Has won or placed in a major music competition.

The Push Start Battle of the Bands is the largest Battle of the Bands for Amaetuers in Australia. They came second in their heat

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)

They have performed on Channel 31, a Public Access Television show — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.159.4.4 (talk • contribs)

Comment; the key point of that last one being "a work of media that is notable," which, by definition, public access shows do not. ergot 00:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. ergot 00:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most prominant Victorian band in a NN genre, appears to have come in second in a Battle of the Bands qualifying round and not moved on, played on public access. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC to me. - Rynne 02:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nahilism[edit]

this is a great article and i believe that it does not need to be deleated!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.229.143 (talk • contribs) If this page needs to be verified, I can do this as I personally have heard of these people. It is just a new craze that the kids are creating as a way of distancing themselves from both parents, as well as their own peers. I do not see it as going very far as they think that religion is something that they can just create. I rank this up there with Scientology.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.229.143 (talk • contribs) Was de-prod-ed, original proposed deletion was {{prod|complete bollocks}} Blue520 06:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Posible Hoax, Has Verifiability problems (dosn't meet WP:V) --Blue520 06:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User:141.150.229.143 please add your comments to the bottom of the discusion. Unless replying to posters comment, then it should go below that comment. Also please sign any recommendation or comment you add, by adding this at the end: ~~~~ --Blue520 16:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable unverifiable religion, and original research too. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Adrian as that's a nice, non-biting way to describe this article MLA 10:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per original research, unverifiable and most probaly a hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Adrian Lamo.--Isotope23 15:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable, possible hoax. "Similar to Hinduism and Catholicism"??? Fan1967 16:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a friend in high school who made up a religion too. WP:NFT. --Bachrach44 18:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the above admission, "It is just a new craze that the kids are creating," WP:NFT applies. Or blank and redirect as a misspelling of nihilism... --Kinu ^t/_c 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Remaly[edit]

Zero Google hits, apparent hoax. -- Curps 06:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:V as hoax. Schizombie 07:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reasons above. Can find no other info on this name. TheConsortium 08:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. With a history like that, you'd think the Web would be full of pages on him and his organizations. GRuban 15:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Adbarnhart 19:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. PJM 19:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This name sounds familiar, for some reason. Anyone check to see if this has been AFD'd before?--み使い Mitsukai 19:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete funny but still a hoax

71.162.176.52 02:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Globlogization[edit]

Delete as neologism. Peter Grey 06:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:WINAD Schizombie 07:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nnneo. CrypticBacon 07:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as protologism that probably won't catch on. Try saying it out loud... --Kinu ^t/_c 07:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism --Bachrach44 18:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WINAD --MaNeMeBasat 15:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Metal[edit]

Delete, apparent hoax, not referenced by any other page Kymacpherson 07:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A neologism (see WP:NEO) verging towards a protologism, noted by the "i completely made this up off of the top of my head, sounded good at the time" addition by the article creator Sorm Metal 000. --Blue520 09:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsnese, hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above MLA 14:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and redirect to Metal Storm. People transpose words when searching, so this can easily be used to point a legitimate article.--み使い Mitsukai 01:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So stupid it made me laugh. Sending to BJAODN. dbtfz ^talk 03:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Grove Fire Department[edit]

Non-notable institution. (I would like to add that for a first-time user/editor, this is a very nice looking article.) CrypticBacon 07:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fire department is a pretty important institution in a town, and probably as notable as any school. But this town is pretty small. Also, I don't think we need detailed info on the numbering of the fire engines. Trim and merge with Villa Grove, Illinois. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to delete after I saw that the contributor wants this copyrighted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think fire stations are as notable as schools. I don't happen to think schools are that notable and fire stations rank below them - I can't see police stations as being notable for the same reasons. MLA 10:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn fire station. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. At the bottom, it says "Copyright 2006 Chris Elston", which either means this is pasted from somewhere or the author doesn't understand the GFDL. Delete for that reason, but I do think fire departments are generally notable (better candidates for sections in their town article than having their own articles though). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio or otherwise abused copyright. ergot 20:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local politics, local political meetings, local political clubs, local schools, local churches, and now local fire departments are not inherently notable. Those who favor inclusion of every one-room-schoolhouse can start to see the fruits of their inclusiveness. Carlossuarez46 22:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emblements[edit]

Moved to Wiktionary. emblement Gandalf 07:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is on the List of legal topics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification/E2, no point turning it back into a red link. Kappa 04:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has potential to be much larger, expansion into historical implementation would add much to article. Wangfoo 23:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Despite the less-than-stellar arguments for deletion, it turns out to be a copyvio, so ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmos Kambers[edit]

Delete - no evidence of notability of this person Xorkl000 08:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this ones a gem "He was one of the founding fathers of our association" - obviously the author does not have enough distance from the organisation. --Xorkl000 08:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 05:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starbridge Networks[edit]

Non-notable corporation under WP:CORP -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, nn company. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn company MLA 15:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable corporation. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion by author request. enochlau (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Destruction Tutorial[edit]

Delete. I as the origional author have realised that this tutorial page shouldn't be on the main wikipedia, another user also pointed this out to me and suggested that I look at moving it to wikibooks, which I did. I beleive it should be deleted because it was a tutorial and didn't fit the wiki guidelines to be on the main page. - Faded_Mantis 09:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy no real content plus author's request MLA 15:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, please, per nom. GRuban 15:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. per nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Well, that much is super-duper-clear. We must merge! And merge right now!! But nobody seems to know where to merge it to, so I'll just leave it as-is until someone bothers to come along and fix it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rastafarian movement in america[edit]

Was proposed for deletion at WP:PROP, original contributor has removed the template, so I am bringing it here for consensus. It appears to be a personal essay as it stands, but if someone can salvage the content should it be renamed to Rastafarian movement in the United States, or perhaps even merged with another appropriate article? RobertG ♬ talk 10:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Merge, clearly don't delete. GRuban 15:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into several existing articles, assuming it's not a copyvio. Grandmasterka 17:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed, FWIW. Delete unless cleaned up and verified or merge if someone can appropriately tackle that task. -- Krash (Talk) 01:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kazy Brown[edit]

Was proposed for deletion at WP:PROP. Template was removed, but article makes no case for why subject is notable. RobertG ♬ talk 10:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn MLA 13:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Webzine writer, works for a music marketing website with alexa rank way past 2 million. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, vanity. GRuban 15:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn and boring - Pdean 15:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 17:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (see also WP:SNOW). Friday (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Submission Bar[edit]

Reference to a month old forum -- Koffieyahoo 10:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn forum vanity MLA 10:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete forum vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as forum vanity. JIP | Talk 13:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn-freeforum --light darkness^(talk) 14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN forum, doesn't even have its own domain yet Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. KnowledgeOfSelf 11:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl-Emil Kjellstrand[edit]

Only contains an e-mail address Evadb 10:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy no real content MLA 10:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed Evadb 10:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: {{db-empty}}, and thus tagged. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Heavens and New Earth[edit]

Seems to self-promotion of the editor's own book. Nothing new that is not covered in Christianity Evadb 10:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanity ad. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity soapbox. -- Krash (Talk) 01:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity and POV. Nothing that isn't said better elsewhere. Fan1967 01:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RAAF No. 3 Operational Training Unit[edit]

Uncessesary redirect spoiling the Category:RAAF squadrons naming conventions. Entry was created as the result of a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Dowling (talk • contribs) 2006-03-02 02:54:14

You can nominate redirects for deletion at WP:RFD, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (like this:~~~~), and you can delete this much more easily by just tagging it with {{db-author}} for speedy deletion under CSD/G7. Thanks for taking the time to improve Wikipedia, and for cleaning up after yourself too! : )

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Greer[edit]

Delete as non-notable vanity article(Author has confessed it as vanity article in talk page) under WP:BIO -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:BIO. PJM 13:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable political candidate MLA 15:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. pm_shef 16:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN candidate. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 16:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and note that the Vaughan contingent may attempt to sway this as precedent for keeping unelected municipal candidates there too. Bearcat 17:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect redirect to Toronto municipal election 2006--Eyeonvaughan 05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom (Talk) 13:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mad-Studios[edit]

Non-notable web forum / online fiction writers' club with "over 50 members". Weregerbil 11:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as db-club, and tagged thusly. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll need to reread WP:CSD, wasn't aware there was such a thing as db-club. Thanks! Weregerbil 12:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Adrian. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 a painfully obvious Speedy A7. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BDD Clan[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was non-notable, advert. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn clan vanity MLA 13:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity clan, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "clanity" or advert. PJM 13:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a gaming clan. Duh. JIP | Talk 13:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn-clan posting for recruiting purposes? Delete regardless. --light darkness^(talk) 14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable group. Gaming clans are almost always non-notable. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You can pretty safely drop the "almost" there. They'd have to evoke a national scandal of some sort to become notable. JIP | Talk 17:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as yet another case of clancruft. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable online gaming group. Long non-notable articles are still non-notable. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chomskybot[edit]

Vanity IMHO. 130.126.220.138 18:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. I'd not be strongly opposed to a delete MLA 15:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Completely frivolous nomination; article is not vanity. This is a decent article about reasonably well-known, well-documented script that has been around for over a decade, and widely adapted to other purposes. This article has been here for nearly three years—would it be too much to ask for reasons for deletion a little more compelling than "Vanity IMHO"? · rodii · 19:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rodii. Also because the term gets >15,000 Google hits, and there's no evidence the article was a vanity. --Aaron 20:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. I was pretty skeptical, but after visiting the FAQ linked from the article, it sounds like the program has a minor following. At first, this appears to fail WP:SOFTWARE, but it has been ported by someone other than the author. This chunk of code should probably be categorized as a "phrase generator", of which there are many examples that generate phrases in many fashions, such as creating Shakespeare insults. Perhaps a separate article called "phrase generator" could be made, and this page could be merged into it. Isopropyl 20:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Racks up the Google results but has anyone ever written anything about it that's not in a blog or forum? Cleanup the page a bit (the example runs long, certain links seem unencyclopedic). The article is certainly lots of things, but definitely not vanity IMHO. -- Krash (Talk) 01:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as admitted WP:POINT, probable WP:SNOW; nominator states "this article does not deserve to be deleted" — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Gay[edit]

Due to the deletion of Hawkins, who is an Australian rules footballer that hasn't yet been drafted, I thought it would be a case of double standards that an as yet undrafted NBA player hasn't been deleted. R o gerthat ^Talk 10:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it deserves to be deleted on its own mate. Gay is a prominent college basketball player himself, and if guys like him are getting deleted purely because they're not a 'big name' guy yet, it does nothing but outline the apparent rubbish standards of this site.

Same goes for young Hawkins. Boomtish 10:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this article does not deserve to be deleted, but hopefully it will raise awareness of the Tom Hawkins debacle. See Talk on WikiProject AFL. R o gerthat ^Talk 10:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, guys, this isn't cool. Trying to make a point by listing an unrelated article for deletion is just throwing a grenade into a room. Don't do this.--Mike Selinker 15:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't great, but Speedy Keep, nominated in bad faith. -Colin Kimbrell 16:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as WP:POINT-violating nomination. Would be a keep regardless. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Developers programming language[edit]

Delete. Simple clone of Brainfuck (essentially just replacing the way the symbols are interpreted), no citations, no categorizations, nothing, possibly made up just for Wikipedia, thus possibly counts as original research. Also it's not funny. // Gargaj 13:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable original research. Would add "unfunny" but that's not really a reason for deletion. Weregerbil 13:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 13:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pathetically unfunny joke on the Brainfuck programming language. JIP | Talk 14:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as failing WP:V and possibly WP:OR. Turnstep 16:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unfunny duplicate page. ;-) Silensor 21:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfunny. Pavel Vozenilek 21:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. - Sikon 13:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Esolang-cruft. —Ruud 05:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 01:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demilich (band)[edit]

This page was previously deleted and has since been recreated, possibly in multiple locations (see [12]). I tagged it for speedy deletion under CSD:G4 (reposting previously deleted material) and CSD:A7 (article about a band not asserting the band's notability). This has been disputed by Johnson542 and additionally, I suspect the material is not a verbatim copy of the previously deleted material anyway. Delete, possibly speedy, per WP:MUSIC. See the article's talk page for further information. Stifle 13:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Keep, and thanks for the improvements. Stifle 18:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: This is reposted deleted material from a unanimous proper Afd and should have gone through WP:DRV. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the first AFD is moot. It made the common mistake of thinking that "two full length" albums on a major label is *the* standard of WP:MUSIC. That's actually just one of many criteria, that are allowed, and not the most relevant in this case. The AFD completely ignored the fact the band's music was used by another notable band. There was *no* discussion of what writing about the band existed (it's ok to reject some writing as trivial, but the AFD did not discuss the matter at all). Now, I fully understand the reason for original deletion. The article was horribly incomplete. But the fact an article was incomplete, doesn't mean it should never be completed. --Rob 17:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can't say I agree with this. It's not a nom.'s responsibility to scour the Internet trying to find reasons to keep it. That's the author's job. The article looked like garbage and it was deleted. Unanimously I might add - meaning even the author didn't bother trying to save it. Go ahead and keep it now - I wouldn't have even nominated it the way it currently is - but don't blame me for getting it deleted it in the first place. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as CSD A7. --Terence Ong 13:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Can you elaborate? +Johnson542 00:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have recently become aware that the page was listed on WP:DRV here, after it had been recreated. I'm not sure where to go with this, as I don't believe in venue shopping. Stifle 15:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is the place to come if something exists and may qualify for deletion under the deletion policy. Unlike Deletion Review, which has some kind of numerical voting system, AfD operates by rough consensus. --Tony Sidaway 16:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I haven't followed the saga of this article's previous deletion, but I have a large metal collection which does include this album. The band was notorious in the 90s for having a vocal delivery style unlike any of its peers. Googling for "demilich" and "vocals" returns a lot of other album reviews that make reference to demilich, like these [13] [14]. Also note the band's page on the German wikipedia (link just added) Kymacpherson 15:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NON-NOTABLE BAND J.J.Sagnella 16:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Can you elaborate? +Johnson542 00:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has one released album (first released 1993 on Necropolis Records, rereleased 1996 on Repulse Records, rereleased again on Century Media, 2005). This obviously isn't a garage band, and the frequent rereleases, particularly the latest one on Century Media, who also signed Blind Guardian, Cryptopsy, Iced Earth, Nightwish and Lacuna Coil, confirm the band's cult status. Is currently signed to Morbid Thoughts Records, toured in the fall, and has a new album due for release this year, so I don't see how removing this verifiable information would improve Wikipedia's music coverage. --Tony Sidaway 16:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kymacpherson. Kappa 16:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per all above Jcuk 16:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC (separately these points are week, but together they're good enough):
- "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above." - A song of theirs was covered by Fleshcrawl [15]
- "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture."
- "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in verifiable media." - Links in the article --Rob 17:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and per reasons at DRV. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's verifiable, and they even come reasonably close to meeting WP:MUSIC. This isn't just some garage band. Friday (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The original AFD nominator didn't show a complete grasp of WP:NMG by stating that a band should have 2 albums on a major label to pass. That's obviously not the case. The indy release and re-release, with another en route, plus the tour + press, is enough to squeak in. PJM 19:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They've got a few U.S. shows scheduled, which for them is international, which makes them notable by WP:MUSIC.
Strong Keep. The page was deleted in the past without weighing the evidence. It falls under the many of the requirements for non-mainstream music (note that a band is NOT required to have two albums, as stated by wknight94 in previous deletion, this is just one possible criteria for notability. The band does not even fall under this category. see WP:MUSIC. Band notability has been proven in the talk page for the demilich band site. +Johnson542 22:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kymacpherson. Dysfunktion 22:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the record, my original nom. didn't say two albums are "required" - it said that two albums is the standard. While the article is a vast improvement over what it was, I still maintain that if we had an article for every death metal band with a single album from a label that was so shaky that it went out of business, we'd be flooded with them. I have relatives who would have an outside shot... —Wknight94 (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Good question. How many of them do we have about which a verifiable article can be written? If there are 10,000 such, let's start to worry when we have 10,001 such articles. But I strongly suspect that bands of this kind of pedigree are much thinner on the ground. In fact, looking at our category "Heavy metal musical groups", we seem to have barely 200, which is laughable. We really shouldn't be deleting articles about those that we have. --Tony Sidaway 00:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Yes, 200 is very few. And Demilich have done more than release one album; they are currently on an international tour. (not to mention the fact that their one album has been rereleased on two major record labels). Is this enough consensus to keep the page?
    - Comment: As long as the articles are halfway decent ones (like this one has become), I agree with Tony Sidaway completely. But, perusing the http://www.metal-archives.com database, I could certainly live without quite a few of those. Like do we need seven articles to cover each of the death metal bands called "Cremation"? Or five articles to cover the "Crematorium"s? Anyway, this isn't the place for this discussion - I just wanted to make it clear that I do have a decent grasp of WP:BAND and the previous article for this band was definitely nowhere near it. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. So can I remove the deletion header on the page? Are you revoking your deletion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnson542 (talk • contribs) .
        Just leave it there. Eventually, an admin will remove it. Also, this AFD doesn't "belong" to one person, so it's not as simple as one person ending it. There's three people who still indicated they want a delete. Anyway, the decision to do an early close is best left to an uninvolved party. The best thing you can do, is add as much relevant sources and information to the article. The only reason this was deleted in the first place, is that it was never completed. You can avoid future problems (like future deletion nominations) by completing the article. --Rob 02:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Per Rob and Tony Sidaway. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – March 3, 2006, 01:11 (UTC)
Keep.[16] Get rid of the reviews maybe. -- Krash (Talk) 01:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Original deletion was really out-of-process; two-album rule is sufficient, but not necessary, condition for notability, and it's certainly not a standard to be accepted with Blind Faith. Monicasdude 02:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Out-of-process" meaning what? Were the three steps of Afd not followed correctly? Was it closed prematurely? Which part of the process was not followed? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I feel the need to point out that Blind Faith was all notable prior to becoming Blind Faith. -- Krash (Talk) 20:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - He was just pointing out that the 2 album rule doesn't always apply. +Johnson542 00:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Tony Sidaway. -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 03:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balga Bogans Cricket Club[edit]

Non-notable sporting club. Three months old. Was prod'd, tag removed with comment "KEEP THE SITE! IT IS THE BEST" in Talk. Weregerbil 13:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn sports club. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, includes text written in first-person voice. Oh, and non notable sports club. JIP | Talk 14:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A7. I don't even see an assertion of notability. "It all started one evening at Steve's place" does not count. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Per the "laughable list" comments, however, I will be moving the article to Political parties in Turkmenistan. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of political parties in Turkmenistan[edit]

Delete. Turmenistan is a single-party state. You can't have a list of one thing. We can recreate it when freedom and democracy come to Turkmenistan. —Felix the Cassowary | toːk 13:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom MLA 14:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though I appreciate the irony. Changing to Abstain per Crypticfirefly, below. If there are others, they should be documented somewhere, though even a list of two or three items isn't a very good "list" as such. "Lists" are usually 10 or more, no? Anyway, I don't know enough about the issue. GRuban 15:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is user trying to make a point? Grandmasterka 16:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Isotope23 18:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Comment~~ Keep There was an opposition group called Unity (Agzybirlik) - banned in January 1990. Members formed the Party for Democratic Development - banned in 1991. This led a coalition called Conference (Gengesh), for democratic reform. So I think there's some scope for an article. Dlyons493 Talk 18:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment the title is misleading though - this seems to have been created as an article about political parties rather than as a list. Dlyons493 Talk
As Dlyons493 said there were political parties (or groups) and they surely exists in underground. The article should be labeled as stub, incomplete, whatever until someone will add the details. This article could also cover period of Czarist Russia and the chaos after WWI. Pavel Vozenilek 21:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does seem laughable to have a list of one thing. But I vote "keep" based on Dlyons493's comment and Pavel Vozenilek's observation. This one party is surely verifiable, the topic is "encyclopedic," and other information can be added. Crypticfirefly 05:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not a vote! That goes for Kappa below, too ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant it in a figurative sense. Crypticfirefly 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of a series which should cover every country in the world. Piccadilly 17:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons above. Scranchuse 21:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Kappa

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperconnectia[edit]

11 google hits. Word made up in a blog. Article promotes creator's book. Joelito 13:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising vanity, we don't need neologisms here. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Terence Ong MLA 15:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. David | Talk 14:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity[edit]

Unverifiable, hoax Renegade Master 14:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep bad faith nomination. Thatcher131 14:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This article is an utter joke!!! And I'm Jason Gastrich! --Renegade Master 14:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. David | Talk 14:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal (band)[edit]

Spam, blatant promotion Renegade Master 14:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. David | Talk 14:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Blair[edit]

Non-notable biography Renegade Master 14:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Focus (spirituality)[edit]

Confusing page, original to anonymous editor, tagged for cleanup since July 2005, no changes since that time Ewlyahoocom 14:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 15:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ought to be relevant to various New Age articles. JeffBurdges 17:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's relevant to one New Age article is grossly wrong in another. Vague, badly-written defitinition of a word which may mean any number of different things. Define as needed within particular articles. Fan1967 19:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verified. -- Krash (Talk) 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yaplock[edit]

Tagged for speedy as non-notable software, which is not a CSD criterion. Bringing here instead. Just zis Guy you know? 14:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn software. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 05:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 G4. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BOCTAOE[edit]

neologism, deleted before [17] -- Koffieyahoo 14:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - CSD G4, Recreation of speedy material. Regardless it's neologism. --light darkness^(talk) 19:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G4.--み使い Mitsukai 20:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G4 and lock the page. --Aaron 20:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G4 and protect --Krashlandon (e) 21:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, tagged. Kusma (討論) 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 01:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

squidoo[edit]

This spammer is a failed attempt to be the one millionth article, 1 Mar 2006 Deletesquidoo 15:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I remember back in July 2001 this little website with only 3,000 articles. It was struggling along, and it looked like tho project might die out soon. Eventually a user named Larry Sanger wrote an article an tried to get it published on Kuro5hin.org, a popular technology site of the day. Many users thought that this article was spam since Wikipedia had only been around a few months and was clearly using K5's reach to promote itself. Some of us thought it was a cool idea anyway that few people had heard of, and thought it had the potential to become something big. So we let it post to the front page. Then a few days later it got linked to by Slashdot, and suddenly the project was picking up steam.

Keep, its very good entry

Wikipedia has received hundreds of millions of dollars of free "advertising." I've spent more hours promoting Wikipedia than you will ever know. I've been a Wikipedia user since July 2001, when the above K5 article was published, and I created my first article on February 22nd, 2002. I know the rules. I also know what spam is and isn't.

The site is notable. The site has thousands of users, many of whom are experts in their fields. It is a novel solution to the problem of search. The site itself was conceived by a best selling author, and one of its advisors is on the board of ICANN. Currently while the site does generate money from adsense and Amazon referral links, it donates 100% of that money to charity, which it will continue to do throughout the next few months that it is in beta. Alex Krupp 15:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment: It was 6,000 articles on Wikipedia in July 2001 according to the kuro5hin.org article. Rmhermen 19:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a sufficiently notable website. Given the username of the nominator, I have to question whether this nomination was made in good faith. -Colin Kimbrell 15:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, this AFD nomination was the nominator's first edit.[18] I think a sock check might be in order. -Colin Kimbrell 15:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Who cares if it is a commercial website? The article is true, verifiable, and referenced. The website is notable. What is the problem? Paul^C/_T+ 16:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - it appears the only reason that this was nominated for deletion is that it is the 1000001th article. Nominated by a user with no edit history at that. If my high school, and a scotish train station get articles, there is no reason for this one to not stay --T-rex 16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment er, how could an article created Oct 10th 2005 be a candidate for the one millionth article. Not a very strong case for an AfD.--Isotope23 16:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was previously deleted as being spam and not notable, look at the difference from October to yesterday's version. Paul^C/_T+ 16:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it was.--Isotope23 16:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmm, there is a source, that's better than most website articles. Withdrawing my vote and comments. Friday (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an informational entry and seems perfectly valid to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec McEnemin (talk • contribs)

Keep. Notable website with an Alexa rank of 3,625, which is very high for a website launched only 6 months ago. It's been written about in CNN and The Washington Post. Angela . 22:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator has an interesting username. --Ixfd64 01:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per alexa rank and multiple media coverage. Also I believe this is the real millionth article since the supposed 999,999th was deleted. Kappa 03:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SourceryForge[edit]

I brought this up at WP:DRV. It was previously closed as a "no consensus", but it seems to fall far short of WP:WEB guidelines. No sources, alexa rank over 1 million, nothing to indicate significance. The original closer said he has no objection to calling this a "delete" or relisting. I figured I'd relist it just to make sure everything's fair and visible. Most people said "delete" in the last Afd. The reasons given for keeping were "pending further disscussion" and "fun name". A few months have gone by, so there's been time to discuss or improve the article, but it hasn't changed. Unless there's something extraordinary about this website to make us disregard WP:V and WP:WEB, I'd say it has to go. Friday (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good article on this unique wiki. It may not be "extraodinary", but as far as I'm concerned that is not a requirement for wikipedia. As per my previous vote, I say it should stay. -- JJay 16:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to document the internet as it happens. The net itself does this, and Wikipedia is not google. Is there something particular about this website that makes you feel it should have an encyclopedia article, or is it just that it exists? Friday (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It sometimes provides information on topics of interest in one place. Google is a search engine. It sometimes helps people find web pages that exist on the internet. Many topics covered here are covered elsewhere on the internet in much greater depth. Nevertheless, in my opinion, that is not a reason or even a valid argument for deciding what articles are included here. Things are happening all the time. That may be reflected by google, yahoo, jeeves, it certainly does not preclude encyclopedic coverage of a unique wiki by a collaborative community of editors. -- JJay 17:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We only want extrodinary websites on wikipedia as stated in WP:WEB, it is a requirement. Mike _{(T C)} 18:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a guideline. -- JJay 19:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very low Alexa ranking, and not very likely to be improved. While theoretically we could write something about everything, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and at some point we have to draw the line. That line eventually evolved into the WP:WEB guideline, and this article does not meet it. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 17:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly which part of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information does this violate? -- JJay 18:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That we do not need to have a page about every single website out there, and where to stop has been determined through discussion and consensus in the establishment of each notability guideline. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 18:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of which is listed on the policy page you cited. -- JJay 19:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mike _{(T C)} 18:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page is not notable just because it's a wiki. RasputinAXP c 21:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if there's anything that makes this notable, it isn't mentioned. Tuf-Kat 21:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:WEB and low Alexa ranking. Metta Bubble 02:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was tardy speedy delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O viata de caine[edit]

Seems non-notable. No assertion of notability. Esprit15d 15:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. + page creator has blanked page.--Blue520 16:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No information on page, {{db-empty}} candidate. (aeropagitica) 17:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of WWE Divas who have posed for Playboy Magazine[edit]

I really don't see the need for such a list when in total, there have only been five spreads with women who were employed by the WWF/E at the time (three have been listed in the article at last check). ErikNY 16:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WWE/playboy cruft, it's not like anybody would come looking for these kind of lists O bli (Talk)^? 16:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to some WWE article, 5 names isn't much to add. JeffBurdges 17:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cruft. Pavel Vozenilek 21:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, We have List_of_people_in_Playboy_1953-1959 and every period since as well. Carlossuarez46 22:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete etc. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThunderSite Web Editor[edit]

notability? Grocer 16:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn-software.--み使い Mitsukai 20:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Grocer 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising non-notable software, WP:SOFTWARE refers. (aeropagitica) 21:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 redirected to Kryptonite. This preserves the history in case anyone wants to look through it. No need for Afd in cases like this in my opinion. Friday (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kryponite[edit]

Misspelling and information already exists on correct page (Kryptonite) User:Firien § 16:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blog-On[edit]

Depending on your outlook, a nn website that fail WP:WEB or a nn corp that fails WP:CORP. Well-crafted spamvertising, though. Delete. RasputinAXP c 16:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam. This user also attempted to add Blog-On to Blog#See also, so seemingly has intent of promoting the website. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert.--Isotope23 18:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable website -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 21:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming the Archetype[edit]

Previously AfD'd here [19]. Contention that they've been on a nationwide tour is not sourced. As far as I can see they don't meet WP:MUSIC. This article is sufficiently different enough that I figured AfD was better than a CSD for page recreation.--Isotope23 16:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MTV.com confirms the tour [20], as does Metal Underground [21]. In terms of Christian Rock, Solid State Records is a significant label, and almost all of their other signed bands have articles. The album is on Amazon [22], and if the number of user reviews are any indication, people are buying it. --djrobgordon 17:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like what Djrobgordon said, the band is on a sufficient enough label that they should be kept on here, especially considering that there are less popular bands that still have pages on here. --AugustWinterman 13:23 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. They pass my test. [23], [24] I do take issue with the vanity photos of a lot of these little nn bands though. -- Krash (Talk) 02:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They're on a popular label, they're not unsigned or indie, and they're reviewed by popular magazines and metal websites

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shira Smiles[edit]

not notable, vanity page Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "In 2005, Shira became the first Jewish woman to post over 200 hours of torah - bible instruction on the net" ... that's, um, persistent, but unverifiable and probably still non-notable. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 02:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was change of venue to WP:TFD — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colombia infobox[edit]

Delete because it was reformatted to the Template:Infobox country standard MJCdetroit 17:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This should be listed on WP:TFD : ) . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've gone ahead and listed this on WP:TFD. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn, Toronto[edit]

Speedy Delete. This page appears to be a complete fabrication. I live in Toronto and came across this by accident. I'd never heard of it, and decided to see if this was just my ignorance or not. An official map of Toronto neighborhoods can be found on the city's website at [25]. Brooklyn is not there. There is another unofficial site with good neighbourhood maps at [26]. Not there either. There is a Brooklyn Avenue in Toronto, but that doesn't qualify as a neighborhood, except possibly to people who live on that street. The page was created by an anonymous user and has had no edits since its creation, a long time ago. Pages like this bring Wikipedia into disrepute and should be deleted without delay. Slowmover 17:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There actually is a Brooklyn not far from Toronto (north of Pickering), but I certainly don't know of one in the Carlton/Sherbourne area as claimed by this article. Maelwys 21:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually a Brooklin. Bearcat 18:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although this article appears to be false, it doesn't meet the criteria for speedy delete as laid out in WP:CSD. Delete according to comments from Toronto residents above. (aeropagitica) 21:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 01:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A psychic power point huh? -- Krash (Talk) 02:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable or non-existent. I've never heard of it and I've worked in Toronto (East York, specifically... although there is also a York, North York, York Region, Yorkville, Yorkdale, York Mills and more York-related names than anyone knows what to do with as Toronto itself was once Muddy York, but no Brooklyn AFAIK). The area near Allan Gardens would be Cabbagetown, IIRC. --carlb 12:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, as somebody who lives more or less at the corner of Wellesley and Sherbourne, I can personally vouch for the fact that there's nothing called "Brooklyn" in the area. There's a St. Jamestown, a Cabbagetown, a Regent Park...and in the fevered minds of real estate agents there's a "Garden District" and a "Winchester Square", but not so they would actually deserve articles of their own. Based on "Originally a controversial area of the city because of problems with drug distribution and prostitution" and "Buildings that were once considered dilapidated are being reimagined and redesigned", I'd hazard a guess that this article is some kind of weird Regent Park parody, but I couldn't swear to that. It's definitely a delete, at any rate. Bearcat 18:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A hoax. Skeezix1000 19:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:Interiot — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Ribeiro[edit]

Delete Non-notable person. La Pizza11 18:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: A8 as copyvio; tagged. This appears to be her standard bio floating around modeling sites. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of titles commonly viewed as cult video games[edit]

A pure POV list. No sourcing given at all. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as well as trying to figure out how some of those games fit the criteria of the page's author. o_O--み使い Mitsukai 20:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aaron 20:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom. --Krashlandon (e) 22:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main article should not have the list on it but people keep adding the list back on, therefore a seperate list was created. However, things become worse because people started to add titles without any discussion. MythSearcher 03:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Would be an interesting topic if anyone could have a good definition of a "cult" video game. (I still play Ultima series, art I cult enough, or just a mainstreamish oldbie? =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lock folder xp[edit]

Delete as Non-notable software. Tone indicates vanity article. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as non-notable software, spamvertising. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable advert -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable ad. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Normally I wouldn't quick-close something I voted in like this, but it's an obvious case and the Afd was disrupted with the notice removed from the article. It's not worth fighting vandalism over this stuff, so I've deleted and closed the Afd. Friday (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I don't want to be the heavy here. If any admin disagrees with this deletion or closure, I invite them to undelete and reopen the Afd to let it run the full course. Friday (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YMBA[edit]

The author of the article rejected speedy, so I'm going to go the slow route. IMO, one single baseball leage for middle schoolers run by a single YMCA in Connecticut is entirely unnotable. The author (who has vandalized in the past and had other NN stuff removed) seems mostly to want a free website provider for the people in his league. --Bachrach44 18:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is not one single league. This happens to be one of the most prestigious leagues in southern connecticut, and it involves thousands of people, so it is a lot more than one single league for middle schoolers. It is one of the towns and counties most prestigious and active leagues. It is notable and should not be marked for deletion. Bobby5689 18:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of verifiability and significance. Friday (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Also, 3rd Boys and 9th Grade Boys redirect to YMBA -- from the article, it appears that each separate league of the Darien, Connecticut YMBA is targeted for article creation. ArglebargleIV 19:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the author can
- supply verifiable sources about the league
- rewrite the article to refer to this notable league, rather than generating a set of unencyclopædic lists of the minutæ of the way one particular branch (or club, or whatever) is organised.

Also, according to the article's talk page the author says It is a brief overview, and details will soon follow, about teams, and other important reminders and or supplemental information.. WP:NOT a free webspace provider. Free Wiki software is available if the author wishes to set up a Wiki to disseminate that sort of information. Tonywalton | Talk 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with all redirects to this page. The thousands of leagues run by YMCA chapters are not inherently notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV article with no citations, references, sources or external links. Subjective POV example; "Doug, Bobby, and Peter are some of the most decorated scorekeepers in the business." WP:NPOV refers. Also WP is not a free webhost. (aeropagitica) 21:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to de-POV it if the author could supply something regarding a centrallly-organised league, if it were notable. Tonywalton | Talk

Delete a highly deletable insignificance -- DV8 2XL 02:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was a clear delete, but I'm baffled as to how it could ever be considered a speedy candidate. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Calibur III (tiers)[edit]

"Subject to debate" indeed. This article cannot hope to be anything but pure opinion, and is completely unsourced. In the unlikely chance that the opinions here could be sourced to noteworthy holders commenting in reliable sources, it would still be game-guide-style how-to despite the lack of imperative tone and thus inappropriate to Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "The tier rankings for Soul Calibur III are subject to debate." Blatantly POV. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Certainly no reason for this to be here. -Zero^Talk 19:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. While they may be debated upon, tiers in fighting games are generally agreed upon and held as fact. -Spiffy42 20:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And they are appropriate to Wikipedia and not instructive game-guide material, how? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pure Opinion. This is not factual at all. If anything, It's misleading. Delete it. - User:tog5632
Delete. No context and confusing POV soapbox content fork. Wikipedia is not the place to debate the tier rankings for Soul Calibur III. -- Krash (Talk) 02:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moe (Calvin and Hobbes character)[edit]

Another Calvin and Hobbes stub! Moe is certainly not a notable figure; and besides, there's already information about him in the "Calvin and Hobbes" article.--FelineFanatic13 ^talk

Oooch, that signature! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nn character, and information is available at main article. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom; there's no need for anything more expansive than what's already at the C&H article. Nifboy 15:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Calvin and Hobbes (if there's anything to smerge) and turn this into a redirect. No need for Afd in cases like this. Friday (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge " Thesocialistesq 19:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge per above, with no objection to a redirect. PJM 19:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted by Oscar TheCat in the previous AfD for Susie Derkins, which was also caught up in this family of AfD's, it's an established trend to use satellite articles for secondary cartoon characters when the primary article is too long to plausibly support them. This is the done thing for The Simpsons, Futurama, The Flintstones, Charlie Brown and others, and it's working well enough here. There's no reason to saddle the main article further. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. There is an obvious and widespread precedent to keep articles for individual characters in comics/books/TV shows of similar notability. Moe is notable enough within the comic for his own article (this is pretty well written, too.) Grandmasterka 20:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of those articles that shows it is possible to write a nice-looking encyclopedic summary on a fictional character. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe the article, along with the other Calvin and Hobbes stubs, can be deleted and merged into Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes instead of being kept.--FelineFanatic13^talk
- Comment please, User:FelineFanatic13, no! We've already deleted things likeCategory:Terri Schiavo minor players do we need lists and categories of minor or secondary characters whose only notability is being somehow associated with something that is notable? Please, no! Carlossuarez46 22:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to stop "minor players" creep. Carlossuarez46 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First choice keep, second, smerge into main article. To the best of my knowledge only eight characters are ever named in Calvin and Hobbes cartoons, so we're hardly going to get a flood of articles here (C, H, C's parents, Susie, Miss Wormwood, Moe and the babysitter whose name eludes me at the moment...) Grutness...wha? 00:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalyn. I believe the Principal and the Doctor have names also. Keep by the way. Dsmdgold 02:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a pretty alright article I think, can be considered encyclopedic. :) --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 19:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, recurring character in major cartoon. Kappa

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Derkins (character)[edit]

Yet another another unworthy Calvin and Hobbes stub!--FelineFanatic13 ^talk

Speedy keep The AfD that closed less than a month ago says otherwise. Consensus established this article as notable and inappropriate for deletion or merge. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please double-check things before nominating articles for AfD. You originally nominated a nonexistent title in this AfD, which I've fixed, and the AfD from February was properly referenced on the article talk page. Thanks for working to keep Wikipedia tidy. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per A.L. Grandmasterka 21:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to stop "minor players" creep. Carlossuarez46 22:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 11:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per others. Metamagician3000 11:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion from previous nomination. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 19:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Wormwood[edit]

Surprise, surprise! Yet another another unworthy Calvin and Hobbes stub!!!! This is getting so annoying!--FelineFanatic13 ^talk

Speedy keep -- sufficiently notable, cleanable, and the main article is too long to plausibly merge in any/all of its satellite articles . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It certainly is annoying, isn't it? Several AfDs for notable characters in an undoubtedly notable comic strip? Grandmasterka 21:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grandmasterka CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Meets criteria. --Krashlandon (e) 22:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my previous. Carlossuarez46 22:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'n'clean Eivind 06:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grandmasterka. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 19:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, but no, I'm not going to do it. Anyone who wants a merge can go do the work themselves, thank you very much. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Israelov[edit]

Does every loser (in the proper sense!) on a reality tv show have to have their own article? If info is anywhere, it should stay on the programme's page I am also nominating the following related pages because they also didn't win, and have had their "15 minutes":

Rebecca Jarvis is not nominated, because she seems to have some minor claim to notability as a charity protege. If anyone can advise on whether Chris Valletta's sporting career is notable, please do.

--MacRusgail 19:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into the appropriate Apprentice page unless otherwise notable. No Guru 19:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Apprentice info into that page, if you want. Athletic career is not notable. Mr Frosty 17:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Apprentice. These articles are more useful as part of that - or an Apprentice 4 article. Aep 05:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Association of British Counties[edit]

Ladies and gentlemen, I offer you the Association of British Counties, a pressure group which wants to restore the "historic" counties of Britain such as ~~The Kingdom of Fife~~ Fife. Google finds <1000 hits, of which their website is top and Wikipedia second. Google News finds no hits. I am a Briton with a strong interest in politics and not only have I never heard of them, I had never heard of the much more widely discussed County Watch either, which is probably an indication of just how effective their campaigning has been to date. The fact that Russell Grant is president is probably the most notable thing about them. The chances of their campaign succeeding are this: zero. They are a political King Canute. And one which has achieved, to date, no obvious outside notice. Be quick, the website apparently doesn't usually work after midnight GMT! Just zis Guy you know? 19:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I agree with practically all your comments - it does seem to be a decidedly unsuccessful organisation, and it does hold an unusual and extreme POV. In all likelihood, they will never make a dent on British politics. However, none of these are sufficient causes for deletion! There are many articles on unsuccessful political campaigns, and political campiagns almost by definiton are POV.

As regards notability, I have seen their material quoted fairly widely in the regional media (especially in Saddleworth, one of their favourite battlegrounds). The ABC are also mentioned with amazing frequency on the Talk page of any article referring to the counties of the UK - if nothing else, it's worth keeping just so there's a reference for people reading any of these talk pages.

If you look through the category Lobbying Groups, you could apply your argument to a lot of other such articles - I think it would be unfair to get rid of the article on the British Weights and Measures Association, for example, but it has as much standing as the one in question here.

Overall; let it stand to demonstrate what the organisation is, and why it won't feature too heavily in British politics in the future! Aquilina 19:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your points, but there is a much more significant group, County Watch. This bunch appear to have scored virtually no media attention, membership is "unknown", and there is absolutely no evidence of notability. There are significant lobbying groups on this issue, but this is not one of them. Their website is probably hosted out of somebody's house on an ADSL line. They get fewer oogles than I do - in fact, if this is more than one man and his dog I can't find any evidence to prove it! Just zis Guy you know? 00:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but Strong cleanup if kept. I don't know much about this sort of low-level British politics, but the article's been around for eighteen months now, and while it only has a few hundred Google hits, they seem to come from a relatively diverse and meaningful set of sites (links from the BBC, etc.), so I'm going to be generous and guess they're probably a bit more notable than the web gives them credit for. But the article needs fixing, without question. --Aaron 20:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard of 'em. Jcuk 23:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. I agree with nominator's assessment of this organisation and yes ~~they have a snowball's chance in hell~~ there's effectively zero chance of this organisation's agenda being fulfilled. However, I do not think these points are either necessary or sufficient reasons to delete. The organisation has managed to get mentions on academics' web pages, here for example, was referred to in Hansard, and on the letters page of The Telegraph. Sliggy 00:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... By poking around at the Hansard link I give above I see that they are perhaps more effective than I first thought. The 1994 debate in which the AofBC was mentioned was on a bill, given a first reading in the Commons, that would have put many of this group's ideas into law.... Presumably the bill got spiked later. Sliggy 00:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I checked out the references. They are: an add-it-yourself directory, a letter in the Telegraph, and a namecheck by one MP. There is no dispute that a small movement exists to promote the "historic" counties, but there are other more significant organisations doing this as well. I still cannot find a single reliable secondary source from which to verify the data in this article, and the number of genuinely significant organisations whose website is only available before midnight GMT is vanishingly small. We do not know the membership, we do know that they score zero on Google News and under a thousand Googles. Where is the evidence that this group is of any importance? Just zis Guy you know? 11:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point regarding the lack of reliable secondary sources is important, I think. There is no reason to believe that the bill I uncovered is anything to do with the organisation, it is coincidence until proven otherwise. I've just spent (far too long) trawling through Google hits to try and find a confirmatory, reliable secondary reference for the information in the article. I can't find a single one. So, delete for the reason that the article lacks verifiable sources (specifically not because of its success or lack of it). Sliggy 19:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was beginning to think it was just me. Just zis Guy you know? 19:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm not convinced we violate WP:V either. I quote:

Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source about itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources.

and from [WP:Reliable Sources]:

Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source

and

Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly, or about their viewpoints.

In this article, the only facts we are trying to establish are what this group believes. Whether what they believe is "true" or not is another matter entirely - but their website is a perfect source for details of what they claim to believe in. As long as the information is qualified as per WP:V, it's a verifiable source anyone else can check. If instead we are worried that they do not really believe what they claim to believe, [27] is a good example of the ABC actually "in action"; an offically submitted and published (ie verifiable) document showing how they apply their beliefs to a practical situation.

The job of any wikipedian who contributes to political and historical articles is to produce NPOV articles from POV sources. This can be done; indeed it is the goal of every successful historian.

Further, an article on a lobbying group without a long of Hansard links tells of a group and its lack of success. No article at all would inform nobody of anything. A membership figure would indeed be fantastic to put the "scale"(!) of their activities into context, but its omission is neither sufficient nor necessary for deletion.

I'd also like us to bear in mind that research is not confined to the world wide web, and sources are not confined to Google. If Wikipedia ends up a mere subset of that information which is Googlable, then it will never achieve full potential as a tool of scholarship, and it has acknowledged as much [28]

This is all quite subtle, and mostly very meta. I can't believe how much of my life is going into defending a tinpot organisation with whom I do not agree whatsoever, but the principle, for me, remains. Aquilina 21:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, they have a snow ball chance in hell of succeeding, but the article should be kept for the reasons above. --Bduke 02:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the comment above - one add-it-yourself directory, one namecheck by one MP, one letter in the Telegraph (I've had about thirty published in the national press). Just zis Guy you know? 11:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep they are an umbrella organisation for many other organisations such as Friends of Real Lancashire. They have had plenty of successes such as getting the Royal Mail to add traditional county information to their Postcode Address File; They are constantly involved in government plans for local government reorganisation and ceremonial arrangements; The size of the membership is completely and utterly irrelevant, and the fact that they don't display this information on their web site is of no consequence whatsoever and is probably in line with the Data Protection Act. Comparing ABC with County Watch is laughable. County Watch is a relatively new collection of five or so individuals who hit the headlines by using direct action, whereas the ABC have been around for much longer and are involved in lower-profile government lobbying. Owain (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep An organisation's success does not determine whether it stays or goes. If the facts on the page are accurate, without constantly falling victim to the typical revert-wars, then it deserves to be included MonMan 14:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, great! From which reliable sources can you verify the claims made? While you're about it, it seems relevant to know how many members it has - a figure would be welcome (the fact that no such figure has been provided is the subject of one of those non-existent revert wars on the article). Just zis Guy you know? 19:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What claims? The content of the page describes what the ABC themselves believe. This information is mostly paraphrased from their own site. I don't understand what the problem is here. Owain (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that it is significant, for starters. How many members? What affiliates? I can't find a single reputable secondary source for these things. Actually nothing meeting WP:RS which objectively supports its existence as a group rather than a single person. Just zis Guy you know? 14:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many members? Write to the membership secretary and ask. If you want affiliates then you can ask that too. Off the top of my head, how about: Friends of Real Lancashire, The Huntingdonshire Society, The Yorkshire Ridings Society, Saddleworth White Rose Society, Unite Craven... or perhaps you could just accept that it exists as a legitimate association. Owain (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea - to get over the lack of verifiability from reliable sources, we should do some original research. Why didn't I think of that before? Just zis Guy you know? 11:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be so patronising. Asking the membership secretary for the membership is hardly original research - it's common sense. Just because you can't find the information on the world wide web does not mean it is unavailable. Owain (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable.--Mais oui! 14:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, be honest, just because you don't believe in their policies doesn't make them non-notable. Where is your evidence to support your view? Owain (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above: total absence of any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Just zis Guy you know? 11:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above: mentioned in Parliament. Owain (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the association's issue is a current political issue here in England, with the up-coming local government reforms. David 09:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted by RexNL. -- JLaTondre 23:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Payed[edit]

Very small dictionary definition that has been moved to Wiktionary. Jizz 19:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tagged for speedy, because it's not getting any deletion love here. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 military of Switzerland, with disambig link per George Herbert. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Navy[edit]

Delete. Switzerland has no navy as it landlocked, and the meagre info in the article can be included in the article on the military of Switzerland Thesocialistesq 19:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Merchant Marine of Switzerland, as per Sandstein.Thesocialistesq 03:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need articles on things that don't exist. I've merged the content into military of Switzerland, except for the sentence about the civilian merchants. Recommend replacing Swiss Navy with a redirect to military of Switzerland. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 19:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Samsara. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 20:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, until the sentence about the civilian merchants is merged somewhere; the sheer existence of a merchant navy for a landlocked country is interesting and could be developed; if a new home is found for this information, then ok for Redirect. Schutz 20:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move to Swiss merchant navy (to indicate clearly that we are not talking about a military navy). I was going to suggest to probe Talk:Switzerland for insights about where to put this information, but in the meantime, I have found some information about the topic (see [29]), and I think the existence of a specific article is legitimate. I volunteer to expand it if kept. Schutz 21:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Merchant Marine of Switzerland, as per Sandstein below. Schutz 22:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do per Schultz. At least in one period of a time Swiss merchant marine was the largest among landlocked countries (Czechoslovakia was second). Pavel Vozenilek 21:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is OK with me; I've put the civilian info into the newly-created article Merchant Marine of Switzerland. The Swiss Navy article was originally a rather silly article referring to those motor boats as the Swiss Navy. Not thinking of redirects, I added the civilian fleet part so as not to have to bother with an AfD... But then who knows? A Swiss zeppelin navy may well rule Europe's skies some day! :-) Sandstein 21:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Merchant Marine of Switzerland. The entire content of the navy article, including the info about the army patrol boats could go into that article just as happily as part of the explanation of why the Swiss have no Navy-- one of the cited links about the Swiss flag seems to indicate that there was an issue in maritime law at one time whether a landlocked country could fly its flag on merchant vessels. Crypticfirefly 06:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Military of Switzerland, preferably to the "Naval Patrol" section heading I just added. Navies and merchant marines are two very different things, it is functionally wrong to send a "Navy" redirect to a merchant marine page. Georgewilliamherbert 00:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with George. However, as a possible solution, merge and redirect to "Military of Switzerland", then disambiglink out from the logical location of this merge to "Merchant Marine of Switzerland". -- Saberwyn 03:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Norris Facts[edit]

Keep.It's part of a pop culture phenomena. It may only be a fad, but Chuck Norris Facts have proven to be rather popular among college-age people. Besides, there's unlimited space in the Wikipedia universe; no reason to eliminate this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Chuck Norris Facts have been a continuing phenomina that deserves reference. I would say that by now, the phases have entered a sort of cultural lexicon, and thus, should be given credit where credit is due.

This is already covered in the Chuck Norris page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jontimbo (talk • contribs) 6 March 2006

Just ban the fools who making these Chuck Norris jokes. Common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.76.0.33 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 6 March 2006

PLease keep!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.43.122.76 (talk • contribs) 6 March 2006

Keep If u dont keep chuck norris may just give u a roundhouse kick to the face --ThaWalk--

Keep. Chuck Norris Facts are a big part of internet culture and deserve a seperate inclusion in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.188.39 (talk • contribs) 4 March 2006

Delete, redirect to Chuck Norris. This so-called meme has grown entirely out of hand. Wikipedia is not a place for random memes- this article is not enclyopedic in the least. This should simply redirect to the Chuck Norris page, and leave all prominent iformation there. It is nothing more than a page full of vandalism and unfunny 'facts' as it is. Rimsy 19:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 19:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Rimsy. -Spiffy42 19:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chuck Norris. Chairman S. ^Talk 20:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I originally thought about voting keep for this one, but after going to the subject's entry on the internet phenomenon page, there really isn't anything more to say about this article other than the single sentence. Redirect to internet phenomenon. Isopropyl 20:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One roundhouse kick from Chuck Norris saved a vanispamcruftvertisement article from deletion. Isopropyl 20:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and Merge. The countless examples can be deleted, because they just inspire more people to add their own examples. But some comment on the fad, and Chuck's response to it should be merged into the Chuck Norris page itself. Maelwys 21:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but the phenomenon is real, so it should be mentioned on the Chuck Norris page. Maybe trim and merge would be appropriate, as suggested above. We definitely DON'T want Wikipedia to become a source for new "Chuck Norris facts" or a compendium of them. There's already too much trivia being archived on Wikipedia! This degrades its value as an encyclopedia, IMHO. Slowmover 21:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Feels like kicked out from Uncyclopedia and trying to find home here. Pavel Vozenilek 21:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article clearly establishes notability and media coverage. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chuck Norris and cleanup, removing the unencyclopædic 'facts'. Mention of the phenomenon and Norris' response will be enough to keep this on the level for WP. (aeropagitica) 23:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, make a mention of it on the Chuck Norris page, note that he's acknowledged them. That really dshould be enough. -Rmzy717 AT SCHOOL 01:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chuck Norris, regardless of how popular it might be at some schools or at some places, the random fact generator isn't exclusive towards Chuck Norris. Douglasr007 02:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. -- Krash (Talk) 02:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This absolutely must be kept. One of the best things about wikipedia is it's ability to have current social phenomenon in it's archives. The loss of this article would set a precedent that would in the end do nothing to benefit the stated goal of wikipedia. This does not degrade it's value at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.252.179 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-02 19:05:08 (5th edit)
Keep and Cleanup I think that this article is in need of some cleanup and some wikifying, but it should be kept. Why? Well, it's an internet phenomenon (i see it quite a bit). Wikipedia has articles about other internet phenomenons as well. In fact, that's one of the reasons i really like Wikipedia...you can find stuff here you wouldn't be able to find any where else. I mean, we have articles about Badger badger badger and The End of the World and Peanut Butter Jelly Time and even Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten. I think that as an internet phenomenon, this is as worthy of a place on wikipedia as those other articles! I do agree that it needs some clean up. --Quadraxis 03:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If Chuck Norris wanted an article he would kick everyone at the Jordanhill railway station in the teeth and take the millionth article position. --maclean25 04:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanupThe phemonenon is real (Even I, who normally would frown on such an activity, have submitted "facts." It's an internet meme and so needs to be kept. Or, delete but also delete Badger badger badger and Homestar Runner and All your base are belong to us and The Numa-Numa dance and so on and so forth. --Thenobleageofsteam 8:44, 2 March 2006
Keep. Notable Internet phenomenon, even though it is no "All your base are belong to us." Crypticfirefly 06:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn and annoying fad MLA 09:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current version of the page is OK. Other memes are repertoried on the site, so why couldn't this one? Plus, it grew out beyond the internet, becoming a huge part of popular culture. Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.217.228.187 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Keep it! This has become a huge thing, and isn't Wikipedia supposed to be moving foward, not backwards? Claudius8110
- User's first edit -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 14:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to Chuck NorrisIt's surprising how widespread this is, but should be added to the Chuck Norris page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.43.38.133 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. If there's a section on Vin Diesel facts, this thing should stay. Besides, if we delete it, people will start adding this stuff to the Chuck Norris page again. Samantha17 19:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chuck Norris. I can't believe you want to delete it! In some countries (like Poland) they're extremely popular. In some maybe not, but that's not a reason for deletion. Also, keep at most 2 examples and mercilessly remove any additions by trolls. The roundhouse kick on the laws of physics is a good one. We could add "Chuck Norris has negative pings" (my favorite) for the geeks and keep it that way. Misza13 ^{T C E} 21:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This meme is a real, notable Internet phenomenon. SweetP112 21:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a notable enough internet fad to garner discussion, and merging it into Chuck Norris would open the possibility of cluttering up Norris' page with things that are just barely related to the man himself. --Visual77 22:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a real internet phenomenon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaybenad (talk • contribs) 17:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: isn't this basically the same idea as an Elephant joke? If Elephant jokes get their own page, why not this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.63.100.162 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, don't merge with Chuck Norris. -- Curps 01:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable internet memes, and this even reaches the absurdly strict standards of being mentioned in major media to boot, including Tony Danza's talk show and The Best Damn Sports Show Period. Poor nomination. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 05:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How can you say it's made up in school one day if it circulated on the internet? --Antoshi~! ^{T | C} 10:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup. As far as memes go, this one has made a fairly large splash. But the article is indeed a bit of a mess. It should be kept if someone is willing to go about the business of making it encyclopedic --Yst 12:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is really a big thing outside of Wikipedia. Pepsidrinka 20:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found the article useful. Someone was sending me these Chuck Norris facts one day, and I had no idea why until I found this article. That's one of the things I love about Wikipedia; you can find stuff in it that no one else will take the time to explain. --Alexwagner 20:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems notable enough to me. 22:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge and cleanup per aeropagirica Nick Catalano (Talk) 23:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Contrary to popular belief, it was Chuck Norris, not meteors or climate change, that killed the dinosaurs. --DDerby-(talk) 02:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit down and merge. This page is a mess in its current form, and cannot be expanded on, really. It's also a page that looks like it could attract vandalism, but then again, if this was deleted, it would be some other page that does it. Whatever the case, whichever page it gets merged to should still have the link to the chucknorrisfacts.com. Crazyswordsman 03:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While clearly a fad, the Chuck Norris Facts phenemonon is probably notable enough to merit a page. The article needs some cleanup, though. --Viridian || (Talk) 08:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is clearly it's own internet fad, although the article does need some work. --Askaggs 15:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article reflects a minor internet trend and although not perfect, it is valuable. It should be improved and possibly broadened to reflect other similar trends, but definitely not merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.18 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 6 March 2006
Keep. It's a notable Internet phenomenon that deserves its own article. Imaginaryoctopus^(talk) 02:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable meme. This should be kept separate from Chuck Norris, though this discussion has no bearing on that particular decision. android 79 20:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If "all your base" gets a page, this is certainly worth a page. 67.188.192.110 21:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable Internet phenomenon. --Maxamegalon2000 22:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling a parnham[edit]

Delete. Contested prod. Non-notable Neologism zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dubious neologism, more likely an attack on some acquaintance named Parnham. Fan1967 22:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFT. -- Krash (Talk) 02:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NFT, non-notable unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:Xezbeth as {{db-attack}} — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Ray Olson[edit]

Delete. Google search reveals nothing about Zachary Ray Olson other than the child of the author SilkTork 19:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It's blank now after having the db-attack tag removed. No Guru 19:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I originally marked it as db-attack, which it was. Seems that the original author has since blanked the page. Speedy as attack page or authors request? --light darkness^(talk) 20:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I've tagged it as db-empty and db-attack. I know we usually just pick one, but hey, it's getting deleted either way .. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Per Attack. --Krashlandon (e) 22:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Obviously, I'm discounting the views of the 'puppets. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clock Spider[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This is a non-notable meme that never found its way outside of a few forums. The definition of meme is something that is mimicked and passed along- something Cloxkspider has not been. Rimsy 19:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've never seen a discussion about clocks or spiders that didn't include Clock Spider. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 20:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Funny, I saw a spider peering out from behind my wall clock the other day, not that big, though... --O bli (Talk)^? 20:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hey, if LUEshi can survive 4 attempts at deletion, why should Clock Spider be taken down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patashu (talk • contribs)
- LUEshi is at least still popular on LUE. Clockspider didn't really have the staying power, from what I can see. WarpstarRider 01:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it may not be the most notable meme out there, I still like Clockspider. Still doesn't make it any more encyclopedic... -Rmzy717 AT SCHOOL 01:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, unencyclopedic. -- Krash (Talk) 05:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd like to see this page up, because I study insects as a living, and having seen this, I must say that both my collegues and myself are very interested. -Sincerely, Bugman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.205.223 (talk • contribs)
Keep 12,000 google hits for "clock spider". I wouldn't consider fark, somethingawful, and 4chan "a few forums". This article also correctly identifies the spider as a huntsman spider, which is exactly the reason I came to wikipedia for more information about the thing. This is the purpose of an encyclopedia, folks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.48.87 (talk • contribs)
Keep: Important and humourous meme taken up in large forums such as those described above, and also has its history amidst other phenomenons such as Limecat (which was a very successful meme).
Keep, this meme found it's way into my conciousness and I never vist fark, somethingawful or 4chan. Kappa 03:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an interesting, even if anecdotal entry. It is art in a sense, and deserves its mention. Regardless of whether it may or may not be a good example of a meme, it is definately unusual and noteworthy.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. The discussion is a little light here, but I'm going to delete anyway per WP:SNOW. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naz Burger[edit]

Is this really a famous restaurant ? A google search for Naz Buruger (or Niz burger for that matter doesn't turn up much. The article reads like cross between a hoax and an advertisement. Has anybody ever heard of this restaurant ? No Guru 20:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax or WP:VSCA at best. -- Krash (Talk) 02:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN and VSCA. Eivind 06:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuelle meets Magoo in C-ville[edit]

Improperly handled AFD or PROD, bringing here just in case. Information from {{prod}} tag is as follows:has no sources, not a real movie, likely a hoax/gag み使い Mitsukai 20:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I just removed it from this list as it was PROD, but if we are going AfD, almost certain hoax.--Isotope23 20:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely[30] a[31] hoax [32]. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Films that do not google at all are rarely notable enough even if this is not a hoax. Kusma (討論) 22:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, Emmanuelle, is the lead character in a series of French soft core porn movies of the same name. Title not part of official list. --DV8 2XL 02:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even a funny hoax. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Userfy — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kseferovic[edit]

Unencyclopedic. Apparently, a user's page. Peco 20:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, an admin should move it back to User:Kseferovic (original name) and delist. Just a confusion. Pavel Vozenilek 21:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy -- this began[33] life as a userpage, and to a userpage it shall return. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've moved the content back to user's userpage, and tagged the redirect db-author. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 18:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Robert A. Campbell[edit]

nn bio; Google gets me one hit on the first page regarding someone who may or may not be his father. I'm sure he's a fine man and a man of God, but he's not notable. RasputinAXP c 20:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local churches and their preachers (whatever their titles) are still nn. Carlossuarez46 22:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment still seems odd to me that a church which exists and is verifiable would be less notable than some dumb pokemon character. Jcuk 23:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I take bishops of reasonably sized denominations to be putatively notable, but there's no evidence of non-local relevance here. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a local church preacher, and it strikes me that any clergy person with integrity would be embarrassed at even having such an article. If they aren't embarrassed, that just confirms their non-notable nature. Yes, it's odd, but then dumb pokemon characters don't willingly take on any moral codes. Delete.--KJPurscell 04:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom (Talk) 23:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MC GUNNER (Graal)[edit]

Delete. Clear attack page, user removed quick deletion tag. Wickethewok 21:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...So speedy delete as such. Grandmasterka 21:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete {{db-attack}} candidate. (aeropagitica) 21:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an attack page (WP:CSD A6). Sliggy 23:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was close, with 8 delete and 4 to keep or merge (some doubts here about whether to count Alpha269, a glance over his contributions list shows his account to be created March 6, and edits are exclusively to AFD voting, but I'll count it). Kappa presented some arguments for notability of this particular game, based on the fairly high number of Google hits so I won't delete it here. The suggested merge target is something along the lines of list of flash games. At the moment we don't have such a list, so I will call this a no consensus keep for now, and slap on a merge tag. The article may be renominated if such a list is not forthcoming. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten Cannon[edit]

Delete - Seemingly random and unnotable Flash game - Fuzzie 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's about half a zillion Flash games. If we include this one, where will it end? Bz2 21:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed. There are also a billion games similar to this one.Wickethewok 21:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. --Krashlandon (e) 22:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Won't someone please think of the kittens? :( — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey...it's kinda fun.[34] Delete as non-notable. -- Krash (Talk) 02:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bz2. TheGreatTK 19:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or otherwise redirect, to a list of Flash games describing the basic types. There is a catergory for 'Flash games' already, so why not some sort of article? There is a browser-based games article, but as it stands, it just seems minimal to me. Or perhaps make it an merge it to some article on the game type? It's certainly a common and long-standing archtype. Or redirect to an article on the creators, if they are somehow notable. FrozenPurpleCube 18:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Bz2 pointed out, there are innumerable Flash games. What we need to ascertain is the notability. It is not possible (or recommended) to list all of them. -Ambuj Saxena

This would be why I suggested an article on the archtype, which is a widespread one, though I'm uncertain of what would be a good name. Ballistic-shooting game lacks panache, but it's the best I can come up with. Or on the authors, if they're somehow noteworthy. FrozenPurpleCube 20:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 20:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, flash game with 334,000 google hits. Kappa 03:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Including 666 unique, which is a high number [35] Kappa 03:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I'm kind of reluctant to get rid of this, yet I understand the problems behind having an entry for every flash game. Therefore I propose we merge it into a list of flash games. Babij 07:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Per above. -- Alpha269 00:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 01:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Boyd[edit]

Apparent vanity, please help decide.

Delete. Seems pretty clearly vanity/hoax. Many search results, but it's a common name. I don't think any of them are paticularly notable. :) Superm401 | Talk 04:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only the band getting some Google hits, and the assertion of its importance, keeps this from being a speedy. NatusRoma 04:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the same time, Another Volt should also be deleted for non-notability. Melchoir 05:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahilan[edit]

Delete. Worthless non-information accompanied with definition. Wickethewok 21:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete "Statistics prove..." What statistics, where? {{db-nonsense}} candidate. (aeropagitica) 21:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax / unverifiable and/or original research. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. -- Alpha269 00:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 09:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meditation on the Twin Hearts[edit]

Non-notable. This article was related to the AfD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choa Kok Sui but got overlooked in the process. It is even less notable than the three related articles that have now been deleted as non-notable. Metta Bubble 21:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Metta Bubble 21:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - 127.*.*.1 02:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, nn. -- Alpha269 00:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Polur

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turdilinear Forms[edit]

An architectural movement prodded as hoax, tag removed by creator with no explanation and no references provided. Reprodded as a hoax presumably by someone who didn't check the page history. Moving here as a contested deletion. It doesn't Google, so I'm inclined to think it's a hoax. Unless we get some references, delete. NickelShoe 21:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax and complete bollocks, especially the “Shit Lock Dry Wall” system Fan1967 22:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably a speedy delete as a {{db-nonsense}} candidate. (aeropagitica) 23:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some verification is forthcoming. --Aim Here 23:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or maybe flush would be more appropriate. --E lkman - ^(talk) 03:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Lockley 22:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fan1967 -- Alpha269 00:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Share-aunt[edit]

Delete No google results found for such a phrase Wickethewok 21:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable and/or original research / dictdef / protoneologism . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Garbage. --Krashlandon (e) 22:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kusma (討論) 22:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Adrian. -- Alpha269 00:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~

Kusma (討論) 22:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was change of venue to WP:TFD — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism (disambiguation)[edit]

This disamb page is sort of an anomaly. It never really contained substantial content, and a new page was created to replace it (Terrorist (disambiguation)). It can probably be safely deleted, since nothing links here. Most of the edits to this page are from the sockpuppet of a banned user (User:Lady in Red, User:A bird in the hand, User:Cheese Curd, User:Legal Tender, User:Peter McConaughey are all User:Zephram Stark) so there isn't really any reason to preserve the history. Maybe move the talk page to Talk:Terrorist (disambiguation) (which doesn't yet exit) since there is some discussion that is maybe worth saving. Just wanted to see what others thought about this. JW1805 (Talk) 22:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have put this at Redirects for deletion. I'll go ahead and put it there, and if an admin could speedy delete the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorism (disambiguation) page, that would be great. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was A7 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trollfest[edit]

Delete not notable band. Mahanchian 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tagged Speedy Delete CSD A7 -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Chick Bowen 06:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East_islip_middle_school[edit]

Delete not notable. Mahanchian 22:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. If kept, do not expand with transient and generic information solely for the sake of expansion. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable corporation. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Pepsidrinka 05:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into article on school district or town, as per consensus at WP:SCH on middle schools. If one does not exist, then start it. Proto||type 12:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, capitalise, improve. Piccadilly 17:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. The article is verifiable. However, the name should be capitalized Carioca 20:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carioca. Whilst I don't especially follow AfD, have we not been over and over schools and determined that they should generally be kept. --New Progressive 00:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please schools are important and they are not corporations Yuckfoo 00:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piccadilly. This is a school not a corporation. -- JJay 11:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep or possibly merge per WP:SCH. Kappa 03:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 00:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Proto. It can always be demerged later if it becomes particularly notable in the future. Thryduulf 11:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Canderson7 ^(talk) 22:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Time[edit]

No meaningful content whatsoever. Probably Speedy Delete-able as patent nonsense, but tag is repeatedly removed by authors. Vslashg (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Pure rubbish. But potentially good content for Uncyclopedia if somebody with a sense of humor felt like improving on it. Slowmover 22:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as complete bollocks. Fan1967 22:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G1. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 22:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i say keep it, its funny, and unfortunatly true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.83.134.97 (talk • contribs) 22:49, March 2, 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 delete. There has been too much meatpuppeteering here that I can in good faith count the votes from very new users. From the established users, we have a unanimous delete consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Bambenek (2nd Nomination)[edit]

Second nomination. The prior nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Broken AfD nom by anon,[36] that was ~~incompletely~~ de-listed by an admin. Re-listing. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References: :eWeek [37] PCWorld [38] InfoWorld [39] SearchSecurity [40] Consumer Affairs [41] C-Net [42] State of Oregon [43] his own college [44] Seatlle Times [45] LA Times [46] The NYTimes article [47]

KEEP- He is an influential member of the blogging community. He did excellent work breaking key stories such as the CNN X story in late 2005, working on the image recovery that helped prove it to be a technical glitch. He also does articles that help other bloggers, hundreds at times, write stories. -- RealTeen 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User's first edit --Ragib 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It seems to me that Bambenek has been in the news, and is a member of the media.--KenderTWA 23:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User's first edit --Ragib 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- He's a writer and highly respected IT professional that is very well-known in several technical and literary circles. There's no reason to delete him at all. There are far more articles that are much more deserving of deletion. Kit Jarrell 02:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly odd; this is this user's twenty-first edit; he's made four edits to articles, and has only made one other edit (last December) since 02:56, 27 August 2005 [48].--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Well known in technical/security circles ... definitely a keeper! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trejrco (talk • contribs)
User's third edit. --Ragib 03:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. First, this is a renomination from less than 3 months ago, nothing has changed except perhaps even more notable has been achieved by the subject being in the New York Times and other newspapers. Lexis-Nexis showed he's been quoted also in the LA Times and he shows up in dozens of articles. The opinions above that we should make exceptions to what normally constitute notablity notwithstanding, it's clear he is notable. The irony of citing that his blog is ranking at or near the top 100 of 23 some odd million blogs is thick. Second, this was created by an anon and is clearly a bad faith nomination as noted above by someone who was barely familiar enough with the process to even start it correctly. This article stood on its own two feet a few months ago, nothing has changed. -- 130.126.139.14 18:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: user's 6th edit, of which four relate to this article. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a vanity page. Why does he have his own page? What has he done? What is he famous for?12.221.103.5 22:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's 19th edit. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This local [person] should not be mentioned at wikipedia. -- 130.126.146.103 23:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC) (personal attacks removed)[reply]
User's only edit. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, this guy is in my department... [personal attacks removed]... doesn't deserve to be on wikipedia. -- 130.126.139.129 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's 4th edit. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. [personal attacks removed] -- 130.126.146.169 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's only edit. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy is .... on campus. While that makes him unique, it is because most people [don't] believe his politics. He shouldn't be given the time of day. -- 130.126.147.85 00:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (personal attacks removed)[reply]
User's only edit. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per previous AfD, possible attack nom (but WP:AGF), and 'cause anons don't generally get to nominate things for AfD. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with 12.221.103.5. I've previous argued against including John Bambenek on the List of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign people. I repeat the argument here.

I don't think he's notable because:

his publications do not qualify him because (according to his resume) for all but two of them, he was only a contributor. This hardly qualifies him as a notable academic (yet).
his blog does not qualify him because it's not notable enough [49] (yet).
and writing for the college newspaper does not qualify.

There are also all the arguments made in the first AfD. Notably, John Bambenek himself has done much of the early editing on the page and the person that created the page is someone from Champaign, IL (maybe even Bambenek?).

He has mentioned that he has been quoted in the New York Times as a security expert. Granted, but there isn't enough notability to qualify his inclusion.

People have previously accused me of bias. See my counter. Superdosh 06:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Superdosh. Jbamb is a valuable editor but I don't see anything that makes him notable by Wikipedia standards. Even if the incredible undocumented claim that during the first year after his graduation from college in 2001 "he led several development teams and became the resident expert in information security and Sun Microsystems products" at Ernst & Young (now Capgemini, which employs over 61,000 people) is true, that doesn't make him notable. This is a personal vanity article and should be deleted. Whether the new users are sock puppets or not is irrelevant; the article cannot stand on its own feet. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. He is a columnist in a local college newspaper for which the editor-in-chief didn't even warrant an article until a recent scandal. His blog receives few comments, suggesting few readers. The first publication for which he is listed as a "contributor" [50] has roughly a hundred similar contributors. Of the first six other contributors from that list (William Ahern, Jared Allison, Dan Astoorian, Corey Badeaux, Carmen Banks, and Marion Bates), none have Wikipedia entries. eaolson 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His most notable merits for inclusion are his work in information security. To put his accomplishments in perspective, an average PhD graduate in computer science may write dozens of papers for peer-reviewed conferences and journals over their lifetime and have hundreds of references to their work from other scholarly works (a measure of impact). John's publications do not appear to be peer-reviewed, do not appear to be scholarly in nature, and do not appear to have a high level of impact. So his accomplishments are less than that of the average PhD graduate and unless half the PhD graduates should have entries, I don't see why John should have one. 67.171.73.202 06:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. The above was this users 7th contribution, all related to removing John Bambenek from articles and all at the same time this morning. Possible sock puppet. -- 12.203.38.138 15:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, cant verify references. Mike _{(T C)} 01:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh he's notable, he's notable on campus... He features prominently in the Daily Illini's decision to run the Danish cartoons. He should... not rewarded with a wikipedia article. -- 130.126.130.101 02:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC) [personal attacks removed][reply]
User's 3rd edit. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, in Ed Psy 430 a professor talked about this column and how his illustration of a donkey was meant to convey that all black people are jackasses... -- 130.126.147.166 02:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC) [personal attacks removed][reply]
User's only edit. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. and STOP ANONS FROM DELETING VOTES!!! Non-notable. Vanity page. I've had to re-add my vote here after an anon deleted a whole bunch of votes and discussion here. Peace. Metta Bubble 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. In the interest of disclosure, it should be noted that I've removed several personal attacks from this page [51]. — Mar. 6, '06 [11:31] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
Delete. per Superdosh and others. -Will Beback 18:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am satified with the notability here. -- Alpha269 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This editor's account was about 10 hours old at the time of this edit. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Comment: I'll not vote for or against this, but why do all these users crop up to vote keep (their first, or among 2/3 edits), whenever this is put on an afd? A m:checkuser seems to be needed to root out the hoard of socks. No, I'm not accusing anyone, but the three votes I marked are quite suspect (and the accounts created after the afd listing are invalid anyway). Thanks. --Ragib 04:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: One could say the same about new/anon users creating AFD's in the first place. I encourage a checkuser just to end any suspicion on this matter that there is a vast John Bambenek sockpuppet conspiracy as I tire of the charge. -- Jbamb 04:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: No, John, I wasn't accusing you. The whole thing with anon users' doing fly-by tagging, afd listing is quite frustrating. This afd listing, in the first place, was inappropriately made by the anon. There is also the possiblity of "straw man sockpuppets". So, whoever ends up closing this afd, needs to disregard the single-edit user's, voting either for or against the afd, as clearly most of these users are socks. Thanks. --Ragib 04:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: If you aren't accusing me then who exactly does these supposed socks belong to? This isn't the first time I've been accused of this crap, I'm not calling you out per se, I just want a sysop to do the math here and put the issue to bed so people stop accusing me of running this article. That's all. --Jbamb 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment:Again, I am *not* accusing you in any way. (replied in your talk page on that). The 3 users I marked are so clearly made up, that I somewhat think those votes are here for the opposite affect ... to make "Keep" votes look dubious. I don't have any reason to say you are running this article. The afd was inappropriately listed by an anon (from Champaign... surprise!!!), and many of the pro/against votes are motivated by personal agenda rather than the merit of the article/subject. Afd's should be taken objectively rather than personal issues. The afd listing itself shows a personal bias rather than a good faith nomination in part of the anon. --Ragib 04:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With regards to the New York Times article, here is another New York Times front page article on computer security (specifically wi-fi security) from March 5, 2006. They've quoted security experts from router-maker Belkin (Johnathan Bettino), tomshardware.com (Humphrey Cheung), ABI Research (Mike Wolf) and Symantec (David Cole). Not a single one of these people has a Wikipedia page (nor does anyone at all mentioned in the article). This is just to point out the fallacious argument that being in a front page article in the New York Times implies notability. -- Superdosh 17:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know this is one of my first drafts, but I have used and edited on Wikipedia anonymously for quite a while. I actually didn't know registration had any benefits until recently. If you need to see some things I have done, I edited some parts of the entry on the ACLU, under the ACLU's Critics, and I did some editing on Scott Fuller, who is someone I talk to on a regular basis.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RealTeen (talk • contribs)
- - Note: User's 5th edit (all 5 to this afd page). --Ragib 18:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You are welcome to refute my argument. The reality is that John Bambenek is not a famous person (like Ludacris, Roger Ebert, etc) nor does he have the accomplishments of an olympic medalist (Bonnie Blair) to warrant being listed along with those famous people in the Champaign-Urbana Metro entry. He is not famous in Champaign-Urbana nor nationally. The fact that he has a couple fans running around adding his names to lists he isn't qualified for is pathetic. Again, I challenge you to refute my argument. What is his major contribution? What peer-reviewed conferences and journals contain this contribution? How does this contribution make him any more notable than the hundreds of other PhDs from UIUC with vastly superior vitaes full of peer-reviewed publications? 67.171.73.202 17:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Your argument needs no refutation because you are an anon attacker. However, plenty of people who aren't olympic medalists have bios. It's clear from your comments you have an axe to grind. The original anon poster was upset at a column he wrote last week, even Adrian recognized this is an attack afd. If he has enough visibility that whenever he writes a controversial column people try to delete his bio, it's clear he has more influence than people are giving him credit for. -- 130.126.147.87 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment To quote John from the discussion page- "It amuses me that this nomination was filed the very same week I was in a front page article in the New York Times. On second thought, maybe that does mean I have no credibility..." -- RealTeen 16:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that John has linked directly to this page from his blog [52] and that the vote may consequentially be biased by participation from his readership. If you look at timestamps, it appears most of the "keeps" come within a few hours after his blog post. Will everyone with a blog and a 10 person fan club get a wikipedia page? 67.171.73.202 19:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. The above has been contributed by a user who has no contributions to wikipedia except to remove this article. Another anon participant with an attack afd. -- 130.126.147.87 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Bambenek was also mentioned in the Jackson Clarion-Ledger today. [53]. -- 12.203.38.138 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Note He's been reference in eWeek [54], PcWorld [55], InfoWorld [56], SearchSecurity [57], Consumer Affairs [58], C-Net [59], and Answers.com lists him as a notable information security professional. He was referenced by the State of Oregon for his knowledge [60], and his own college points out his notability [61]. For his coverage on Hurricane Katrina, he was quoted in both the Seatlle Times [62], and the LA Times [63]. The NYTimes article was reproduced in dozens of papers around the world. Laslty, according to Lexis-Nexis, about a dozen of his articles were syndicated across the wire service. The threshold for notability seems much higher in this case then in many many others. -- 12.203.38.138 22:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that answers.com is a wikipedia mirror? Anyway, this AfD is so much full of anon's on both sides, I think it would be necessary to discard votes from anons, as well as accounts created after this AfD listing, or with less than 100 edits. --Ragib 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-comment. This discussion is growing increasingly heated. I would just like to gently remind everyone to assume good faith and to refrain from making personal attacks. Accusations of bias really don't help forward the discussion. eaolson 21:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just wanted to point out that 130.126.x.x anons are all coming from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign campus. --Ragib 01:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about References I looked through the refs, and they are articles written by someone else who quotes this guy. Dosen't assert nobality. Mike _{(T C)} 04:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ISBN Request: This is a request that the ISBN numbers of any material claimed to have been published in book form be listed here so that authorship can be verified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.73.202 (talk • contribs) .

ISBN Numbers- Oracle Security Step-by-Step (Pete Finnigan, ; ISBN: 0974372749; Paperback; 2004-04), Securing Windows 2000 Step by Step (Jeff Shawgo, ; ISBN: 0967299292; Paperback; 2001-07-01) were the only two I could find with an ISBN search. As reference, he isn't listed as editor but contributor for those books. You can view a couple of them at [64]. As reference, you can find copies of the books online to verify he is listed as a contributor for them here and here. -- 12.203.38.138 04:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. This is the most acrominous AfD I've seen in a long time. It includes sysops deleting user comments [65]. It demonstrates a complete lack of following the process. There is a crtieria for Second Nominations, this doesn't meet it. This was started by an anon unfamiliar with wikipedia because they didn't even add the AfD right, this never made the WP:PROD process, and no discussion or debate was attempted before dumping this 2nd nom in. After seeing this level of sockpuppetry, I decided to take a look in depth on this one. There seems to be two criteria of notability that is claimed here. First is as an information security professional, second is as a blogger/columnist.

In general, this user has over [66] 277 unique Google mentions, almost a hundred more than the last time and more than most articles that do get to stay. He is mentioned in dozens of news articles which is amazingly dismissed out of hand. Since when does being in a front page article in the New York Times not mean anything? In many cases, that is ipso facto proof of notability and that ends the discussion. Why are the criteria being thrown out just to vote delete?

In information security, his material that he has authored does certainly seem to meet the WP:BIO criteria of 5,000 or more readers. Some mention that he doesn't have much in peer review journals, but any research that is notable enough for the New York Times certainly bypasses that threshold. Not all research in journals makes it into the mainstream media, research that does, especially if it makes the New York Times and international papers, most certainly is notable by any definition of that word. If 5000 people is the criteria, why is a readership in the millions being discarded out of hand?

In blogging, his comments have appeared in the LA Times and Seattle Times. Any blogger mentioned in the mainstream media is pretty much considered notable. In fact Wikipedia:Notability (websites) states that multiple non-trivial media mentions is enough to establish notability. That threshold has been more than crossed here. His blog is ranked #104 in the Truth Laid Bear system out of 51,578 blogs (top .2%) [67]. Technorati ranks him at 1008/29.9 Million [68] (top .003%). He is an apparent right-winger that has enough visibility that he was mentioned and criticized by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee [69]. His political opponents, the Democratic Party, see him as notable enough to respond to. His paper, an independent and self-financed corporation has a circulation of 20,000 [70]. He is a featured writer on Blogcritics and stoptheaclu.com which both have readerships above 50,000 a day. The 5000 person threshold is more than crossed here.

It seems that some of the votes here are not considerations of the content but those who want to vote no for the sake of voting no. This process has been horribly abused in this case and will likely, instead of reach any consensus, land this in Deletion Review. The criteria for notability has been more than crossed by any objective standard. This AfD shouldn't even be considered because it is a sham 2nd nom, independent of that, the 1st AfD came to the right conclusion. The criteria and process exists to prevent circuses like this from taking place that shamefully include sysops deleting supporting comments. That process and the criteria should be followed. This article should stay. -- 130.126.139.14 00:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to comments becausen not only is this a new user ("I've seen in a long time"!), but it's the second vote from this IP address. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics of fake vs genuine contributions
Intended as an aid to the closing admin. This isn't a vote, so the simple numbers are not the point; nevertheless:

Keep
- Definitely genuine: 0
- Fake or dubious: 7
Delete
- Definitely genuine: 6
- Fake or dubious: 9

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oi vey! *Insert sound of trout hitting Mel's head* What 'cha think you're doing? And that was a really lame disclaimer, too. "Nevertheless" it is interesting to see very new contributors taking part in both sides of a debate.
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 12:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"[V]ery new contributors"? Euphemism of the week? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More like euphemism of the weak, although that's redunadant and repetitive. But if we assume this is more than one person and think of these as potential "converts" I'll wear the shame of using insipid language.
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 03:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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), although I note that nobody mentioned that the article contains hardly anything else than the lyrics. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five_little_speckled_frogs[edit]

Delete not notable song. Mahanchian 22:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep famous nursery rhyme. 16,000 Google hits even with quotes around it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dsmdgold 02:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes it's verifiable. But how/why is it notable or important enough to warrant an article? Contains no content other than the rhyme (unencyclopedic). -- Krash (Talk) 02:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But I can't make sense of the notability other nursery Rhymes we have here. Froggy would a-wooing go gets 307 google matches and we have an article for it, while There Was An Old Lady Who Swallowed A Fly has 47,600 google matches and we don't have an article for it. Can someone comment on what criteria is being used on the Nursery rhyme page? Metta Bubble 02:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, established nursery rhyme. Kappa 03:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wikipedia is not a mere collection of public domain or other source material." -- Krash (Talk) 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn -- Alpha269 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snookies[edit]

Delete - Advertisement --mtz206 22:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable corporation / advertising . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable. Advert. -- Krash (Talk) 03:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Alpha269 00:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cristy's Cake Shop[edit]

This AfD was accidentally orphaned, but I believe the AfD is justified. The article is spam and the cake shop makes no assertion that it meets WP:CORP. Vslashg (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they make very good cakes, but Delete as obvious ad for nn bakery. Fan1967 22:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CORP violation. No claims as to notability for one small American bakery. Information to the contrary welcomed. (aeropagitica) 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable corporation. Also, what kind of bakery doesn't carry pie? I like pie :/ . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable. Advert. -- Krash (Talk) 03:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ad. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad. -- Alpha269 00:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promedia Advertising Ltd[edit]

blatant advertising (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 17:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable corporation. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad. -- Alpha269 00:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tzhaar Monsters[edit]

Details about some RuneScape monsters and their drops. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Delete Kusma (討論) 22:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just going too far in what is an article, Delete J.J.Sagnella 08:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Merge anything useful to RuneScape. -- Alpha269 00:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Bobet 18:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chisholm Trail Junior High[edit]

Non-notable middle school. We don't need an article on every middle school in America. Cool3 22:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable corporation. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep, schools notable by consensus. Monicasdude 23:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. If kept, do not expand with transient and generic information for the sake of expansion. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the small amount that could be said about the school would be better placed on a page about its district. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to school district article, as per consensus on WP:SCH. High schools are notable by consensus. Middle schools are to be merged to the district, unless they have significant and verifiable information that makes them unique. And don't say all middle schools are unique, because by encyclopaedic standards, they are not. Proto||type 12:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless it is a hoax. Scranchuse 21:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, or possibly merge per WP:SCH. Kappa 03:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If not deleted, do not keep but Merge per Proto. Vegaswikian 07:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Like with any school, there is a lot more that could be said about Chisholm Trail. I also agree "we don't need an article on every middle school in America". We need an article on every middle school in the world. Let's make wikipedia the most comprehesive site that has ever existed since the dawn of mankind. -- JJay 09:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article meets the core standards of NPOV and verifiability. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 19:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparatus Dysfunctional Grudge[edit]

Delete. No such thing. Not mentioned in discussions of OCD. See [71] [Forgot to sign this post. ]Slowmover 18:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax. -- Alpha269 00:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion as author test. enochlau (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big noses[edit]

Delete. Not quite original research, but if the topic is legitimate, it belongs under the appropriate subjects, such as the sections suggested by the author. As proposed, the page is poised somewhere between a joke and a research topic for the author. Slowmover 23:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Slowmover.La Pizza11 23:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neither original, nor research. Not interesting and no value. Pavel Vozenilek 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My granddad had one of those. Halitosis too. Delete as original research cum joke. -- Krash (Talk) 03:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: G2. The author says on the talk page: "A sandbox wasn't enough... I want to see what Wikipedians do with something like this." Sounds like a test page to me. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Boy is Mine (2x Platinum)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sleaze bag[edit]

Delete This page is unencyclopedic. Could be moved to Wiktionary, but the definition is false La Pizza11 23:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LaPizza11 SailorfromNH 23:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dictdef with little or no encyclopedic potential . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. --djrobgordon 01:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; slang dict def. --Muchness 03:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang guide. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, but I'm re-listing Jesseca Turner just to be sure. — Mar. 9, '06 [03:43] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Lorrie Stewart[edit]

Non-notable, onetime Playboy online model with no other credits, inexplicably stayed over a week on {prod} without being deleted, now challenged. Delete. Monicasdude 23:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, all on {prod} for more than a week before challenged; all are also onetime Playboy online models with no outside credits:

Jesseca Turner
Stephenie Flickinger
Hailey Meyers
Sylvia Vargova
Delete them all for being non-notable biographies, unless WP has to have a page for every Playboy centrefold there ever was. WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We had another of these last week, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Marie that was deleted. Creator User:Bubbaspuds has created an entry for every Playboy Cyber Girl of the week. It's fine if someone wants to list them, but they don't need individual pages unless they have some other notability. Most of the models' articles are barely stubs. Fan1967 01:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 02:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jesseca Turner - abstain on the rest: That one has a whole bunch of other credits listed. I could be talked out of this one though if someone has more knowledge about what those credits are but, if she's been in magazines that many times, that seems notable. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At best Merge/Redirect to Cyber Girl of the Week. We can probably drive up a bulldozer and merge in nearly every page linked off Cyber Girl of the Week, of which there are vast multitudes. ;-) — RJH 17:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, therefore keep. - Bobet 18:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lighthouse Boys[edit]

autobiographical, questionable notability Grocer 23:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CSD A7.La Pizza11 23:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They appear to have toured the West Coast, but nowhere else. I can't find the label anywhere, and there's no evidence to support the claim of significant radio play. --djrobgordon 01:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Grocer 18:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thirty-year career, at least a half-dozen albums, Google search indicates notability in low-profile field. And there is evidence of national touring, an alternative notability criterion [72]. This isn't a genre that's even close to adequately documented on the web. Monicasdude 19:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above user. Deckiller 20:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A bunch of guys making religious music - and lots of albums including a compilation - for thirty years... Leave them alone and go after all the snot-nosed teenagers who sneak myspace articles on here about their death metal bands that are oh-so-cool. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Providence Country Day School

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

The result of the debate was Delete all. - Bobet 18:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adult Central, On The Block, Lime Rock Limits, Bi the Bi, Recent Venues, and River Days[edit]

Possible hoax. Author of these articles claims that this is a soon to be airing television network and the first shows to be aired on the network. A Google search for the network and shows finds nothing to corroborate these claims([73], [74], [75]).Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims made in these articles. --Allen3 ^talk 23:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A network having 10 seasons of a show planned before they even run the first episode? Now that's comical. Not even an intelligent hoax. Delete. Fightindaman 23:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not delete..true network..promise..proff on TV.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MCcoupe7 (talk • contribs) .

Comment: The search function at TV.com does not appear to find any of the information you claim is there.[76] --Allen3 ^talk 00:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you sure? a distant cousin from mine is producing the show On The Block..and he told me about the "Adult Central". he told me about those three other shows and the dates for the on the block episodes= i know its in advanced like those dates i mean but he told me them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MCcoupe7 (talk • contribs) .

Comment: Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, your distant cousin is not a primary source. This renders this article unverifiable, and probable original research. Don't let this stop you from continuing to contribute verifiable content though! — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why cant u keep it though if he is a producer of this show and station —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MCcoupe7 (talk • contribs) .

Comment: As Adrian said, we can't keep it because nobody else can verify this information. We cannot build an encyclopedia on hearsay and rumor. Also, could you please sign your posts by typing ~~~~? Thanks. Fightindaman 01:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Another thing, it's funny how if you go back in the history for On The Block the article first stated that it was going to be on "The Tween Station." Moving from a station for children to one for porn is a bit odd don't you think? Fightindaman 01:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes i can see how u can think that, but the show and station was first created for tweens and teens. The network then decided to make the show into more the porn direction and the station as well. At this still the other shows havent been produced (that is why they changed the station) MCcoupe7

It's my understanding that new television networks tend to get their name out to the public by sending out press releases and getting coverage in major industry publications. In fact, we just saw that happen in the last two weeks with My Network TV. This is considered a more reliable method of publicity than having a show producer tell his distant cousin about the network's existence by word of mouth, with no other news coverage. Delete as unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 02:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per unverifiable, almost certainly a hoax. - Rynne 02:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom as hoax. -- Krash (Talk) 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this is a real network, we'll know about it when it actually gets onto a cable channel or a satellite. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --E lkman - ^(talk) 03:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 15:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was not even funny. DS 21:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T-rice[edit]

Delete Vanity article on "T-rice". Humorous, defintely. But belongs on something like Uncyclopedia. La Pizza11 23:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Delete + BJAODN heh, RAAWR. Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: possible speedy candidate, hoax, nonsense, etc. --djrobgordon 23:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nonsense Sulfur 00:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Looks like attack page against acquaintance. Fan1967 01:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Creator's user page (User:Tstarr90) has the same content. Fan1967 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonsense article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Mar. 9, '06 [04:03] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

United States presidential election, 2012, United States presidential election, 2016, and United States presidential election, 2020[edit]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The only factual content is the date of the future elections, which is already covered in United States presidential election. Everything else is original speculation. Meaningful speculation (i.e. by outside political commentators) about the 2012 election will not begin to appear until we know who wins the 2008 election, at the very earliest, so we will need to wait years until these articles contain any sort of verifiable information. android 79 23:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/U.S. presidential election, 2012. Though that was decided about a year and a half ago, nothing meangingful has changed since then to justify recreating this (or the others by necessary implication). Or, simply delete all per nom. Postdlf 23:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- These should also be protected against recreation... Postdlf 14:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Android 79.La Pizza11 23:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2016 and 2020 per nom and speedy delete 2012. And orphan them all, of course. Kusma (討論) 23:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TerenceOng. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, alternatively, redirect to United States presidential election. — RJH 17:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This artical does not claim to tell the futer but merly gives needed anaylise on these very intresting subjets. As about it not being a current election, the 2008 Presidential Election artical was established without dispute substantialy before the 2004 Election. Anyway, there are many websites anaylising the particulars of these elections. I am tired of bullies trying to cut off articals that are considerd "silly" or "unimportant" before they are even given a chance. Evreything is factual and just because this is lower priority doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to contribute. It may not help as much as some other artical but it difenitly helps. Finally, I envision a Wikipedia that has exelant articals on every imanginable even slightly important subjects. Anyway, this is a VERY important subject and an EXTREAMLY intresting one. Just because some people consider it unintresting does not mean they should be allowed to hamper intellectuall communication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfpackfan72 (talk • contribs)
I don't consider it uninteresting. It's just not verifiable, nor is everything in the article(s) "factual". android 79 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Name one thing that is not 100% factual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfpackfan72 (talk • contribs)
Given that the U.S. Census will occur again in 2010, the electoral makeup of many states will likely change and Once the 2008 election is concluded, it is expected that people will start to speculate and many will consider candidacies for the 2012 election are meaningless bits of speculation. Everything else is just scheduling. Please sign your comments. android 79 20:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and even to the extent that the predictions are "valid," it's the kind of prediction you find in a horoscope—so general and noncommittal that it's not really falsifiable. Postdlf 20:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC) ("...and a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and there will be rumors of things going astray...")[reply]
Every thing you just listed is pure fact. The census WILL occur in 2010 (In fact there is an artical on this now), The electorial makeup has ALWAYS changed (anyway it just says "likely"). Considering that MAJOR speculaion started just after the 2004 election and some has been scince 2001 if not earlier, what he said was a fact scince he only said "expected".Wolfpackfan72 20:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speculation by whom? If it's by well-known political commentators then, by all means, add such content to the article(s) with sources. Otherwise, it's not verifiable, and all the article contains is scheduling information. android 79 21:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Android79. Additional argument: what can we say about these elections that we can't say about the presidential election of 3000? If you argue that this article is encyclopedic, then we should have an article for every presidential election up to and beyond 3000, which is absurd. — DLJessup (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE and PROTECT the article from recreation. Andros 1337 19:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we must find a solution to protect this page from future entries like this.--Sina 21:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreate after the 2008/2012/2016 elections, respectively... --Kinu ^t/_c 07:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These pages will just be recreated again and again, and nominated for deletion again and again, until they almost become relevant. If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve. Ewlyahoocom 12:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no, they'll just be protected against recreation. Since when is "vandals will ignore deletion decisions" a rationale for keeping something? Postdlf 16:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP- We'll need it for 2012!
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.218.58 (talk • contribs)
Keep only 2012 delete the rest. --Revolución hablar ver 17:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- May I add that we have an article for the 2024 Summer Olympics? What's wrong with having an article for the 2012 election? --Revolución hablar ver 17:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two things: 1) even if the 2024 Olympics were to be kept, the 2012 election "article" was previously deleted, making it a speedy deletion regardless of what happens to other articles. Absent deletion review consensus, it should never have been recreated. 2) as the 2024 Olympics "has yet to be organized," no information actually exists for it beyond scheduling, so that should be deleted for the same reasons as these. Postdlf 18:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Summer Olympics. Postdlf 21:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least 2012; there has been substantial speculation (by academics and professional politicians) about this election, in terms of predicting the effect that the demographic changes revealed in the 2010 census will have in redistributing the Electoral College. e.g., the expected increased clout of red states. I would prefer just an article on the 2012 election season, but we do not seem to have those sorts of articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. We can create the articles of Olimpic Games in the future, can we? I suggest winter and summer separately:-) Protected against recreation. --Mane 14:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This deletion debate is not about any Olympic games. --Revolución hablar ver 20:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No additional meaningful information provided. Erath 18:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A7 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The iron baptists[edit]

Speedy Delete Non-notable (CSD A7) La Pizza11 23:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If your vote is speedy delete, and you're the nominator, you can skip the whole AfD thing and just tag the article. I've gone ahead and tagged this {{db-band}} :) . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 05:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep-is-for-the-weak-a-thon[edit]

Self-promotion, non-notable, uses forum posts and random Wikipedia articles as its "sources". The "record-holder" has the same name as the editor who wrote this article. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the talk page. Just because I happen to be the record holder doesn't mean it's all vanity and lies. In fact, try reading something properly before plastering 'baleet' over it. Not self promotion, the fact I am the record holder is merely that - a fact. Notability is ambiguous as a cause for deletion. Forum posts as sources: Locations of existing threads of the competition, and the current record post location? What's the problem there? 'Random' articles as sources: Try reading the article. I quote: 'Information and sources for the possible effects of partaking in this competition can be found on related articles'. Sleep deprivation being what the competition is about, for one. Sleep deprivation, insomnia, sleep debt for source on background info on effects of partaking. Precisely as I say. So there, arguments countered. I await your retort. EDY-innit 00:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NFT. -- Krash (Talk) 03:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up on an internet forum one day -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Krash. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 06:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Panda[edit]

Non-notable, erotica model with no other credits, "official website" link redirects to advertising page for porn publisher Monicasdude 23:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's a lot[77] of Google hits for her presumably uncommon name. I realize that porncentric topics are prone to inflated Google hit counts, but is this individual clearly non-notable in comparison to figures in her field with established notability? — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Almost all those links are mechanically generated adspam, and most of them are just mirrors of a very small number of "original" pages. If you were to work your way through them, you'd find about a half dozen real pages, 50,000+ framed mirrors of those pages, and a few thousand "free porn" indexes. It's just "affiliate marketing", with pages designed to show up in google searches. The original porn site could put pictures of a complete unknown up on its site, and within 12 hours, probably less, there'd be tens of thousands of Google hits. Monicasdude 00:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable actress/model/hussy, per nomination. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Assuming she doesn't meet WP:BIO, per the standard autogenerated pornspam. (It's probably not even her real last name, but it is mine! :P) --Kinu ^t/_c 06:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite notable in the world of pornography. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, popular pornographic model with name recognition. Kappa 03:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. Jimboy0 06:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 05:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RammsteinUnreleased[edit]

This list is inaccurate and unsourced. Many of the songs were released on other albums or singles. There is no additional information here that is not available on the other Rammstein articles. ~MDD 46 96 23:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verified (and rename). I don't understand how unreleased songs can have albums. -- Krash (Talk) 03:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete could be created as a redirect independently of this AfD, of course. W.marsh 04:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borderjack[edit]

Repeat of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yorkiepoo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maltipoo and, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schnoodle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boggle (dog). Just another one of the mixed breed. From the first set of RfD -

There are 500 breeds of dogs. Any of them can be mixed and anyone can name the mixes anything they want. (E.g., see American hybrid "registry" and Poodle hybrid and Dog hybrids and crossbreeds#Casual crossbreeds.) I realize that WP is not paper, but mostly what can be said about mixed-breed dogs is that they might have some characteristics of either parent, or not (if you also look at Maltipoo and Schnoodle you'll see what I mean). We've discussed this within the dog breed project before and feel that all these do is create multiple mixed-breed-dog articles. We're leaving in Cockapoo because it's been around long enough to be the only mixed-breed name to make it into the dictionary, and Labradoodles are so common as to be found in just about every puppies-for-sale list everywhere, with Goldendoodles getting pretty close, but I'm hesitant to open the floodgates for articles about everyone's mixed-breed dog with an invented name

This one doesn't even have all that many finds on Google--although it's clear that it's a fairly well-used name for a border collie/jack russel dog, particularly in flyball.

Suggest change to redir to dog hybrids and crossbreeds and list there.

-Elf | Talk 23:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous AfDs. At worst, redirect. -- Krash (Talk) 03:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of all the random breeds in this group, this is the only one I've heard of, so at least keep it. Draeco 04:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability concerns here. Not a common crossbreed. - Trysha ^(talk) 08:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Draeco. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Trysha. -Big Smooth 19:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 05:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puggle[edit]

Repeat of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yorkiepoo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maltipoo and, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schnoodle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boggle (dog), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borderjack. Might be just another one of the mixed breed. From the first set of RfD -

There are 500 breeds of dogs. Any of them can be mixed and anyone can name the mixes anything they want. (E.g., see American hybrid "registry" and Poodle hybrid and Dog hybrids and crossbreeds#Casual crossbreeds.) I realize that WP is not paper, but mostly what can be said about mixed-breed dogs is that they might have some characteristics of either parent, or not (if you also look at Maltipoo and Schnoodle you'll see what I mean). We've discussed this within the dog breed project before and feel that all these do is create multiple mixed-breed-dog articles. We're leaving in Cockapoo because it's been around long enough to be the only mixed-breed name to make it into the dictionary, and Labradoodles are so common as to be found in just about every puppies-for-sale list everywhere, with Goldendoodles getting pretty close, but I'm hesitant to open the floodgates for articles about everyone's mixed-breed dog with an invented name (written by Elf)

I am having more concerns over time as some of these articles keep reappearing (I believe that this one was deleted as a stub a couple of times as a bogus name), as you can see there's a lot of info in this article. I added some of it. It seems to me that we might be better off leaving some of the more common ones, which this seems to be, with all the warnings inherent that you don't really know what you're going to get. The other issue is that it's going to keep reappearing (as I said, I believe it was deleted a couple of times and turned into a redirect to dog hybrids and crossbreeds, but it just kept getting recreated as an article.)

So if this seems inside out, I'm listing it because we've been trying to keep these invented combined-breed-name mixed breed dogs out, and I think this will come up for deletion eventually if I don't nom it, but in fact the names ARE being used and the dogs ARE being sold and people WILL come looking for the name. -Elf | Talk 00:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Elf | Talk 00:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. Term regularly used by established news media. Monicasdude 00:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous AfDs. At worst, redirect. -- Krash (Talk) 03:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we're going to have a page about any dog breed, we might as well allow pages on all. Deleting pages for "mixed" breeds is arbitrary. Andrewdoane 11:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Andrewdoane. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The whole point of wikipedia is to promote the sharing of info, not limit it to what purists think it should be! Let there be diversity of opinion on contested issues, so long as both sides of debate are clear. Chrisv11
Keep per Elf and Monicasdude. WarpFlyght 03:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Some mixed breeds become notable and this is one of them. -Big Smooth 19:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a trend, should we compile all trends as they happen? It's a waste to have it's own article, why not merge information on crossbreeds into the parent breed article? Besides, this article isn't really that informative other than describing it could be -like a beagle, maybe, but like a pug if it's like that or inherient of a beagle-. No real information is here, or concrete for that matter as it flip flops on traits of the parent breeds. Until an article can be written that's more than a mishmash of personal experiance (POV BTW) with the animal there's no point in having it.--Skeev 21:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I may impartial because I own a puggle, but the article is informative and needs to be kept. The term Puggle is part of popular culture and shouldn't be ignored even if its not a recognized breed. The article should have more facts which I will try to work on.sav127 12:31, 30 April 2007

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