Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 9 December 11 >

Purge server cache

December 10[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disasterlabs[edit]

Article appears to be an advertisement of poor quality. Shawnc 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missing section header made this not show up on Dec 8 log. Re-posting so it gets its full 5 days consideration. Abstain, but 324 displayed hits[1] and an Alexa rank of 1,072,081 doesn't seem very impressive. 24.17.48.241 00:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Gonzalez[edit]

Does not meet notability requirements. Velvetsmog 00:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete it is a vanity article and is a candidate for speedy deletion --Mecanismo 00:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nn-bio. PJM 01:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. ERcheck 01:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Westchester_PC_Users_Group[edit]

Completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Also, even though it's a non-profit group, it seems like advertising to me. This should be on Google, not Wikipedia. Belmore 00:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it's just a local computer club. They can create their own website to hold this kind of information. Howie ☎ 03:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? - Yes, it's just a local computer club, similar to other local computer clubs listed in Wikipedia. The group did create their own website, and has maintained it for a number of years(see the external link.) It is also searchable in Google, as suggested. If it was decided that local computer clubs with over 500 members should not be listed in Wikipedia, then they should be removed.
  • Weak delete, doesn't seem particularly notable. — JIP | Talk 09:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as per nomination. 600 members is a lot, but there's just nothing encyclopedia here. Snurks T C 09:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't buy the "cruft justifies more cruft" article. Wikicities seems to be the right home for this kind of thing, no? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising tone, not encyclopedic, possible vanity.--Dakota t e 16:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing in the article that makes it seem notable enough for keeping. peachlette 21:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Six hundred members is a lot for a local organization, but it is not enough to get into Wikipedia. JoaoRicardo 06:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, for precedent see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WPCUG --maclean25 07:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete minor group. Precedent was no consensus. Stifle 14:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily kept per a general consensus that high schools are notable FCYTravis 04:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lowell High School (Lowell, Massachusetts)[edit]

Lost, orphan article on obscure, non-notable school Mecanismo 00:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep This is clear cleanup territory, bordering on a bad faith nom. karmafist 01:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although it needs to be cleaned up. Reyk 02:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep / Ezeu 02:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as non-obscure, notable school which clearly meets even the most restrictive of school deletion criteria. Turnstep 02:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SCH. Given the size of the school (3,900) there will be no problem finding information on the school and notable alumni (like the three now included), so this stub is definately expandable into a full sized article. It still needs improvement, but its on its way to being a good article. --Rob 03:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it meets the WP:SCH proposal and it has several notable alums.Gateman1997 03:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 09:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frans Morsch[edit]

I originally tagged this as a speedy but it was removed. Guess I have to move it over here. Non-notable bio. Stifle 00:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. The claim of a "world championship" helps it avoid a speedy. PJM 01:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Croat Canuck 03:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fritz (chess), has some info that might be useful there. Kusma (討論) 04:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fritz (chess) --Condorman 23:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Fritz (chess), the fact this machine beat Deep Blue needs to be merged in there, and pointing people looking for the person to his work isn't bad either. - Mgm|(talk) 00:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Develping software that can beat grandmasters isn't easy. 11,900 google hits, one of two developers of Deep Fritz - I'd say he's notable. --Bachrach44 00:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Kusma. It is not up to us to do this fellow justice: if his program is famous but he isn't, so be it. JoaoRicardo 06:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Kusma. If we find that he is notable for anything other than being one of the programmers of Fritz (chess), he can be unmerged back to his own article. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:23, Dec. 18, 2005


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Gradwohl[edit]

I nominated this for speedy deletion too, but it was removed. Barely-notable singer and article has very little room for expansion. Stifle 00:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He's really a guitarist, not a singer, and from what I gather, [2], he seems notable enough. Aside from mentioning his work with Tangerine Dream, [3], the stub really doesn't sell him as well as it could; it obviously needs work. Also, after its AFD page is closed, it should be retitled (moved) to "Gerald Gradwohl" (capitalized surname) - if kept. PJM 02:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move as per PJM. I have cleaned up the article. Capitalistroadster 03:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no notability issue here. Hiding talk 05:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PJM and move to Gerald Gradwohl. — JIP | Talk 09:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PJM - an exception to Geogre's Law! Who'd have thought? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote: The Geogrism has been fixed. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prosthetic Records[edit]

The article is obviously spam/vandalism Mecanismo 00:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It should be speedy. Who's idea was it to restrict speedy deletions so that this sort of thing cannot be labelled as {{db-spam}}? Tell me, that I may strangle them. These nominations are a waste of everyone's time. Reyk 02:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hopefully it should be obvious now why this gets sent to AfD. Turns out it's a legitimate topic and was fixed thanks to the AfD process. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam. V. Alex Brennen 03:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentKeep. This is far from a speedy or vandalism(!). It's not spam, it's a valid stub. It's just their address and a list of their bands, with no claims or boasts made. It doesn't even give their web site. Some of those bands are notable -- Even I recognized Lamb of God (band) which has six records out and a Wikipedia article. All That Remains has an article. I don't know if the others do -- I checked some but not all, not finding any more articles (which doesn't prove a band is not notable). Prosthetic Records gets a lot Google hits, too. I don't know what the policy or precedent is on record labels, so I'm not going to vote, but its an artistic endeavor so I'd tend to give the benefit of the doubt. I'm gonna leave it to others who are more familiar with this sort of thing, though. (I do note that nominator also just nominated Lowell High School for AfD resulting in a speedy keep.) Herostratus 07:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not spam; it is blatant spam. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 12:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mike Rosoft. Ifnord 17:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that any comments before this one, do not reflect the article as rewritten by Pburka. Please don't count them when closing. - Mgm|(talk) 00:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. I've rewritten it more in the style of Wikipedia, but there was nothing in the original article which merited deletion. Pburka 17:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rewrite, it looks like a perfectly fine stub now. Snurks T C 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's definitely a notable label, and the rewrite makes it a reasonable stub for Wikipedia. peachlette 21:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable enough Spearhead 23:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no more or less notable than many of the other 200 or so record label stubs. --Condorman 23:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was never a speedy and should not have been nominated. -- JJay 04:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - querulous nomination - David Gerard 13:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was rewritten, so keep. - Mike Rosoft 11:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted (blanking by creator). - Mailer Diablo 04:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wake ups[edit]

Advertising for a brand of caffeine tablets. ERcheck 01:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A winner is you[edit]

Non-encyclopedic. ERcheck 01:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. ERcheck 01:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a popular phrase as far as I can tell and the article does little to substantiate it. PJM 02:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per winner ... err... nom. feydey 02:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I like this nomination. Short, to the point, and 100% accurate. Reyk 02:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I nominate this article sentence for Understatement of the Year: similar to AYBABTU but isn't as popular. Turnstep 03:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Croat Canuck 03:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • AYDeleteABTU. --SarekOfVulcan 05:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A winner is not this article. --Apostrophe 06:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I actually have heard this phrase used a lot, but not notable enough for an article. Andrew Levine 07:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted is this article. — JIP | Talk 09:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too many jokes. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Pro Wrestling (video game). Gazpacho 12:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having played both Counter-Strike and Warcraft III there are phrases tossed about far more than this, most of them involve 'n00bs' or questioning an opponent's sexual orientation. "All your base" was a popular internet phenomenon that annoyed the hell out of us all, this is not. DeathThoreau 15:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete silly. Firebug 17:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, DeathThoreau is right that there are way more popular phrases than this which still don't deserve articles. peachlette 21:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN per above. Stifle 14:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as well as acting shocked yet again at Wikipedia having an overwhelming delete vote for a notable internet meme. 13k+ google hits, basis for many image macros, etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff 14:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the game. Melchoir 19:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep (or at worst, no consensus). bainer (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic Realty Co.[edit]

Delete Any article that leads with advertising raises eyebrows to its notability in my book. karmafist 01:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The first line says it all. Velvetsmog 02:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Westfield or Irvine it is not--though it's hard to tell for privately held companies. Found it while expanding Majestic (disambiguation) today, but was having connectivity issues earlier. - choster 04:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I retooled the article to remove advertising and turned it into a stub. This is a notable company and the CEO is part owner of several Los Angeles professional sports teams. This could devlop into a good company article. Movementarian 05:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep against my better judgment. I say burn all realtors :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable company, void of encyclopedia value. Although the rewrite made it much more acceptable, wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) isn't a business' yellow pages --Mecanismo 12:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Movementarian's rewrite. Well done to him. Capitalistroadster 16:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Movementarian's rewrite. Pburka 17:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hu 18:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable company, void of encyclopædic value. Avalon 20:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten by Movementarian. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - as per Movementarian -- Geo Swan 09:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or, at best, redirect to Edward P. Roski, Jr. Just another commercial realty firm: nothing distinctive about it other than the CEO, and Wikipedia ain't the Yellow Pages. --Calton | Talk 00:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,....good golly! Delete! Delete! Delete!....I agree that there's "nothing distinctive" or significant AND I also agree with the statement "Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) isn't a business' yellow pages".,,,Ariele 16:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although the article has been retooled to fit format, I still don't see the encyclopedic value here. I stick with my original vote. Velvetsmog 19:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Editor is confirming prior delete vote; do not count twice.
  • Keep notable real estate company. -- DS1953 05:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Music Box (game)[edit]

Vanity article, no actual product has been commercially released; appears to be more like a fan-produced game Howie ☎ 02:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a "2003" game as yet un-released. Avalon 05:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Until the game is released commerically or a major game studio joins production it does not belong here. Movementarian 05:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. Besides, the article is spam and was probably written by a developer --Mecanismo 12:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, especially when it comes to non-notable game development. DeathThoreau 15:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is most especially not a reverse crystal ball. --YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 22:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a fan-produced game: RPG Maker is commercial software that allows consumers to make their own games, and the products can be distributed... But probably won't be. Delete. Marblespire 23:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, out out damn spot. Stifle 14:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 01:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo PC[edit]

This reads just like a sales ad and looks to me like blatant advertising DanielCD 02:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: appears to be advertising to me too. There are plenty of computer manufacturers all over. What makes this one worthy of an encyclopaedia article? Howie ☎ 02:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep based on rewrite (see comments below). Howie ☎ 13:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pretty clearly self-promotional. Tim Pierce 03:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep based on rewrite and on news links posted below -- I am not convinced that it's a notable company per WP:CORP, but think that a policy of "when in doubt, don't throw it out" is wise. Tim Pierce 12:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I removed the advertising, but that leaves a very barebones stub. I am not sure it will ever evolve into a full article. Movementarian 05:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten by User:Movementarian. — JIP | Talk 09:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now that the blatant advertising has been removed. Around 140k hits for "Voodoopc"/"voodoo pc". Several recent news hits seem to indicate compliance with WP:CORP. Nezbie 09:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant if small computer company. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand - I was going to vote for delete until I found this article on news.com.com. It seems that the company in question has some notoriety because of their "whistle blowing" of Intel's strong arm tactics against AMD. But have in mind that my keep vote depends solelly on the coverage of this issue and that this coverage is a center point of the article. If it isn't added then Delete it is --Mecanismo 12:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep they advertise in major PC magazines and are notable on gaming sites. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 17:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not every systems integrator deserves an entry, but this one has been around for nearly 15 years, has a web presence, and advertises in major magazines. Firebug 17:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps I was a little impulsive in the nomination, seeing all the keep votes. However, when I nominated it, it looked like a price list. It looks much more appropriate now. --DanielCD 20:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Meyer[edit]

not notable, vanity Avalon 02:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, okay. Croat Canuck 03:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is head of a research group at a world renowned research university, Johns Hopkins. I will gladly change my vote if someone in his field, inorganic chemistry, determines he in not notable per WP:BIO. Movementarian 06:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Has two patents to his credit. Capitalistroadster 06:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Movementarian. We should not have higher bars for notability for academics than for sportspeople. u p p l a n d 09:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep apparently passes the "professor test" per WP:BIO. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Movementarian and Just zis Guy, you know?. peachlette 21:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Movementarian, appears to meet WP:BIO notability criteria. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Professor at world-famous university with 2 patents is notable enough for me. If he's head of the group, it really needs to be in the article. - Mgm|(talk) 00:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another professor. One hit from Google Books, 53 from Google Scholar. And two patents is nothing: a friend of mine has his name on five, and there's no way he's getting an article, despite working at two "world-famous" corporations. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Was he a manager at either of these corporations? Because that's pretty much the corporate counterpart of a professor. - Mgm|(talk) 11:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and please try to change our systemic bias Yuckfoo 01:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Borderline, based on assertions in article, but just notable enough for me. -- DS1953 05:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glen stollery[edit]

Autobiography of real person. Minor assertion of notability. ERcheck 02:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. ERcheck 02:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity article. Howie ☎ 03:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - self-written. PJM 03:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was (Speedy) delete - please see this talk page for full context regarding the closure of this AfD. Thank you. --HappyCamper 03:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamunism[edit]

Neologism; few Google hits. Psychonaut 03:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was (Speedy) delete - please see this talk page for full context regarding the closure of this AfD. Thank you. --HappyCamper 03:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secularism nazi[edit]

Neologism; no Google hits. Psychonaut 03:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Jkelly 03:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as poer nom. Croat Canuck 03:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, created by vandalizing user and also neologism. feydey 03:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily kept - Encyclopedic subject that got vandalized. FCYTravis 04:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks Unlimited[edit]

This page is more or less an advertisement, and provides no content suggesting it could be made into a quality Wikipedia article. Benandorsqueaks 03:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Croat Canuck 03:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - utter nonsense! Howie ☎ 03:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Keep - changed from vote to delete based on comment below. Howie ☎ 04:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It had been vandalised into an attack page, which I deleted and restored to its pre-attack state. Seems to be an active and notable organisation. "Ducks Unlimited" scores 1,160,000 Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DU is a notable association, and quite active, as Andrew Lenahan notes above. Sjcodysseus 19:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of female surgeons[edit]

Closer's notes
This came to no consensus because the non-deletes, despite being in the majority overall, couldn't decide whether to keep as is, rename, or merge somewhere else. Any future nominators, keep in mind that the deletes were in an overall minority here.

Do we need really this list? Lists of women in $TRADITIONALLY_MALE_PROFESSION are as unsuitable as the n "Lists of Jews". Wikipedia is as much a vehicle to boost pride in one's gender as it is to boost one's pride in one's ethnicity. Pilatus 03:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A lot of these seem to be historical figures. That's important. You make no attempt to engage the editor and instead go straight to AfD. Why? Finally, I Don't understand your comment, but women are certainly as important as Jews. -- JJay 03:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary. Since gender and surgical skill can't logically be linked, there doesn't seem to be much point to this list. It isn't simply trivia fodder either, as surely a female surgeon isn't much of a novelty anymore. Anybody who wants to know about female surgeons could just pick the female names out of the more comprehensive List of surgeons Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Regarding your statement that gender and surgical skill can't be linked, was that based on research or study? because the NIH does not necessarily agree [4]]and there have been other studies. Would you care to elaborate? -- JJay 17:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to something more like List of pioneering female surgeons and edit for relevance. The first and most notable entrants into a previously closed field are inherently encyclopedic. This belongs in Wikipedia for the same reason List of first black Major League Baseball players by team and date belongs in Wikipedia. Such lists aren't boosterism: they're history. Durova 04:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary listmania Avalon 05:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to a more restrictive topic, such as that suggested by Durova. The list of all female surgeons would be unmanageable. —Brim 06:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of surgeons under the heading "Female Surgeons". There really isn't a great need to have a seperate lists. Movementarian 07:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to a more restrictive topic. Scott Ritchie 07:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Movementarian. There's no need to create a separate list for female surgeons. — JIP | Talk 09:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the maintainer of indiscriminate lists. Jtmichcock 11:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Movementarian. And then AfD list of surgeons as having far too many potential candidates... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Starblind puts it --Mecanismo 12:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Starblind. PJM 14:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In many North American med school there are now more female med students than male. Ifnord 17:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable listcruft. Firebug 17:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to list of pioneering female surgeons. — RJH 18:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you missed the point of deleting the article. And please, do not create another useless list article. After all, category pages should be used when creating a simple list. --Mecanismo 20:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to criticize anyone for this vote then criticize me. I suggest you read my reasons first, though. Durova 21:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JJay and Durova, but rename to something like pioneering female surgeons. peachlette 21:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless list, create a category instead. The problem with list pages is that they invite redlinks for anyone and everyone who falls under the nominal heading (female surgeons, for instance), and thus encourages promotion and vanity. A category otoh collects subjects that are already deemed notable for some reason or reasons not limited to belonging to the nominal group. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - important to ensure that Wikipedia as a whole conforms to WP:NPOV. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Durova's excellent reasoning. - Mgm|(talk) 00:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are hundreds of thousands of surgeons in the country. Do we really want to start listing all of them? --Bachrach44 01:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean world, not country. Wikipedia is not just about America. --Bucephalus 17:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What's this I hear that Wikipedia wants to have a list of female sturgeons. That makes no sense. I know that they make those tasty caviar eggs but how the heck can you tell which one laid which eggs? This is just. . . .oh, you said surgeons. Nevermind. Emily Latella. (Jtmichcock 03:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete pointless. make a category if you really must. --Bucephalus 14:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect pointless as it is now. List of surgeons --Jaranda wat's sup 19:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The rationale used for starting this list is thin.--Ezeu 03:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pilatus. Not everything on Wikipedia needs a list. A category will do fine. Stifle 14:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, of course we'll lose all the info on the red links, plus the ability for anons to add people in the future. -- JJay 16:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The "red links" don't hold any information except the link name. Therefore, by deleting an empty category no notable information is lost. --Mecanismo | Talk 13:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, that's wrong. -- JJay 17:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Quite the opposite. It is quite oh so very right. --Mecanismo | Talk 23:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Durova, and cleanup to remove the non-notables. --Mareino 17:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a male surgeons list is also created.  Grue  17:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point blank: the band[edit]

No evidence that this band passes WP:MUSIC. Jkelly 03:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - sounds like every other garage band out there. Howie ☎ 03:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment An expansion of WP:CSD to handle these wouldn't be misplaced, in my opinion... Jkelly 05:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, band vanity. Punkmorten 12:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Punkmorten --Mecanismo 12:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and get someone to create a 'speedy music delete device doo-dah' please!! doktorb 12:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability, simple band vanity. DeathThoreau 15:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and need a CSD per Jkelly. Stifle 14:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirected to properly finish the merge per policy, see links below. - Mgm|(talk) 00:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decisionsupportsystem[edit]

I have completed a merge of this page's remaining significant information over to the more-complete Decision support system article. I believe that this article is now redundant and can be deleted; it is an orphan and so does not even need a redirect. Steve Summit (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it has been merged, I believe the most correct action (under the GFDL) is to leave this page as a redirect to Decision support system. If I am mistaken, then disregard this vote. ESkog | Talk 07:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as is the usual practice for merges. Gazpacho 12:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No pages link to this page, so I believe no redirect is necessary. Steve Summit (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per ESKog. It's to retain the edit history. Deletion would kill the edit history which we need to attribute the merged material to the right contributor. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and Wikipedia:Merge. - Mgm|(talk) 00:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Der Dragon Warrior[edit]

The game is technically not related to the Dragon Quest game series because it was created by fans. It is not a commerical game and there are a lot of fan made Flash games. J. Nguyen 04:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nonpopular fan-made game. --Apostrophe 06:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Movementarian 07:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination Snurks T C 09:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft. Stifle 14:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vox Day[edit]

This appears to be a joke or vanity page. eaolson 04:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - methinks the author has been reading too much sci-fi/watching too much Futurama! Howie ☎ 04:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable. I can see flash games having an entry, but only the ones that reach high popularity i.e. Numa Numa. Nonforma 04:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete commits the unpardonable sin of all jokes - it's not funny. Avalon 05:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Movementarian 07:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN and delete, I like bad jokes more than most but Wikipedia mainspace isn't the best place for them. Stifle 14:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Dang[edit]

Not notable singer, not in allmusic. No released albums. No tours. feydey 04:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Her only claim as a singer is a role as a backup singer on another album. Not notable enough. Nonforma 04:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trying to search her with "Mary Dang" + "Asia Productions" or "Mary Dang" + "Trish Thuy Trang" and came up with nothing. I guess Asia Productions is a notable Vietnamese entertainment production company because I have heard of them. (If you live with Vietnamese parents all your life, you have to experience their so called "entertainment.") Reason for vote deletion: Can't verify that she is notable. Maybe hoax, too. See: User:68.93.96.173 which is probably User:Manchesterwinter due to the recent Wikipedia changes regarding article creation. --J. Nguyen 04:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Benw 05:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity --Mecanismo 12:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 17:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete under CSD G4 karmafist 05:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust factualism[edit]

  • Delete. While an article about laws against Holocaust denial would not be out of order, here we have a neologism, NPOV, OR, and indeed quite a bit else of WP:NOT. -choster 04:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at once. Anti-semitic hate-rant and everything else an encyclopedia is not. It's already been deleted at least once, but I don't remember the name it had that time. Antandrus (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy Delete. This is one of the worst new pages I have ever seen. It's just an ignorant hate page. (Bjorn Tipling 04:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Da-l33t per what's been said —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps speedily. Content aside, it's not encyclopedic. Steve Summit (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as a very short article with no context other than spam, blah blah. FCYTravis 04:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FlyGuyCrew.com[edit]

Advertising. Delete. worthawholebean talkcontribs 04:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry Hungry Hypocrites[edit]

Non-notable band, hoax, and so on. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-10 04:59:27Z

  • Delete. They are using Wikipedia for advertising, as documented on their website. Joyous | Talk 05:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I do find the claim that one of the bands members discovered penicillin on purpose. Benw 05:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet criteria in WP:MUSIC, not mention utter nonsense (i.e. "HHH created magic. And rock. And roll. And fire. And magic."). Movementarian 06:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Email hack[edit]

Of the dozens of definitions for "email hack" I could think of, this would be... well, it wouldn't even be on the list. Someone tagged this for speedy deletion, but I don't think that's appropriate. Nonetheless, it should still be deleted. I'm not sure what specific policy to cite; maybe WP:NOR, since this definition seems quite original to me. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-10 05:04:14Z

  • Delete, that's certainly not what an "email hack" would be. — JIP | Talk 09:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is no more a hack than something written in Leet. Bergsten 10:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I was a bit harsh, but email hack is not a good term for this. Bergsten 22:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although it more or less has some justification, as above this is very far from being the most common usage of the term, and the most common usage is so obvious that it would be deleted as a dicdef. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense page --Mecanismo 12:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BTW the same user created Domain hack describing the same thing with web domains instead of email addresses. Firebug 18:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - However, domain hacks are somewhat growing in popularity and probably merit an article. I wasn't aware of that name for them (I've only seen del.icio.us and I was in fact wondering if that sort of technique had a name), but if del.icio.us is a domain hack then [email protected] is certainly an "email hack". Unfortunately, I've never seen anybody use an "email hack" before, so I can't comment on whether it's a practice as widespread as domain hacks or whether it's non-notable and therefore worthy of deletion.
    • Comment - I have a hard time accepting either domain hack or email hack, English language hack maybe. If the terms are used, they both need disambiguation. domain hack could also mean DNS hack. I have never heard the term email hack, but I think it would imply doing something technically clever with an email (the message or the software handeling it, but not the address). If these things are to be regarded as hacks the terms domain name hack and email address hack would be more accurate. But the hack is not in the realization that a word can be divided into parts or that the character '@' looks a bit like an 'a', it's in the idea of choosing it as a name. Thus in my opinion the best name for both things would be name choice hack. Bergsten 22:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is referenced, consistent with domain hack which is similarly referenced. Unless there's a particular reason why someone sees this as either untrue, not the standard definition of e-mail hack, or else not suitably notable, I see no reason to delete this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you re-read my nomination, you'll see that I do very much doubt that this is the standard definition. If there is any standard definition, it derives from "hacking email" (e.g. "An email hack has been going around the office, make sure your virus definitions are up to date!"), not from some cute typographical game. Should your vote be counted as a delete, then? —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-11 01:45:58Z
Well, this is the difference between "hack" and "hacking". A "hack" is just a way to change something - it doesn't imply any criminal behaviour. While "hacking" often does. "Email hack" therefore means as per this definition while "Hacking in to e-mail" is what you are suggesting. I cannot imagine anyone saying "Oh no, someone did an e-mail hack!". No, they would say "Someone hacked my e-mail" or "My e-mail has been hacked". Thus they have different meanings. Of course, this kind of thing is covered already in computer hacking where you can read up more about the difference between criminal hacking versus just changing something. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be covered by Wikipedia, but I don't think we need two separate articles on what is really just one topic. What concerns me is the names of the articles. As described above I think they are unclear and some what misleading. But the references for them are no good either, the only ones to mention the terms email hack and domain hack are the ones related to the site xona.com. The said site makes no claim (as far as I can see) that the terms are in wide use, they also use us as a reference for the term domain hack. This makes me think one of two things is true, either the term was coined here and they started using it, or more probable they coined it and use us to push their term through. Bergsten 01:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Um, what? Stifle 14:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, possibly a neologism. — 69.209.57.50 16:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep or rename (or merge), not delete. I created the name because there were no names for these type of emails. It was a take off of [domain hack], as it was so closely related. Not neologism. 137.186.22.163 04:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep per general consensus that high schools are notable. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Garfield High School (New Jersey)[edit]

Unlike the other Garfield High Schools listed on the disambiguation page, this school does not appear to have any notability other then the attendance of a member of the New York Jets football team. Benw 05:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh... fair enough. :) I'd expand the article if I could, but sources are lacking. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-10 08:27:25Z
  • Delete as Avalon. It seems that there are too many highschool students with too much time on their hands and the need for attention. --Mecanismo 12:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep high schools. Pburka 17:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all high schools unless specific notability is established. Firebug 18:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all verifiable high schools. — RJH 18:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless schools Leonardo 18:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Carioca 20:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Two major alumni, well sourced, meets WP:SCH for those who ascribe to that, et cetera. Silensor 21:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The comment that "this school does not appear to have any notability other than. . ." seems to indicate that it does have notability. Two professional football players as alumni seems to be enough; that's more than some other schools that are kept. peachlette 21:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    couldn't that fact be at the players articles? If the "only" thing "notable" about it can be said in one sentence then it isn't notable enough to have its own article. Arguing that other articles, that are worse, are kept isn't an argument. Broken S 21:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a high school. It's been there a long time. There are guaranteed to be plenty of notable things that have happened at Garfield High. -- JJay 00:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Silensor and Peachlette, appears to meet WP:SCH criteria for inclusion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see no reason not to list every school in the world. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then a separate wiki might be more appropriate. This is an encyclopedia, not a yellow pages. Denni ☯ 04:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep because of the alumni. Please make sure the article indicates when the principle worked at the school, so it can't easily get outdated over time. - Mgm|(talk) 00:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article establishes notability. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The lack of an active web site is a problem for gathering current information, but other outside sources make up for it (barely). Also, there's good verifiability of the two notable alumni. --Rob 02:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand by telling number of students and when founded.User:Schmerguls
  • Delete Schools are not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopaedia --Bucephalus 14:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Articles about New Jersey's high schools are being revisited and edited as part of Wikiproject New Jersey, which includes a thorough revisiting of all pages for New Jersey high schools. There are over 400 high schools in New Jersey and over 85 have web pages already with many more being created. Garfield is a relatively poor community that has a web site for neither its municipality or its schools. This is a page worth keeping. Alansohn 16:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep high schools. Rhollenton 16:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please erasing this does not make any sense at all Yuckfoo 22:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into school district or town if article is both below three sentances and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture when AFD is closed. This school, like all others, is an important public institution and should be written about somewhere, even if it cannot sustain an article on it's own. Presently people do create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, I feel it is always preferable and takes much less energy to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district of local education authority of other school system, while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use. This is the baseline consensus that I feel was reached at WP:SCH. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all high schools. --Liface 04:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of inclusion. Kurt Weber 13:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andrew Levine. Stifle 14:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as notable as any other high school. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 04:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though the article is extremely short, there is not sense in deleting it: the school at least has some evidence of notibility, and also could become a better article after expansion. Not too many high schools have something extremely notable about them; this is just like the typical high school. AndyZ 22:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- DS1953 05:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - High schools aren't cruft. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 11:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme keep. Back to bed... —RaD Man (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Neutrality [5]. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 07:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Made_in_california[edit]

Total self promotion of a nonotable company. Delete for being in violation of the 'Wikipedia is not a propaganda Machine' policy. Bjorn Tipling 05:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of this debate was Speedy deleted by Neutrality [6]. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Nicholson[edit]

Borderline nn-bio. But I suppose the assertion that he was an "astonishing" football player is an assertion of notability. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete completely non notable athlete, pure vanity. David D. (Talk) 05:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability would be playing at the professional level, or maybe collegiate, if expected to be a high draft pick. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Neutrality [7] --PeruvianLlama(spit) 07:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Saxophone[edit]

Complete fiction. Delete for being in violation of the 'Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought' policy.' Bjorn Tipling 05:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. (Bjorn Tipling 05:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete 'nuff said Avalon 06:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Seek, Cheek, Monique!* he deserves a chance. i propose the FSM act(Flying Spaghetti Monsterism) where all alternate theories must be respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbain (talk • contribs)
    • That's what the uncyclopedia is for. (Bjorn Tipling 06:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • my fine sir, i'm sorry you feel this way. but his opinion should be respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbain (talk • contribs)
      • Wikipedia is not a soapbox for opinions.(Bjorn Tipling 06:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • but it is still a group following. i don't believe deleting a group's view is correct here. if people want to educate themselves on it, then they should be allowed to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbain (talk • contribs)
      • I understand that you feel that way, and I hope you're not put off by my point of view. I hope you end up enjoying Wikipedia, and I also recommend that you read this: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. (Bjorn Tipling 06:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Neutrality [8]. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 07:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JANDGE Day[edit]

This article is a hoax, there were 0 results for JANDGE Day on Google. Delete for being a hoax. Bjorn Tipling 06:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional web[edit]

Is this notable? I'm not sure. Abstain. Neutralitytalk 06:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a real term. It refers to tools (websites & applications) designed for users to gather information based on their intentions. Amanuelt 06:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. 400 google hits, most don't apply. Here's one from Oreillynet [9], though I'm not sure it applies. Amanuelt, do you have a link to the presentation about the site? [10] Also, intentionalweb.org is really sparse right now, with almost nothing in the blog or forum, is it intended to be a commercial site? --Interiot 07:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; yet another neologism that isn't in widespread use. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-10 08:31:01Z
  • Delete as a minor neologism (per the O'Reilly developer blog etc.) which appears more or less completely unrelated to the article's current content. For the record I'd vote delete even if it were refactored - <500 Google hits does not indicate a subject worthy of coverage here. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is nonsense. The google test lists 400 hits but the majority of them reffer to something completely different from the article's issue. It seems that it is a simple pet project based on an attempt at a neologism. --Mecanismo 12:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep. The presentation I made will be posted by Monday 12th. The term came about from a section of cognitive psychology which studies intentionality.
    • Intentionality in psychology is sometimes referred to as 'thought without representation' eg. if I said 'it is raining' you can assume that I am referring to where I am, so you change what I said in your head to 'It is raining where he is' There are many cases in conversation where we don't explicitly state things but the meaning carries because of conventions or our knowledge.
    • The intentional web refers to information which are intents of the visitors that is not physically represented in information the web.
    • The intentional web initiative site (which is linked in the article) is meant to be a community site for developers to be able to work together to enhance user experience, working from the site user perspective instead of what is usual the content creator/publisher side. The site will house, aggregated blogs on intentional web topics, forums, and articles. Amanuelt 15:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We chose this term because it will not be confused with other existing terms. I know it has a low hit count on google, that is a good thing for now. When microformats was announced and posted here there was very little in google until about a month or two went by. But thanks to wikipedia I was able to contact the people working on it right away. The term has so far received positive remarks at the presentation, and on IRC channels when discussed. Amanuelt 15:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough hits. Amanuelt, I appreicate your enthusiasm, but notability must come before the Wikipedia article, not after. Firebug 18:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Wikipedia's mission, as every encyclopedia's, is to list information on already notable subjects. An encylopedia's purpose isn't to make those subjects notable. Therefore, if your argument justifies anything then it is the deletion of the article, which is more than deserved. --Mecanismo 18:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like original research at this point. Not notable. ++Lar 19:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thank you all for your input and reactions. If you feel it is wiser to repost this once the term enters regular use, I will accept your decision as I am new to posting on the wikipedia. My intentions were to provide a place where people can look to see the proper definition of the term. Amanuelt 21:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest then, as others have, that you consider creating or enhancing a site for it elsewhere (presumably enhancing this site), to capture the information about it in more detail than could be done here (encyclopedic means a precis, not in depth exposition), and Google will find it. Over time if the term and concept catches on and is used in real life, people will be falling over themselves to create this article. But for now, it seems self promotional, something that Wikipedians tend to frown on. Also, it may be useful to disclose your affiliation when you argue for or against deletion... as the primary author of this idea/term some would expect some bias in favour, which you should make explicit so your words carry more weight (advance disclosure defuses revelation by others). Note also that the concept itself seems fascinating and seems to have a lot of potential, and if it can be reduced to practice, might be a very important advance. Wikipedia is not the place to publicise things, though. Hope that helps (all IMHO only of course)... ++Lar 22:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you're mainly looking for a definition... one fallback users may use, after trying Wikipedia, is Google's "define:" operator [11], so maybe it's possible to SEO that. --Interiot 00:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original Research, Not notable and vanity. The term, as defined in the article, overlaps with my (day job) research area; and it's not one I've heard at all. It seems just a term for a simple application of Semantic Web principles. Also, I note that despite Amanuelt's claims, there doesn't appear to be any tools that actually use this term to describe themselves.
    • Thanks for you input...just curious, who are you? Amanuelt 01:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woodman Cup[edit]

I'm not certain whether this actually exists, and if it is, it is certainly isn't notable. The website has nothing to do with the article. TimBentley 06:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The website doesn't work which doesn't add to their credibility. There are 53 Google results for the Woodman Cup none of which indicate notability. [12]. Capitalistroadster 06:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster.--Alhutch 08:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the google test on "Woodman cup" lists 76 hits, including wikipedia's article and being the vast majority totally unrelated to the subject in the article. It seems that the article is pure nonsense. --Mecanismo 12:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster and Mecanismo. -- DS1953 05:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 01:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elexmas[edit]

This page was listed for Afd by User:66.191.124.236 with the reason "non-notable neologism," but the deletion process was not completed. —Brim 06:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Movementarian 07:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Mecanismo 12:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 14:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either redirect to Canadian federal election, 2006 or delete. I don't particularly care which. Neologisms, especially ones which can never break out of being specific to a particular time in a particular country, are not entitled to articles. Bearcat 17:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 18:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Derangement Syndrome[edit]

This page was listed for Afd by User:66.191.124.236 with the reason "neologism, Urban Dictionary is not a reliable reference," but the deletion process was not completed. —Brim 06:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I found a few refences to this on the web [13] , but I don't think it has mainstream usage. It does register 353 google hits [14]. Movementarian 07:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It gets 78k google hits [15] when you search for "Bush Derangement Syndrome" instead of "Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)". peachlette 22:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I am tempted to vote Keep, this article is original research and I don't think that the term has quite crossed the notability bar so delete. Capitalistroadster 08:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the only external reference is UrbanDictionary then I don't believe this is notable at all. — JIP | Talk 09:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we are not a mirror of Urban Dictionary. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am against judging articles by arbitrary notability standards (as is WP policy) and measuring a topic's worthiness by its number of Google hits is just plain dumb - presumably an article about the Roman Army in the 2nd Century would also get deleted since you're unlikely to get many google hits about that! Cynical 12:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The importance of an expression is measured by the number of people that use it. The importance of other things is established by other criteria. Therefore, when trying to check the notability of an expression, technical term, neologism etc, it is worthwhile to argue on its Google hits, though other criteria should be considered as well (eg. if the expression is common on TV more than on the Internet).JoaoRicardo 06:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not exactly original research. If kept, the article needs to be completely rewritten for clarity. It is a dictionary defintion of a term that appears to have whatever meaning anybody wants to give it, which makes it unencyclopedic in my opinion. Logophile 14:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 78000 google hits, very prominent on rightwing blogs Firebug 18:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not really in mainstream use now, likely to be forgotten when Bush is out of office.Bjones 18:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No good reason to delete. Term needs explanation. -- JJay 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is an insulting term, but it is referenced and in common use. Ah Beng was kept, hence so should this one be. It is written neutrally. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Well known expression of the moment and I'm not sure what other category where it would belong. Jtmichcock 03:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Charles Krauthammer, author of this definition. This coinage seems slightly notable enough to be mentioned somewhere, but I don't see how can this stub grow to become a full article. It's better to integrate it into Krauthammer's article, where it can be set in a context for his political thoughts. JoaoRicardo 06:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per other comments.TheRingess 06:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per Logophile. Stifle 14:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a popular and growing term created by a notable columnist. --badlydrawnjeff 14:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per other comments; not really in mainstream use. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep enough google hits Sethie 17:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology over reality[edit]

If the internet has a plentiful supply of anything, it's catalogues of logical fallacies. Funny, then, that this one is only listed as a logical fallacy in Wikipedia itself and WP mirrors. Original research, delete. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 06:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fascinating. Delete per nom. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-10 07:13:50Z
  • Delete per nomination. Movementarian 07:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I explain on the talk page why this so-called "fallacy" is fallacious itself. Basically it starts with an unproven assumption. Logophile 14:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. Stifle 14:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be uter nonsense. --Falcorian 00:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, as the original and sole contributor, Haseler (talk · contribs), of this aticle marked it as such.--Sean|Black 08:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Energy Crisis[edit]

This page was listed for Afd by User:66.191.124.236 with the reason "nnonencyclopedic essay," but the deletion process was not completed. —Brim 06:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is original research. Redirect to Energy crisis. Capitalistroadster 08:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. I appreciate the contributor's effort, but this article is filled with the contributor's personal opinions, while energy crisis has been extensively reviewed. Gazpacho 12:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Capitalistroadster. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we redirect, aren't we just saying "oh it's just an energy crisis" - we'll all be alright! I think the comments about are very valid - but having read the article on energy crisis, it isn't the right place. But where is? Assumming the premise of the article is right (and part of the reason for posting was to try and get some good peer review), when all oil and gas runs out in some 30+ years - won't it be the biggest event in world history since the fall of the Roman empire? And Wikipedia voted to "delete"! --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.201.132 (talk • contribs)
  • Redirect to energy crisis as above Firebug 18:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted The weight of opinion is that the end of the Western World doesn't warrent an entry in Wikipedia - so who am I to argue? I have deleted what I can!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inhilation Therapy Association[edit]

This page was listed for Afd by User:66.191.124.236 with the reason "advert and misspelled as well," but the deletion process was not completed. —Brim 06:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The title is of course mispelled, but even a redirect to Inhalation Therapy Association wouldn't do, as it is non-notable and a google search returns only one website related to the article. LordViD 10:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misspelled advertisements are the best kind. Snurks T C 10:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Annihilation for Inhilation. -- DS1953 05:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 18:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Plum[edit]

An article about the main character of a series of novels; articles about the series itself have not been written yet. Delete. Neutralitytalk 06:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Priority based delete, per nomination. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (Bjorn Tipling 07:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. This is an article about the main character in a series of books [16] and is just as worthy of an article as Encyclopedia Brown or Jack Ryan . Movementarian 07:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Movementarian. Capitalistroadster 08:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Firebug 18:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Stephanie Plum Series. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Movementarian and Capitalistroadster. She's the protagonist in a series by a famous author. I'm not about to force people to write articles about the books first, especially when main characters should be kept instead of merged per WP:FICT anyway. - Mgm|(talk) 00:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Notable character in notable detective fiction series. Haikupoet 04:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: don't be ridiculous! It's perfectly reasonable to combine an article about a series with that about its eponymous hero(ine). Where were you thinking that an article about the series should be placed? Don't delete, expand! —Phil | Talk 08:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per Paolo Liberatore. Stifle 14:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; from WP:FICT:
Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice.
This giudeline makes perfectly sense to me. That's why I think the article should be about the series (regardless of the article title). Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • but she isnt a character in a work of fiction. shes a character in a series of works of fiction. would you expect sherlock holmes to be covered in articles on every one of his novels or would it make more sense if he was covered with his own article? same here. if there are going to be articles on each of the books (which there should be) then stephanie plum should have her own article. BL kiss the lizard 00:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The consensus not to delete the article seems established. Whether the article should be about the main character or the series belongs to the article talk page, where I have answered to BL's comment. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 11:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- JJay 17:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of voting systems topics[edit]

This initial list has been supplanted by Category:Voting theory and it's 3 sub categories Category:Voting theorists, Category:Voting systems, and Category:Voting system criteria. Scott Ritchie 07:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this is a case where the list-article doesn't do anything better than the category. Andrew Levine 08:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To be redundant, the category fulfills this purpose better. Mo0[talk] 08:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Snurks T C 09:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one more symptom of the "list article" epidemic --Mecanismo 12:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andrew. Please make sure that all articles (safe the ones under the "other topics" header) are categorized before deleting. Also don't forget to put the redlinks on a WikiProject or WP:RA. - Mgm|(talk) 00:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Scott Ritchie 20:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lenge[edit]

This article is written from original research. I also think the subject fails to meet the requirements in WP:BIO, but I don't speak french and I could be wrong. Movementarian 08:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clear original research These are my recollections on Eric whom I stayed with for nine months and more info will be provided as it is remembered.. Delete unless substantiated. Keep rewritten version. Dlyons493 Talk 08:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but "However he is one ruthless person who would not hesitate to shoot anyone." is pretty humorous. Keep, the cleaned version is definitely noteworthy and worth keeping. Snurks T C 09:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He led a coup against the Congolese Government in 2004. I have cleaned up and provided references. Capitalistroadster 09:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cleaned version by Capitalistroadster. Movementarian 09:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cleaned up and verified version done by Capitalistroadster. --Rob 09:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. Enochlau 10:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Grassi[edit]

Non-notable entry, does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria, has only recorded a couple of demos Akamad 08:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity. perhaps could be userfied.--Alhutch 09:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nominator. LordViD 09:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vanity. Movementarian 09:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarian Society of Colorado[edit]

Delete Non-notable. Google search for "Vegetarian Society of Colorado" returns 293 results. Their own site only has one listing for 'in the news', a 2003 article in the Durango Herald. AKMask 09:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nomination --Mecanismo 12:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any word on member numbers? - Mgm|(talk) 01:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find the member number on the site. Few Google hits, no mention in Google news, no claim to notability. JoaoRicardo 06:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ThePit[edit]

Blatant vanity/spam for a non-notable discussion board. (Has no Alexa rank; their provider's traffic rank is 79777.) Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FOTGR[edit]

Currently rather POV and unencyclopaedic in tone (which is fixable) article about an organisation which appears to be not in any way notable. Most Google hits on FOTGR are for cameras, once those are excluded the number of hits on FOTGR is below 300, and even those are often not about this project. Might (just) be justifiable with reference to systemic bias, I've voted keep on that basis before now, but I really don't see that in this case. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds like a nice bunch of people, but the article has not established notability in any way. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-10 10:03:03Z
  • Delete as nomination --Mecanismo 12:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, Delete is the way to go. --Agamemnon2 13:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve Several projects on the go, representatives in three countries (though that may just mean there is one guy in Dubai and one in Saudi Arabia), registered with government and should be verifiable. It's hard to judge an Indian organisation by web presence in comparison with US organisations so it might well be worth keeping. --Spondoolicks 14:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily kept as nominator has withdrawn his nomination. FCYTravis 23:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UNITED cRACKING fORCE[edit]

  • Keep /w modification After further review the only program listed is a debugger which i will remove on my own. Ke5crz 10:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though what the group has done is illegal, does not mean that it does not belong in an encyclopedia. dr.alf 10:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. By this rationale we'd have to delete every article about a criminal. Snurks T C 10:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the most important and longest running warez groups. May I know why this was VfDd? Nezbie 12:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More third-party verification than most high schools. —Cryptic (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We don't delete accurate, encyclopedic info because it might give people bad thoughts. Firebug 16:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time Machine (radio)[edit]

"Internet radio" (i.e. not radio at all) show which hasn't quite reached the dizzy heights of having its own domain name yet. Some evidence of minor discussion in web forums, but not of any true media coverage or significance. This is the editor's first and (to date) sole contribution. Already seems to be on Wikicities, I see no reason why it can't stay there until it becomes well-known. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a web radio with no claim of notability doesn't sound very promising. The domain of it (planetfurry.com) has an alexa rank of over 2 million, which gives some hope for humanity. - Bobet 01:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Just zis Guy. JoaoRicardo 06:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bobet. Stifle 14:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IPod Guide[edit]

As the title suggests, this is one person's guide to the iPod. Adds nothing to IPod that I can see. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silly hat club[edit]

Seems to be a joke religion amongst a handful of people, run out of a local restaurant. --CBD ☎ ✉ 10:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominated: a private joke. -- JimR 10:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete joke. Gazpacho 10:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity religions/bands/etc should be updated so that they can be speedied. Firebug 18:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN or Delete xaosflux T/C 00:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN per xaosflux. Stifle 14:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thirsty Thursday[edit]

per User:Uncle G/Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google returns nothing relevant about it. --Peter McGinley 10:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above dr.alf 11:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a vote I could see this being informative for an international student... --Dschor 12:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... also Wacky Wednesday, Too-hard Tuesday and My It's Monday, just in case anybody creates those. - DavidWBrooks 17:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. This isn't a new phenomenon, it is just no on else feels the need to name it. Movementarian 20:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this, Friday after class, and other university drinking phenomena could go into a culture of alcohol or American university culture article. This is surely an encyclopedic pop culture topic, no? Smmurphy(Talk) 21:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Thirsty Thursday" gets 57,900 google hits [17], and isn't a recent term as the article claims. Not that this means it should get its own article though . . . peachlette 22:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peachlette. Because of T T going together, this actually has a wide variety of independent origins, and is used to mean several different things. It is similar to Formal Friday, a term coined on Triple J radio a year ago that is now in common use. Thursday can be a good day to go out and drink since Friday is just one day, and on Thursday nobody else is doing it. Much better than going out to drink on Wednesday or Tuesday or something. lol. It has merit. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I just came up with some random phrases like "wicked wednesday" and "funky friday" and got a shedload of Google hits. Unlike Casual Friday, this isn't an established custom, but more likely just a popular name for a bar's drinks promotion. - Hahnchen 01:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thirsty Thursday is a legitimate college phenomenon with several years, at the very least, of history behind it. Just because no one's decided to write a peer-reviewed study on it for a sociological journal doesn't mean it can't be in Wikipedia. Bombsaway 03:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is not a college phenomenon, it is a slang term for binge drinking regardless of the night that it takes place on. We call it "Hey, you want to go down to the pub?", but then again I have never really felt the need to invent reasons to drink. There are already many available. In fact, Happy Burkinabé Republic Day! Cheers! Movementarian 04:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment* Regardless of your feelings on the matter, the fact remains that "Thirsty Thursday", as it were, is a phenomenon worth noting in Wikipedia. Binge drinking goes by many names, and Thirsty Thursday is one I happen to hear very often.
  • Comment This isn't something I "made up in school one day"; it's a pharse I've been hearing with alarming regularity since I matriculated in 2002, which I feel bears explanation. Bombsaway 05:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 18:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reach Around[edit]

I don't think Wikipedia is a dictionary of sexual slang. This appears to have been copied from here (note repeat of spelling error). User's sole contribution. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete slangdef. Gazpacho 12:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sexual slang. Pburka 17:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above or transwiki to WikiKamaSutra (kidding about the transwiki comment of course). Movementarian 20:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Wok[edit]

Promotional. This 'independent' film is looking for investors, and is unlikely to gain a proper theatrical release. Not notable. The JPS 10:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — The lack of major backing and the minimal content push this into non-notable for me. The page can always be re-created if it makes a splash. — RJH 18:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Perhaps it could be recreated if the film is picked up by a studio such as Fox Searchlight Pictures, but as of now it is just another of the scores of indie films produced every year. Movementarian 20:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ...not a crystal ball. - Bobet 01:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, film not yet released, not notable. --Flockmeal 01:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Novice Brand[edit]

Non notable. Can't find any google results, so unverifiable. Promo. The JPS 10:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil's Flea Circus[edit]

Cannot be verified. Non notable. See also this afd. The JPS 10:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No entry on allmusic.com and does not appear to meet the criteria in WP:MUSIC. Movementarian 20:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 14:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even though I went to school with one of them! They are fairly well known on the Northern Ireland pub and club scene and have been on local TV a couple of times but the same could be said about lots of bands in every city so they don't belong in an encyclopedia. Keresaspa 15:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Delete the article at their other name, Dodgy Stereo, too. —Cryptic (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cashier Joe 90[edit]

Non-notable. Unverified. Similar articles also up for AFD. The JPS 10:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was revert to October 21, 2005 version. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tether[edit]

Currently a NN musician which is far too brief to assert importance. Does not cite reference. Previous versions of this page have been moved to wikitionary. Expect sockpuppets to 'contribute' to this AFD. The JPS 10:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The ruse[edit]

no evidence given of importance File Éireann 10:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. non-notableLogophile 14:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence given re WP:NMG. Capitalistroadster 16:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bare listing at allmusic.com and no listing at amazon. Does not appear to meet criteria in WP:MUSIC. Movementarian 21:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete band vanity, wish these could be speedied Stifle 14:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Venskus[edit]

Vanity/non-notable. It mentions a nationwide campaign of some sort but no results. Snurks T C 10:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep many people are starting to receive notices with venskus on them and are wondering what it means, they are turning to wikipedia for answers.(This is an anonymous edit by User:BBwoman1 (see below) --File Éireann 12:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]
  • delete nn bio--File Éireann 11:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I made this as a response to a request for an article under the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social Sciences and Philosophy, as well as many people have been turning to wikipedia for answers as to why they have been receiving posters and leaflets with venskus written on them BBwoman1
  • Keep answered my question as to why I had a poster on my dorm room door that said VENSKUS OKSooner 13:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WUSLU has three edits -- the above comment plus formatting edits to it. peachlette 22:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it makes sense now WUSLU 15:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I note that an application to protect this page has been made. This is not practical as the opportunity must be given to others to have a vote on this issue. We will continue each day to put back deleted votes, as I have been doing. No vote shall be lost.--File Éireann 16:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • del. vanity. mikka (t) 18:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutral. while i would agree generally that this would be vanity, this could help a large number of people to understand and not be ambiguous as to what venskus meansBBwoman1 18:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, explains the sign I found on my bathroom door WVULUVSIS 19:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete forthwith. This is most definitely a vanity page. Movementarian 21:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! BBwoman1's repeated voting and blanking of delete votes only makes this non-notable bio more worthy of deletion. peachlette 22:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to User:BBwoman1, who gave me some trouble today, she appears to have reformed.--File Éireann 23:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
it should be noted that User:BBwoman1 is actually a guy. Also, you can compare similar work for Www.ufck.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whelck (talk • contribs) 2005-12-11 00:05:59
  • Delete; closer beware of sockpuppets, in case it's not obvious. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-11 06:18:41Z
  • Delete VanityTheRingess 06:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, or a collection of things written on bumper stickets. Influenced by people interfering with the AFD process. Stifle 14:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. -- DS1953 05:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. CSD A1, nonsense. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 15:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gossam Commando[edit]

Its been here for nearly a month and still doesn;'t give any useful information. File Éireann 10:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and speedy under A1, surely? Lacks the context to even estalish what the hell this trivia is supposed to be about. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy patent nonsense. Cynical 12:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, db-empty or db-nonsense. PJM 14:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A1. Stifle 14:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was booby delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fictional Large Breasted Women[edit]

  • Discuss. :-) — Timwi 11:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously. Makes no distinction between characters who are defined as having large breasts and those who are merely played by shapely women; also makes no attempt to define "large" and in the context of fiction that would in any case be hard to verify since vital statistics are rarely cited in fictional works. Of no obvious interest to anyone other than adolescent sci-fi fans. Redirect to Girlfriend and hope they get the hint? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Sounds like a great idea to me. Daniel Case 00:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like a fun nomination. I suppose there could be some use for this article, but it is eluding me at the moment. Also, the standard for breast size does not appear large. Perhaps a definition is in order. Delete --Dschor 12:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • oh hell no. Delete ought to be a no-brainer. --Agamemnon2

13:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Breast-cruft. PJM 14:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can think of a couple of characters whose large breasts are actually important to the story ... but I don't see this being enough to sustain a list. Also the list is clearly POV - Seven of Nine actually isn't particularly large-busted, it was just the costume made her look that way. 23skidoo 17:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Delete per above arguments. — RJH 18:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lara cruft (sorry, couldn't resist it!) Dlyons493 Talk 20:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. I would accept such a list only if there were a criterion for "large-breasted" and if every entry were accompanied by a bra size and a verifiable source citation indicating its accuracy. It's really time for us to start insisting on verifiability and source citations. Editors' guesses and a subjective judgement of "large," no way. Acceptable example below: Dpbsmith (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vallery Irons, of the TV Show V.I.P. "She shows ample cleavage and was first said to wear at 38D bra; then 36DD and finally 34D." : Terrace, Vincent (2002). Crime Fighting Heroes of Television. McFarland and Co. ISBN 0786413956.
  • Delete --Radioshack 01:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm starting to think we should get rid of all lists. --Bachrach44 01:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be impossible, unless Wikimedia had a Category feature. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Jtmichcock 03:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • is this for fictional women with large breasts or women with large fictional breasts? if its the first one, delete. if its the second, whos on it? BL kiss the lizard 10:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jwissick(t)(c) 10:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously. Rhollenton 16:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had to get this off my chest. Durova 01:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd consider changing the vote if someone started a list of men with large...never mind... (snicker) Durova 01:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Don't you guys have anything better to do? Durova 19:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteTheRingess 01:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. Not even a category is justified. Stifle 14:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sorry to interrupt the PC groupthink, but this is arguably far more useful than some of our 1,000s of fictional lists, such as List of fictional Elvis impersonators. -- JJay 17:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's your point? We're not talking about those others, we're talking about this one. I'm objecting to this one on the grounds of verifiability. Is verifiability "PC groupthink?" Dpbsmith (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Object on any grounds you want. There are many ways to set criteria for this list that would allow verifiability, just like with any other list. The point is, Lara Croft as well as many fictional female characters, are known for breast size- a fact that also significantly inflated Angelina Jolie's bank account. -- JJay 18:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I've edited the article to make it possible to achieve verifiability; listed the single character for which we currently have a source citation; and moved the rest to the article's Talk page. If nobody reverts my changes and there's general consensus that the criteria I propose (bust measurement of 38 inches or more, attested by a verifiable source citation) I'll change my vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I, for one, have no problem with any criteria you want to impose, although I believe it's more a matter for contributing editors to hash out over time on the article talk page. Naturally, I would welcome your switch to keep. Given the current vote line-up, however, isn't this conversation just a wee bit academic. -- JJay 19:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I should have made my edit earlier. But, better late than never. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in present form provided there is general agreement that the a) list must state a well-defined criterion, i.e. one for which it can be determined objectively that the criterion is met, and must include only entries meeting the verifiability policy; specifically, entries accompanied by verifiable source citations that make a specific statement that shows that the fictional character meets the criterion. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, I wasn't so off-base with my groupthink remark, which was meant to shake things up a bit here. You are truly a man of your word. Now, if we can convince some of the other 15 delete voters that large breasts can be verified in fiction, just like in real life, we might have a chance to save this info for future generations. -- JJay 21:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing indiscriminate here. The issue speaks directly to the fictional representation and objectification of women, and can be analysed from the allegorical, societal and commercial standpoints, among others. It has been a feature of fictional female portrayal, from the Greek gods through renaissance painting and up to present day game design. -- JJay 17:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undoubtedly there is scope for an article on the fictional representation and objectification of women. No question. Whether it can be done without straying into OR I don't know, it probbaly can. And it will need to cover periods when fictional breasts (and the semi-fictional "ideal" portrayed by models) were small as well as large. It would be an interesting and thought-provoking article, in exactly the way this isn't :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV, or rather, two POVs. Seriously, in many cases, verifying a "38-inch breast" would be difficult to do for many fictional characters... and virtually impossible for cartoons. Does Blondie qualify? On the other hand, investigating the visual evidence would be characterized by some as "fun." B.Wind 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does Blondie qualify? Unfortunately, pending verification, no. We need more than visuals. Sorry. But these are good questions that need to be asked. -- JJay 00:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Difficult? Indeed it is very difficult. Fact-checking is always difficult. But it is what is needed to build an encyclopedia. What's required, of course, is not a measurement of Blondie's bust, but a good verifiable source citation in which someone says what her bust measurement is. It can be an estimate, but it needs to be a published estimate by someone reasonably authoritative. It can't just be the opinion of a Wikipedia editor. Perhaps there's an interview with Chic Young somewhere or something like that. If you think a specific bust measurement sets the bar too high, you could argue that all that should be required is a verifiable source citation describing Blondie as "busty" or "chesty" or "large-breasted." (Might be easier to find such a citation for L'il Abner's Daisy Mae... Julie Newmar... Mmmm....) Dpbsmith (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) P. S. Or "buxom." "Buxom" is always good. I've already found a reference to Edie Adams playing a "buxom and bouncy Daisy Mae," but of course that is saying that Edie Adams was buxom, not that Daisy Mae was. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, here we go. Catherine Donaldson-Evans of Fox News—and you can't get more authoritative than Fox News, right? says here "By now, you'd think Blondie would be ready for retirement—after all, the buxom suburban housewife and star of her own comic strip recently turned 74." Anyway, a verifiable designation of Blondie as "buxom." You could say, her endowments are fair and balanced. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Buxom. Hm. That's supporting evidence, but not good enough for inclusion. We need some details on bra size. -- JJay 01:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non verfiable and also what sets the bar for "large breasted"?Gateman1997 00:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HardcoreSounds.net[edit]

Alexa rank >3,000,000 Google finds only one hit (the site itself). Domain registered Jan. 2004. Forums claim a whopping 370 members, which if the thread list is accurate means an average of under 2 posts per member (I hope they are archiving, otherwise they are clearly wasting their time!) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Mo0[talk] 17:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 14:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marianist LIFE[edit]

spam, plain and simple. Can anyone think of an appropriate speedy criterion? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-encyclopedic content. Punkmorten 13:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. Howie ☎ 13:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, as a copyvio from here along with a smattering of stuff from here. I'm gonna go over to that page and mark it. Mo0[talk] 17:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete: joke/vandalism. Thue | talk 18:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"hairy dork"[edit]

Delete:this page is not encyclopedic - nn - vanity --Dschor 12:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vandalism, based on the title. Gazpacho 12:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See also Hairy Dork. Punkmorten 12:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Punkmorten, you stole the words right outta my fingers. Delete. D.valued 12:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an in-joke, and duplicated at that. Delete - and the other one, too. Didactylos 13:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - both. PJM 14:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the other one is already speedy-deleted - DavidWBrooks 17:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am surpriced that nobody has posted this link before now. I will go ahead and speedy the page...


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jargonaut[edit]

Cross between a dicdef and a website advert. —Xezbeth 12:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a neologism. Jargonaut gets 145 google hits [18] although not all are associated with this definition. If verified as a widely used term then perhaps a transwiki to wiktionary would be in order. Movementarian 21:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xezbeth and Movementarian. -- DS1953 06:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noise Metal[edit]

Delete this metal pseudo subgenre. This article basicaly describes the band Mastodon, which already has an article. Spearhead 12:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It seems to be used by some people, but it is hard to say how many exactly. It gets 23,000 Google hits, but most of them are things like "noise: metal" (when will Google notice that colons change the meaning of an expression?). AMG does not use "noise metal" in its Mastodon article. Finally Open Directory has no category for that. Heavy metal is famous for its many short-lived subgenres, which seem to come and go at the critics' taste. Let's wait more before having an article for this one. JoaoRicardo 07:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Spearhead. Stifle 14:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Deleting this would create one of the only red links in List of heavy metal genres. I also note that the nom redirected the article without discussion, then nominated for AfD when the redirect was reverted. -- JJay 17:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are other red links/not linked genres on that list. Second this seems only to refer to Mastodon and lists a whole bunch of red links otherwise... Apparently not a notalbe genre, and if Mastodon uses it themselves, it can be mentioned in their page (which I did add to that page btw). A good reason nevertheless to delete or redirect is is the article state "There aren't many noise metal bands" Spearhead 18:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • JJay, I don't quite understand your point. If this is deemed not to be noteworthy, can't we simply delete its reference on that list? JoaoRicardo 19:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Guys please check List of heavy metal genres again. This is a great and long list with only two redlinks as far as I can see. Why create more? Furthermore, there is an entire paragraph on Noise Metal in that list. Deleting that info is a matter for discussion with the editors of the list. Also, if Noise Metal exists as a genre, and even if Mastodon is the only Noise Metal band (not that I believe that), then it deserves an article. -- JJay 19:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hum, I see what you mean now. Sorry. I thought it was a real list, with nothing but a sequence of genre names, when it actually provides a small description for each. I've left a note on its talk page asking people to join the discussion here. JoaoRicardo talk 19:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's cool. If the editors of that list (who know much more about heavy metal than me) decide that Noise Metal shouldn't be there, then I would probably vote delete here. But if the genre does exist, then I don't think the article really hurts anyone. Maybe you should switch your vote to abstain or keep, in the interim. -- JJay 19:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • FYI I actually am an editor of many metal related articles and I have been trying to clean many pseudo metal subgenres. Also not that the list it is on says "These genres are not generally acknowledged as metal genres" Spearhead 19:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Spearhead, I have noticed you are an editor there as well, and I don't mean to say you know nothing about this. I just think that more heavy metal editors would provide a better discussion. JoaoRicardo talk 19:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disasterlabs[edit]

Article appears to be an advertisement of poor quality. Shawnc 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missing section header made this not show up on Dec 8 log. Re-posting so it gets its full 5 days consideration. Abstain, but 324 displayed hits[19] and an Alexa rank of 1,072,081 doesn't seem very impressive. 24.17.48.241 00:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Norris (band)[edit]

Completing nomination for User:66.191.124.236. Punkmorten 12:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless there is more here than meets the eye, this should be an easy call. --Dschor 12:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. I see no grounds for notoriety. --Agamemnon2 13:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 14:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unclear whether this was the name of the band or an instruction to Wikipedians, but it seems apt in either case. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Net-centric information environment[edit]

Extremelly obscure article based on an attempt at a neologism. The google test lists 160 results. Article is orphan Mecanismo 13:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Stifle 14:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- DS1953 06:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Åma Band[edit]

Does not really meet WP:MUSIC. A staggering 18 Google hits, and 1 hit on a Norwegian search engine. Punkmorten 13:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete obscure band from the 80s that only launched a single. Probably vanity --Mecanismo 13:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the single chart? If so, keep. - David Gerard 13:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Seán Kelly (GAA President). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kelly (GAA president)[edit]

Orphan article not in english Mecanismo 13:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is a short article on him under Seán Kelly (GAA President). Somebody with a better grasp of Irish than me could check if anything can be added from this one. Rhion 14:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Transwiki to the Irish Gaelic Wikipedia if article not there. Merge if Wikipedian of Irish background says there is something of value there. Ensure that this becomes a redirect to the other article.

Capitalistroadster 17:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect I've merged the little there was of note into the existing article. Dlyons493 Talk 21:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as an article in english already exists. Movementarian 21:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The article in Irish does not say anything new. Stifle 14:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GFFI FITNESS ACADEMY[edit]

It's an advert. Howie ☎ 13:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wikibooks. Owen× ☎ 01:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Water in the desert[edit]

Is this article really needed on Wikipedia? Doesn't look like it belongs here at all. --Mrdie 05:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transfer to Wikibooks as per Gazpacho. Capitalistroadster 17:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transfer to Wikibooks as above, if that is not favourable then delete. Movementarian 21:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. JoaoRicardo 07:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per Capitalistroadster. Stifle 14:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Games during 1999-2000 swason[edit]

Unencyclopedic fancruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Aecis praatpaal 14:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The title is vague and ambiguous, giving no indication other than the period. There is no reference to notability of the particular football club. While seasonal summaries might be considered encyclopedic in a broader context (summaries of important teams, changes, championships and that sort of thing, especially for a whole league) this is more something that belongs in a sports almanac. DeathThoreau 16:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be an attempt to recap the 1990-2000 season for the Dutch Football Club Feyennoord Rotterdam, although "season" is incorrectly spelled. The football club is notable as they are one of the top teams in Dutch football, but this is not a good candidate for an article, as Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Movementarian 21:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Movementarian. Feyenoord is a big football club in The Netherlands, but listing every sports score on this site isn't practical or useful. - Bobet 01:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. What the heck is a "swason"? 23skidoo 02:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can evolution be guided by God?[edit]

This is another POV-fork by user Ed Poor presenting his particular take on the possible ways to answer the question "Can evolution be guided by God?" He ignores the fact that there are articles on theistic evolution and progressive creationism which already address this question in an NPOV manner. He reinstated this article claiming it wasn't properly AfDed when it was speedily deleted. --ScienceApologist 14:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The title itself scrapes WP:NOR. PJM 14:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is getting tiresome. Vsmith 15:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Vsmith. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 15:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (see deletion log for more information about this page's history). — Dunc|☺ 15:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't go around deleting articles just because they're stubs, we improve them, we don't just delete them--Ytrewqt 15:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC) This vote is Ytrewqt (talk · contribs)'s fourth edit; his/her third edit was illegally removing the AfD notice from the article.[reply]
  • Delete per PJM. This is an essay and not an encyclopaedia article. I also note the interesting reference to the ways the question may be "answered by Americans". The non-American 95% obviously do not matter. David | Talk 15:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is this an article about the question "Can evolution be guided by God?"? Does that second question mark make sense? Certainly more sense than this article. And can the person or people who keep creating these POV forks just create List of Athiests Who Love Evolution and Ignore or Seek to Discredit ID and Creationism, Even Though They Are Different, I Swear so at least I can laugh when I type "Delete"? -Parallel or Together ? 16:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Guettarda 16:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another blatant POV fork by an editor infamous for them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Specifying Delete without merging. Also, I support the calls to sanction this editor. For this editor to pretend, after his years of experience, that he thought Can evolution be guided by God? was even an acceptable Wikipedia title, let alone a subject covered nowhere else on Wikipedia, is preposterous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Can a page title be any more PoV? Already covered better elsewhere, and this page barely has any meaningful content. — RJH 18:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV --Mecanismo 18:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per above. Not sure what this is, but it sure doesn't look like it's trying to be an eneyclopedia article. Friday (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 19:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a good article, not a relevant subject, and the material is all somehwhere else. The Land 19:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; seems more like WP:POINT than even an honest attempt at original research. Fredrik | tc 21:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to the yet-to-be-created sister project WikiBlog. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-10 21:42
  • Delete. BlankVerse 23:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personal essay, covered elsewhere. Jtmichcock 03:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and sanction creator. Ambi 06:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and sanction creator, yes. The intersection of the set of admins and the set of trolls should be null. --FOo 11:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and sanction creator. He should know better than to dispupt to make a point. -- Ec5618 21:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research; speculative essay. Agree with sanctioning creator. I don't understand how one could think that either the title or the contents were encyclopedic. If this had been created by a newer user, it would likely have been speedily deleted. Please stop doing this. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, Ed has crossed the line into bad faith territory. Gazpacho 03:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looney original research has no place here. --Kiand 18:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another Ed Poor POV fork, also per Fredrik. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Kyknos 20:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not an article Sethie 17:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was BJAODN. - Mailer Diablo 06:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgoatpig[edit]

Either a hoax or non-notable unless author can provide citation File Éireann 14:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Google turns up three unrelated pages. No sources. Appears to be made up. Howie ☎ 14:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sounded like a real article at first, but nothing came up on google too. thence, delete, reasons as above. le petit vagabond 14:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. PJM 14:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Send to BJAODN, an entertaining hoax. Cactus.man ✍ 18:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN, per Cactusman. Stifle 10:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 18:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Deere Buck, John deere Gator[edit]

Unencyclopedic. Information belongs best on the manufacturer's web site. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as quickly as possible - advertisement that appears to be lifted from a promotional pamphlet. B.Wind 04:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 16:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just needs a bit of a cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed Gator Article: but still missing the History. Buck Article: Fixed not enoughf history to menchion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.198.220 (talk • contribs)

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Existing things. mikka (t) 18:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least Gator. This is a unique vehicle type that has important characteristics/features. That would be what the article should focus on. Some discussion of how many different types of organizations find this vehicle useful might help matters as well. The article is currently in need of a lot of work but the topic is notable and encyclopedic in my view. Buck, on the other hand could probably stand to be merged into the all-terrain vehicle article, as this vehicle does not have unique aspects the way the Gator does... so Keep Gator and Merge Buck... ++Lar 19:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No less worthy than Fiat 127. Movementarian 21:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both vehicles but articles need serious help. -- DS1953 06:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guided evolution[edit]

More of the same. I had it redirect to evolutionary creationism, but yah, OR. — Dunc|☺ 15:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It's not a POV fork, because it does not push for any particular point of view. Please see the distinction which Wikipedia:Content forking makes. And if it contains inaccuracies, please correct them instead of nominating the entire article for deletion - which simply wastes everybody's time. The whole point is to make a balanced (i.e., NEUTRAL) account of what religious people think about evolution. Uncle Ed 16:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It pushes the POV of User:Ed Poor who cannot seem to bring himself to edit the articles on the subject (say evolutionary creationism). --ScienceApologist 16:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV-fork, it is also said much better in other places on Wikipedia. --Davril2020 17:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - better said elsewhere on Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 17:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ed tries to explain why his personal essay is not POV enough to be a POV fork; this is absolutely irrelevant. What he needs to explain and doesn't seem to want to is why this article deserves to exist when the subject is already covered on Wikipedia. Ed is in fact using a classic POV-forking trick: select an alternate name for an existing subject which should be a redirect but turn it into an article expressing your own POV on the matter instead. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Ed, this isn't funny anymore. Please stop using article space a place to put your own essays. Friday (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Guided evolution isn't a religious idea solely—or at all. It is overwhelmingly more often linked to planetary seeding than religious views. The article fails to be accurate at the first sentence, and then just rambles on without any attempt to place the idea in context or with reference to other ideas of development. User:Noisy | Talk 19:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I just don't see the point of this article. It's full of misconceptions about evolution, and frankly, I wouldn't want anyone who didn't already know about this issue to read this article as a source of information. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 19:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is all getting beyond a joke. The Land 19:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What next? Misguided evolution? Jtmichcock 03:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is there any way to stop these pages from continuing to crop up? Someone should create a List of POV forks or something. Oh wait, I guess Special:Contributions/Ed Poor already has that covered. -Parallel or Together ? 11:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Theistic evolution. One of many spawned by the creationist meme, undoubtedly under the belief that replication quantity equals veracity. :) — RJH 20:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's evolution by natural selection, clearly: they're hoping that random mutations of phrases will produce new memes, and the fittest ones will survive. --Calton | Talk 00:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and sanction the creator. It's becoming clear to me that Ed Poor's reputation as a fair-minded advocate for NPOV is almost entirely self-proclaimed. --Calton | Talk 00:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. Respectfully respect creator to stop creating personal essays. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, misguided personal essay. Gazpacho 03:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasoning see last 8 POV forks created by this editor. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

More of the same. I had it redirect to evolutionary creationism, but yah, OR. — Dunc|☺ 15:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what part of this article you feel violates Wikipedia's "no original research" policy.
Or if it should be a redirect, as you previously had it, why did you nominate it for deletion? What info does it contain which you feel is non-encyclopedic? Uncle Ed 15:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't say anything not said elsewhere in a better way, it just sort of rambles its was through variously flavoured slices of piffle. It is also factually incorrect; "Any other account of changes within populations (or the emergence of new populations) of life is Creationism, not Science" when alternative scientific theories have been proposed to account for evolution (they were wrong but they were nevertheless science).

It is on VFD to circumvent aggressive bullying tactics from certain users. — Dunc|☺ 15:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, this is another example of a personal research essay by User:Ed Poor about the subject of evolutionary creationism. When User:Duncharris redirected the article, Ed Poor decided that he wanted the article reinstated as is. "Guided evolution" is another example of a creationist neologism, it should just be deleted anyway. Are people really going to do a search for "guided evolution"? --ScienceApologist 16:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 16:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Cymet[edit]

Delete. Totally self-promotional Daniel Case 16:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not a nn-bio, but no notability can be found (yet?). feydey 20:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite Needs to be NPOVed but seems to be notable enough to keep. Dlyons493 Talk 21:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have rewritten the article based on information I could find on the web. He notablity is now listed in the article, not 100% that it merits inclusion but I don;t see the harm. Movementarian 22:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How is this self-promotional if Tyler Cymet didn't write it? I wrote the original article. Sorry about the formatting, this is my first article. PiMaster3 22:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, people don't always log in under their own names. Daniel Case 03:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- current revision looks OK to me. delldot | talk 15:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely weak keep. There is some notability here but this is a stretch. -- DS1953 06:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Let it Snow" Rituals[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (I counted 3 deletes, 2 keeps, 2 non-votes, 2 uncounted comments). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005

Acharya S[edit]

Apparently an author in the field of comparative religion, but her "notable theories" are as about as groundbreaking as a plastic shovel in permafrost. Assertions of notability may be valid, but I don't know if the publication of a few pieces of "pulp academia" are worthy of inclusion. Tom Lillis 09:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be a great loss if there were not some article on Acharya S. She is an important figure in contemporary religious debate. The extent to which she has been a subject of often vituperative controversy is a measure of her significance. It is unfortunate that because of her controversial nature that she has been subject to treatments that are obvious hatchet jobs. To have no reference to her whatsoever, however, would do the curious reader, as well as the realm of religious polemic, a great disservice. The article should be improved, not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjulka (talk • contribs)
Comments by Cjulka have been disregarded (user's only edit). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005
  • A point which is stated in both of her books. These observations have been made since the beginnings of christianity even by the church fathers themselves. That said, there is absolutely no reason to keep this piece on Wikipedia because it is nothing more than a defaming hit piece. -el Lobo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.31 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point: Bringing her child into all of this is about as low as it gets and if nothing else that should be erased immediately. It is obvious that much of this article is does little more than humiliate and disparage. -el Lobo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.31 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by "el Lobo" interpreted as delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005
  • I concur with Lobo....erase the disparaging remarks represented by Zarov and while you are at it...delete him too. This person is not worthy of receiving ANY respect as an editor or "professional" writer, any more than a zoo monkey. If I sound disparaging of him, it is because he deserves it. Spreading information about her personal life is tantamount to the tactics of a "National Enquirer", not the professionalism of what claims to be an Encyclopaedia. She is a living breathing person and anyone should have her permission to say anything personal about her in a respectable forum such as Wikipedia claims to be. The last time I looked, the Acharya S. site as laid out looked reasonable enough, but apparently, the monkey is busy changing it. I might suspect he is a stalker, what with his fixation on the author. Rene/Skull — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.223.140 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by "Rene/Skull" interpreted as delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005
  • I concur that this piece should be permanently deleted, on the grounds that it was written as a propaganda/hit piece by user:Zarove. In addition, others have colluded with this intent. User:Crazy Eddie (an admin?) writes that this is about what he can "get away with" in an effort to make the author "look like a nut". This is not good for the author, whose reputation is being deliberately tarnished, nor is it good for wikipedia. ^^James^^ 20:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by ^^James^^ interpreted as delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005
    • What exactly is the problem with the article ? For someone who knows nothing about this person, it doesn't read too much like propaganda. She seems to have a decent number of google hits. Tintin 21:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it should be made clear that the article has been cleaned up to make it "fair" while this deletion process is going on, to give it the "best chance" for survival. So no, the current version does not reflect the last eight months, which included blatant factual inaccruacies, that were pointed out time and time again and were consistently ignored. It has been suggested to Zarove by an admin that he refrain from adding back the "unresolved issues" until after the deletion process is over. If I haven't misread... why is there need to present a whitewashed version during the deletion process if it wasn't understood to be unfair in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ^^James^^ (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Users should be aware that this article has been involved in an extensive edit war, accumulating more than 350 edits, many with acrimonious comments left in the edit summaries. The talk page has accumulated so much discussion that it has three archives. ◎DanMS 18:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by "DanMS" interpreted as a non-vote. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005
  • Keep. As told in the above comments, it has been edited extensively and also by at least 5-6 notable wiki contributers. There are also many internet sites discussing this controversy.--Raghu 04:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm neither a member of the wiki community, nor of Acharya's list. I surfed in on a whim awhile back, it's been interesting to follow.
Perhaps Zarove isn't the best person to write the definitive version, since he appears to have an axe to grind. For the same reason, neither should anyone from Acharya's group.
To bemoan some "conspiracy" against her is to trivialize the word. The talkpage entries are there for the world to see. I'm currently conspiring to check my email, and will do so within the hour. Later this evening I've conspired to do some laundry.
Many criticisms of her work exist, in varying quality, and it's ludicrous to expect Wikipedia to wave them away with one token sentence and two links. Check out the wiki entries for L. Ron Hubbard, David Icke, Lyndon LaRouche, Mother Theresa even. (Granted, the neutrality of the Mother Theresa entry is in dispute. Apparently she's the victim of "malicious gossip.")
I don't think Zarove's final version was particularly hostile to her, although Zarove himself is. (It's not difficult to see how he might have gotten that way.) Points that were simply factual and emotionally neutral have been construed as attacks. Anyone who can't tell the difference is not up to the job of editing his work.
He's essentially correct in this: it's not about him. Pull him out of here, let someone else attempt a consensus version, and what will happen? Anything that doesn't function as a press release for Acharya S will be challenged by her followers until it does.
Or until Wikipedia tires of listening to them. Given its vindictive reputation--if the Church of Scientology can live with criticisms of L. Ron Hubbard, the church of Acharya S can do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.35.169 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by 70.104.35.169 (talk · contribs) disregarded (user's only edit). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005
    • Comment. 12/11/05
The author of the above claims to have just come here on a whim being neither a "wikipedian" or a member of the "church of Acharya". The above person did not leave a username, so shall be named "dual personality", since they dont know the meaning of conspire! Dual (for short), has no idea of what is transpiring in this wikipedia "rumor-mongering' and "libellous" affair. Neither has "dual" taken the time to learn more about how others have been victimised in a personal way that has affected their reputations by lies posted here. Apparently "dual', apart from the condescending nature of the post, shall not be the one to develope a fair consensus, because said person has already made up their minds.
Zarove didnt become the way he is because of Acharya's defenders. He is simply that way by choice, spreading personal and defamatory information and otherwise being fixated in the manner of a stalker. He better take seriously what he is doing because it could end badly for him with legal force being set on his tail. He has made insinuating and downright threatening statements to the effect of getting more personal information on her. What has that to do with what should be a simple matter here at Wikipedia? He has the defense of being anonymous right now, but he will be found out and tracked for the statements he has made and has no business doing so. If the founder of Wikipedia does not take serious action about how things are done here, he could find his reputation and Wikipedia's going down the toilet.
I do not believe in censorship, but when it comes down to some nobody or anybody, hiding behind anonymity, failing to uphold expectations of quality with civilised behaviour and academic standards...they deserve the "boot". In the real world, a journalist or writer would interview the subject, do the research (supposing they have that capability) and address matters without prejudice. Zarov has clearly represented himself, NOT to have these high standards at all. Yes, this is about him, because he is the AUTHOR of the wikipedia site on Acharya. His bias and the strings to which he is attached are in question....just as the above "dual's" lack of understanding of the harm this forum has by unprofessional fruitcakes. In fact, I consider "dual's" blase attitude insulting. Rene/Skull — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.223.140 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not going to vote at this point, but the accumulation of these rambling screeds shows something of the difficulty of keeping the page in line with NPOV. The page content relates to a small corner of a wider controversy. Charles Matthews 09:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Charles Matthews interpreted as non-vote. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005
  • Keep: Acharya S is, from my POV, a notable kook, and on that basis deserves an article. If I am wrong, and she is not a kook, then she needs an article even more. I agree that both Zarove and the followers of Acharya have been very argumentative (very argumentative!), but that does not mean that a quality NPOV article can not be written. If anybody has a problem with individual contributors, then they should take out an RfC against them - not try to delete the article itself, just because you are unhappy with the current version.
Now that finals are over, I'm planning on investing some time and attempting to work out a suitable compromise that everyone can agree to. (The criticism section needs reworking - we have criticisms from three main primary sources, and Acharya was kind enough to write rebuttals. The criticism section needs to both better summarize the criticisms - with sources! - and provide summaries of those rebuttals. Zarove also wants a biography section - something I agree with in principle, although I am not happy with his current version.)
Yes, I am biased, and I freely admit to that. But I am also willing to work with my opposite numbers. And I might just be a bit more open minded than you think. And no, I am not an admin, I wouldn't take that job if you offered it to me. I'm just an experienced wikipedian. crazyeddie 19:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 09:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic black metal[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was yet another non-existant metal genre. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Band cruft. Hu 20:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge; it does exist AFAIK, however any content should go to Black metal Spearhead 23:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Spearhead. Leyasu 00:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- In theory, this could be a real metal genre -- any combination of acoustic with metal would be distinctive enough to be instantly recognizable. The question is, is it common enough to qualify for an article -- would people come looking for it? I vote Abstain due to lack of knowledge on the subject. Haikupoet 04:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 18:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CyberBunker[edit]

This article needs to be removed as we've revoked wikipedia the rights to use our trademarks after a series of incidents of our publication being changed, most of them questioning wether or not we would be a souvereign state or not (which is not up to anyone else except for us to decide), some even insulting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cb3rob (talk • contribs)

  • Keep; no compelling argument has been made. Wikipedia does not need the right to use your trademark in reference to the product or group which it refers to. See Xbox, for example - Xbox is a trademark of Microsoft, but we need not request Microsoft's permission to use the term. (Also note: This user has repeatedly blanked the page in question, violating WP:3RR, and moved it at one point to Removethisnow.) --Zetawoof 02:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Zetawoof mentioned, no argument has been made to show any copyright/trademark violation. Cb3rob, you seem to have issue with the article being edited ("incidents of our publication being changed"), I could be wrong about that assumption. But, if that is an issue you have, please understand that once an article is added to Wikipedia, it is placed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows the article to be edited. - Akamad 08:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree that there is no given basis for the 'trademark' argument. However, this seems to have originated as a not particularly notable vanity page by the same editor who now wants it deleted. Is this content really relevant? --CBD ☎ ✉ 14:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia must not give in to unfounded legal threats. Thus, whatever my opinion of the object's notability, I vote Keep as a matter of principle. Firebug 18:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, When publishing something under the GNU license, the orignal author still retains copyrights over it, and is free to license it or un-licence it under whatever kind of conditions he prefers in the future. As for the trademark issues: we do hold trademarks in the Netherlands, the Republic CyberBunker, and other countries on both 'CyberBunker' and 'CB3ROB'. Our problem with the whole wikipedia thing lies in the fact that people who have no authority over our territory whatsoever keep changing the article as if we would not be a souvereign state, which is the only 'vandalism' i can see in this whole scheme. We intend to keep changing this article, if nessesary with all computer force we posess, to either contain the facts as they are, or not be displayed at all. (The above unsigned comment and vandalism threat was made by User:80.126.178.93. All of its contributions, about a dozen in all, are to CyberBunker-related articles. As a suspected sockpuppet of User:Cb3rob, it should be disregarded, and blocked for legal threats and threats of vandalism. Firebug 18:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
No. When you contributed to Wikipedia, you agreed to allow the material to be used under the specified terms. You don't have the right to now demand it be removed. Nor do we need your permission to refer to a trademarked name for purposes of comment or criticism. Firebug 18:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be a pretty nice article. If there are claims of trademark infringement then sue wikipedia and the article's author. --Mecanismo 18:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a decent article with a photo. Use of a trademark for educational and editorial purposes in an encyclopedia is fair use. Hu 20:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider blocking nominator for violation of no legal threats policy. FCYTravis 23:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the nominator's reasons aren't very good, but this isn't about a notable subject. Being a micronation isn't notable, and I can't find any verification for any of the things listed on the article. - Bobet 01:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Topic is notable although article needs cleanup. Jtmichcock 03:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Enochlau 01:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi DeVries[edit]

Doesn't look very notable and not much content.

Delete GoldenGirl 05:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, it's verifiable, but not notable at all. Her imdb entry. - Bobet 16:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although there is a IMDB entry, she isn't notorious at all and the wikipedia's article is miserably poor. --Mecanismo 18:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Playing yourself in a short documentary does not make you notable for inclusion. Movementarian 00:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Media Skare Records[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was only link is Silent Civilian, also on AFD. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable, probably vanity-driven --Mecanismo 18:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Movementarian 00:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 14:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miser Pesche[edit]

A very short article describing an allegedly well known person with no Google hits; no sources provided." Shawnc 17:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources provided to verify the claims of the article. Article about "a well-known, deceased left-wing journalist" from the 1960s that produces zero hits from both Google and Yahoo searches. --Allen3 talk 17:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless this journo guy turns out to have been a Kennedy assassin or something.The Land
  • Delete, not verfiable. -- DS1953 06:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Vanderlinde-Abernathy[edit]

Completely non-notable. 4 pages on Google, a lot of them are from either Wikipedia or school websites. Vanity page.Vulturell 04:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nomination. Vulturell 04:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. CSD A7. “Unremarkable people. An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance.” ◎DanMS 18:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Series difficulty curve[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was neologism with no google hits. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonsense, probably author's original research --Mecanismo 18:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, made up term and original research, 0 google results on a gaming subject wouldn't happen otherwise. - Bobet 01:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zizilia[edit]

del wikipedia:verifiability. A series of Slavic myhtology by anons. No reputable traces on web, no references. mikka (t) 16:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ProUnreal[edit]

Tagged for deletion by 66.191.124.236, with the edit summary "nominate AFD -- non-notable gamers website". Completing nomination.

  • Delete:My vote: the article is for a site that appears not to meet the proposed requirements of WP:WEB. Alexa rank is 636,047; Google shows just 21 incoming links; forums have only 4703 registered users in total, including inactive users and those who have never posted even once. According to the article, this site is not even listed in Epic Megagames' community links section, let alone referenced in mass media. Delete accordingly. — Haeleth Talk 16:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Haeleth's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hello, I disagree. While you may think the scope of this website is limited, it is very well known in some circles of the gaming community for how bad it is when someone makes a post there (those that attended lan party like quakecon). Even though it does not meet the criteria of 5000 registered users per WP:WEB, it is at 4,700 which is only 300 less than the stated amount. And as such, it would have 5000 registered users, but it is notorious for anyone out side of the "old school" ut99 community to register and post there, as it is the pit of the internet gaming (which is WHY it isn't posted on unrealtournemnt.com, because it has the notorious reputation of having a large group of flamers who show no respect to Epic Games). As Beyond Unreal[20] is the home of all fans of the unreal engine and its universe, prounreal is the home of competitive unreal. CombatCarl, Dawgpound, lotus, cursive, and many other professional videogame players make regular posts there (or formally did before the decline of unreal tournament and it's subsequent lacking communities). As for its alex rank, unreal tournament has long been out of favor with videogame players, as they have flocked to more realistic titles (even quake 4 has bombed after its intitial success with only 700 players online, at peak times), it was previously much more popular. user:Ghrog


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mauri Kaipainen[edit]

This article appears to fail WP:BIO. The only hits I'm turning up in a google search are blogs and archives of emails, etc. Furthermore, it's been a stub article for over a year, so there doesn't appear to be much chance of it being expanded out into something encyclopedic. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 17:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. 31 articles on Google scholar makes it capable of expansion see [21].

Capitalistroadster 17:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep — published professor, although the titles are in Finnish so I can't tell whether they are notable. Links added to page. — RJH 20:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geek and the Freak Show[edit]

Non-notable podcast (I hate that word) about a high school's goings-on. Non-notable.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 17:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. NN. Maybe Merge with school article? D-Rock 17:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. feydey 17:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN as above Firebug 18:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. PJM 18:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sports As Social Integrator[edit]

Non-encyclopedic, borderline original research? D-Rock 17:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • del original research. mikka (t) 18:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. PJM 18:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not the place for original research. - Bobet 01:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Britney Spears. Owen× ☎ 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Preston Federline[edit]

Baby has done nothing notable, except being born to Britney Spears and that guy. I don't think this child warrants his own article. - orioneight (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Child is already discussed at Britney Spears. Do we really need this as a redirect? - orioneight (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Someone reads the kid's name in a magazine, searches for it here. Wouldn't it be preferable to get sent to Britney's article, rather than getting a blank page? Joyous | Talk 17:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, you're right. I'm probably just a little frustrated that their are so many biographies of noteworthy, deserving figures, whose articles are in such poor shape, and yet we have editors who think that a two-month-old baby deserves his own encyclopedia article. Look at the Britney Spears article, and then compare with people such as Pierre Curie or Howard Percy Robertson. I think sometimes that efforts here are a little misdirected, and its sad that a two-month-old baby——who has done nothing but crap his diaper——should need his own redirect, because that's the kind of information people today are looking for. *sigh* - orioneight (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Britney Spears, with a merge if there is fresh information. Redirects are both cheap and useful, as noted by Joyous. Sliggy 18:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on principle, but if I'm the only one who feels this way, I'll gladly make the redirect myself. - orioneight (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Britney Spears. Capitalistroadster 22:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, but I'm wondering if it should go to Kevin Federline instead of Britney Spears. Britney is notable for many things; for Kev, the baby is about it. Jtmichcock 03:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The baby is famous. Achievements are irrelevant; fame is what matters. This is a flaw in some people's understanding of the idea of notability, I think. People can attach importance to individuals whether they have actually done anything or not. And that importance is what matters. Everyking 05:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Wasn't this issue already settled at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Federline? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think so. The article back then had basically no content except to state his birthday and parents. And furthermore he had just been born. Notice my vote back then is different from the one I'm making now: back then a cautious "merge", now a firm "keep". Everyking 05:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Scout Willis for precedent. {{subject}} is the child of {{famous person 1}} and {{famous person 2}}. Other than that, this person is not notable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - like Lourdes Ciccone and Brooklyn Beckham. chocolateboy 17:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Britney Spears. While you'rs at it, redirect Kevin Federline to Britney Spears or rename his article Mr. Britney Spears since he is no more notable than his offspring. -- DS1953 06:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create redirect, and don't bother merging, as not much is here. Merging for the first article on the baby is fine, but I don't see a need to merge another one. This article says nothing new and signficant about the baby specifically that wasn't previously said in the first article, and already put in Britney Spears. --Rob 09:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:RHaworth. Jamie 08:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BPO , Data Entry , Data processing , Data Conversion , Offshore service provider , Data capturing, back office operation[edit]

Looks like someone pasted an entire spam email into an article and then gave it a horrible name. Speedyable under G1 and/or G3, is it not? Agamemnon2 17:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, for sure, as per nominator. Lord ViD 17:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, it is pure spam. --Eeee 21:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — spam, spam, spam, spam, ... — RJH 20:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right to exist[edit]

Snowspinner restored this but neglected to list it on AfD, as the discussion on WP:DRV clearly mandates. It has had a previous AfD. -Splashtalk 17:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I created this article because I feel that it is an important concept that needs to be included on Wikipedia. Much of the widespread controversy in the Middle East revolves around certain nations denying Israel's right to exist, and that exact phrase is indeed very widely used, as Google will demonstrate. I certainly do not deny that my article needs some work and improvement, but that is what the collaborative Wikipedia process is for. I don't know what was there before when it was deleted last time, or how bad it was, but I deliberately tried to include arguments for both sides and include sources, because of the rules specified on Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If the article is badly flawed in some way, please let me know and I will try to fix it. Crotalus horridus 04:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete - No hope of there ever being a NPOV article. "Right to exist" is merely a simplification of the Zionism issue and wikipedia doesnt need to have articles on simplifications. Put it on wikitionary. jucifer 00:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I could list a hundred articles with even less hope of ever being NPOV. Marsden 17:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia cannot take a POV on articles (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), but we can point out that claims denying the right to exist (such as the French ambassador's claims, and the Iranian Prime Minister's recent statements about wiping Israel off the map) have met with widespread international outrage. Of course, all this must be cited. Crotalus horridus 17:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A shitload of Google hits, and this is always a flashpoint in I/P negotiations. If the article is badly written or POV, then rewrite it; that's not a reason for deletion of something this prominent. Firebug 18:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Juicifer. Phrase is significant, even if the debate it suggests is marginal and extreme. Xoloz 18:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article documents a key point in the issues around Zionism and modern anti-semitism. The article is at great risk of becoming a home to slanted, POV coverage, but the risk goes with the territory and has the potential to help divide up better this difficult-to-get-right topic. I think that the key issue in this AfD should be whether the article is intrinsically POV or not.--- Charles Stewart 19:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if the phrase was not in common usage, the concept is obviously of great weight, so the question would be "should this be renamed" rather than "should it be deleted." Christopher Parham (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep until such a time as someone who actually wants to delete this article presents themselves. Phil Sandifer 00:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The deleting admin, Jayjg presumably wanted to delete it. Listing it here is a simple courtesy to him. -Splashtalk 00:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although I would like to note that this can also be a philosophy to refer to life in general. i.e. this should probably be renamed to Right to exist (Israel). Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is "right to exist" really the best name for the article? Unless the mention of the phrase "right to exist" is always a reference to this thing, wouldn't it be better merged with Israel or Zionism? - Hahnchen 01:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Always? No, I've heard it used about South Africa. But by an overwhelming majority, I think it is used about Israel, and if any other possible applications are considered encyclopediac, then we can always add a disambig comment in the lead section. --- Charles Stewart 03:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have other articles on political buzzwords and the context they are used in. Compare Family values and Christian right or Ivoirity and Ivorian Civil War. Merging might be a good idea, though. Pilatus 12:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why does Wikipedia reward rogue admins with "courtesy" instead of penalty? This article was speedy deleted by a rogue admin. Then it was listed here as a "courtesy" to the rogue admin. Mirror Vax 10:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest you rescind that comment. The admin was quite right to delete it as it had been deleted overwhelmingly before. jucifer 01:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re-created articles that are substantially the same as deleted ones are speedily deletable. And personal attacks are against policy. Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Prove it. The author says he has no idea what was there before. He's not an admin, so he doesn't have access to the deleted version. It is vanishly unlikely that he managed to independenty create a deleted article. If your interpretation of the rules is that any article on a similar topic can be speedy deleted, then you are, as I said, a rogue admin - one who willfully abuses his authority. Mirror Vax 14:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I note with some bemusement that you have called Jayjg a "rogue admin" on his userpage[22] in reference to this deletion debate and challenging him into undeleting the previous version. The relevant version has already been undeleted by Snowspinner. Please remain civil. JFW | T@lk 14:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think you're confused. Snowspinner undeleted the *current* version, not the AFD'd version. (Unless I missed it - please provide a link if so). So far, nobody has provided a shred of evidence that this article is a re-creation of a deleted article. I'm asking for some proof. Mirror Vax 14:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Confusion or not, you should not call someone a "rogue admin". Period. JFW | T@lk 17:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the use of the phrase "right to exist" has been cited, the current contents of the article have not. The contents appear to be original research. Unless verifiably cited from independent sources, I have to argue for deletion. If the contents can be cited, I would argue that the topic is better discussed in Anti-Zionism. In that case, I would suggest "merge and redirect". Rossami (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article uses a Guardian article [23] and a Horowitz's Front Page magazine [24] as sources. The sourcing could be better, but it's surely enough for the purposes of this AfD. --- Charles Stewart 19:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not for me. Those two cites show merely that the phrase is in use in something approximating this context. They do not sufficiently substantiate the contents of the article. They do not document who holds the arguments for and against or provide evidence that all the described elements of the beliefs are held. Tony's cite (below) may be more reliable but he only cites it as evidence of the title. Without reading the book, we still don't know if the contents of the article are original research. Rossami (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The title of the article is not original research. "Right to Exist : A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars" by Yaacov Lozowick, Doubleday, ISBN 0385509057. Any original research in the article can be removed; it seems to be salvageable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete previously deleted by AFD. Stifle 14:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article, as it stands now, consists of two paragraphs, saying that Israel should exist or should not exist. It is unsourced, unreferenced drivel that flies straight in the face of WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:NOR. Delete, unless someone reworks this into an article that shows how the catchphrase Right to exist is thrown around in Israel political discourse. Pilatus 16:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? I must say I'm a bit dumbfounded by this statement. I did cite specific sources for the claims listed in the article. Crotalus horridus 17:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do apologize for the rude words, I didn't notice it was a re-write by a single person. Pilatus 17:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed a couple of uncited claims and weasel words that were added by other editors. As far as I can tell, all of the information in the article currently is sourced. Crotalus horridus 17:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for improving the introduction. If we have instead direct references where politician so-and-so used the phrase to support such-and-such an action it will be a good article. (Note: this is not about the question whether Israel should exist, it's about the phrase and its use in politics. Pilatus 17:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Let the edit wars begin. -- JJay 17:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JJay. Unbehagen 18:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting to keep an article for the sole purpose of getting into a fight? This is an encyclopedia, not a boxing arena. Pilatus 17:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interpret my suggestion and vote any way you want. -- JJay 18:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per User:Pilatus. DES (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - stub cannot be stand-alone article as-is, and the out-of-context name of the article can be misleading. After all, the phrase could also be used in abortion discussions (and not just "right to life") and in discussions involving the death penalty. Could this phrase turn up in a discussion of Taiwan or Kurdistan? If this article is kept, I see the need for disambiguation in the near future. B.Wind 00:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:Pilatus, User B.Wind, and original AfD discussion. Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - why is this being resurrected, anyway? --Leifern 18:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one on the basis that it was already decided to delete this topic, see [25]. This "right to exist" notion can be merged with Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism. IZAK 19:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Arab-Israeli conflict, Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism as appropriate, Delete and Recreated as a redirect to Self determination. Tomertalk 19:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sovereignty. gren グレン 20:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, past AFD appears quite valid. It was also pointed out in the first one that the concept within (concept, not content, mind) could be said elsewhere. Why was this undeleted anyway? GarrettTalk 01:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • AFDs apply to articles, not concepts. I never even saw the infamous previous version; it antedates my time on Wikipedia. I don't take these debates personally, but I'm curious why so many people are saying "refer to previous AFD" when that was for a completely different article, even if it was under the same title. Crotalus horridus 07:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per Tshilo12. It's a key part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but the title is a loaded term and inherently POV, regardless of how correctly it describes the situation. - Bobet 14:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Recreation of article recently deleted as per AFD. A good AFD addresses whether a concept has article potential. JFW | T@lk 14:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are better places to discuss this and the "right to exist" is hardly an exclusive predominant political meme in the context of Zionism. This should not have been relisted. Eusebeus 14:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure why this was undeleted. The previous AfD was valid and any information on this concept could be included in another article. Carbonite | Talk 14:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Several participants asked why we need a new AfD. The DRV discussion is here. There was a majority of particpipants in that DRV discussion who thought that the article this AfD treats, which is a new article broadly taking the shape of the old article, was sufficiently different from the article previously deleted that the new article could not be speedied and so needed a new AfD. The main argument for the article's difference is that the new article has credible sources that the old article lacked. --- Charles Stewart 15:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue with the old article was with the topic, which was deemed un-encyclopedic. Jayjg (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This was not my understanding of the prior AfD. Some delete votes attacked the topic, but most attacked the particular article. --- Charles Stewart 17:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Marsden 17:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I see no way to NPOV this. -- Dalbury(Talk) 17:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dont see this as an article in its own right, although it obviously fits in a more general article. Should every argument in different disputes have its own article? Merge and/or redirect seems like solutions. --Cybbe 17:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Those who don't study Wikihistory are doomed to repeat it, it seems. Gzuckier 19:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the topic attracts the attention of politicians and historians enough to write about it people should be able to write about it on wikipedia. --Vizcarra 20:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Izehar (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not much chance of this becoming encyclopedic, it'll be a POV magnet, and the information already exists elsewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The existence of fuckheads is not a deletion crtierion. Phil Sandifer 23:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Problem children don't mean it isn't encyclopaedic - David Gerard 23:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of the dissonance between the title and the content. What is the use? The reasons why Israel was established are discussed elsewhere, as where its struggles since. If this article is changed to include all peoples - many of them indigenous - and states that struggle or have struggled for their right to exist in hostile environments, I will change my vote. gidonb 23:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If as some claim the information exists elsewhere, then that is an argument for keeping and turning into a redirect. It is emphatically not an argument for deletion--rather, it's a very good demonstration that the topic is encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the comment that it is found "somewhere" reaffirms the idea that this is the best "somewhere" for this information to exist in. --Vizcarra 00:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Out of 666,000 occurrences of "right to exist" [26] 374,000 make a reference to Israel (56%) in some way. This may still be to a person whose name is Israel, to another struggle or what have you. [27] Wikipedia suffers from an overexposure of Israel and Palestinians, as does the web. I say the right to exist is much broader than Israel and the Middle East, it is about the right to eat, its about the right not to blown by up terrorists (Israel may be included in the article), school kids or grownups with guns, or be depressed by a totalitarian government. The right to exist belongs to everyone, let’s not tie it exclusively to Israel! Against a redirect. gidonb 01:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gtplanet[edit]

Delete. Non notable web site. Thunderbrand 17:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nomination and probably it is vanity --Mecanismo 18:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 15:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Four year old site with 80,000 members. Alexa rating has tailed down to #107,000 but it has had much higher ratings. -- DS1953 06:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 01:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Meersman[edit]

Keep it. He is funnay as all get out. I listen to him when I get the chance, and I know of many others at the University of Illinois and other colleges that do the same.

I'd like to see some comments on how notable this "famous" radio personality really is, as there's even no article for WPGU-FM 107.1. I'd say delete. feydey 17:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete is my initial vote. Most of what I find is on a journalist [28]. PJM 18:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say keep it. I've heard his stuff, he's great. He's a real big deal in Central Illinois. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.221.82.188 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, if he's notable, it's in a very limited area. Googling "Tom Meersman" gets 572 results and I couldn't see this particular Tom Meersman on the first few pages. - Bobet 02:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. I don't know whether that means anything but it sure is nice to say. Ashibaka tock 05:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought of nominating this when I first saw it but I just didn't feel like going through it. Must every morning DJ be "notable"? Most of them get fired and move somewhere else every few years, and they all rip off each other's best material anyway. Or accuse other ones of doing so. Oh ... he spoofed Survivor. Wow ... a DJ with some balls. That's what we need. Daniel Case 07:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pending verification, Weak keep or redirect to WPGU article, if it exists. By definition very few radio personalities are notable outside their home markets unless they've achieved some level of notoriety for other projects they've done. That said, I think the bar for notability in this case is also lowered somewhat. I'd say the criterion has to do with their effects on the local market -- in Boston, for example, Loren and Wally on WROR and Matt Siegel from WXKS are both significant morning jocks with name recognition even among those who don't listen to those stations. John Lander from WBMX and David Allan Boucher from WMJX would be middling cases, while someone like Hutch from WZLX or Kevin Reading from WROR probably wouldn't rate inclusion at all. Haikupoet 04:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat votes[edit]

  • Keep I listen to him on the web in Tucson. He's great. Not hurting anybody having him on there, and I was pleasantly surprised when I saw him up there. I remember laughing to that stuff thats on there about him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.227.116 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, Google "Dr. Meersman" and he's right there the first guy. I've heard his stuff, it's great.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.227.116 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. Johnleemk | Talk 10:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of translations of Fuck[edit]

    • Keep it!!

move to wiktionary, where it truly belongs. mikka (t) 18:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is a transwiki possible for this sorta thing? The Land 19:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but a case has to be made that it is necessary. fuck already has a large number of translations, and even organizes them by meaning. Given that this is the sort of dictionary article that garners a lot of attention, it's only worth the hassle of transwikifying this article if it will provide a significant number of additional translations. Uncle G 20:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Something is wrong with the logic. The article has a huge number of translations. Translations are for wiktionary. If this article doesn't provide new ones, it must be simply deleted. mikka (t) 20:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Interesting article, but not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Besides, Fuck already links to foreign versions. —Psychonaut 21:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - wonderful, informative article, goes well beyond a dictionary definition, adding many cultural elements. Like it or loathe it, "fuck" is an important part of modern culture. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - interesting and useful. There is actually quite a bit of academia surrounding the word, its origins, and derivatives. I know of several full books on the subject. This has the potential of being more than just trivia. 23skidoo 02:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC) DenisMoskowitz[reply]
    • The academia surrounding the word and its origins and derivatives can go in the main article Fuck. What we don't need is a list of translations, which is what Wiktionary and interwiki links are for. If we accept this article, we might as well accept List of translations of X for every possible English word X. —Psychonaut 02:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant, see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Fuck#Translations. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 04:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the notes in the article provide a more meaningful explanation of where the word came from, which is a vast improvement on the suggestions made in the main Fuck article, and have not been mentioned in the Wiktionary article (which is written from an entirely different perspective). Not redundant. Especially notable is the perceived true etymology of fuck, which is disproved in this article. Its not based on "Fricken" in German as that word was not used in German until after it was used in English... Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thus anything not appropriate for the wiktionary entry should be merged to Fuck. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 04:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A merge isn't necessary. Everything in this article was originally taken from there in the first place, and will be somewhere in the history of Fuck. Uncle G 04:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Shouldn't be reverted back into fuck, either. I'll defer to Uncle G's judgement that this shouldn't be transwikied. —Cryptic (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not Babelfish. I will not spill the beans by listing any other words that there do not exist lists of translations of, but merely say that this is not encyclopedic. - brenneman(t)(c) 09:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure trivia. No need to keep or transwiki. / Peter Isotalo 11:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Freak of Nurture and UncleG. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it adds nothing and attracts cruft and mistranslations. In many cases there is no good translation, but people keep adding them anyway.DenisMoskowitz 00:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete move interesting cultural stuff to Fuck and move translations to Wiktionary with a note on the Fuck page. - FrancisTyers 15:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this was split off from Fuck. If it's not wanted, the material should be remerged - David Gerard 12:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well written, thoroughly researched, goes well beyond a Wiktionary entry. Owen× ☎ 01:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take that you haven't actually looked at the Wiktionary entry, which in fact goes well beyond this. Uncle G 03:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary already does this better, and will only get further ahead of this as its coverage of all of the target languages extends. No argument has been made that there are any translations here that Wiktionary doesn't already have. This material is obviously unwanted in Fuck, as per the discussion on Talk:Fuck. Even if it were wanted, it could be resurrected from that article's own history. Let Wiktionary be the "lexical companion to Wikipedia" that is supposed to be, handling translations of words, thesaurus entries, and suchlike. Delete. Uncle G 03:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • From a quick look, neither Arabic nor Hebrew are on the Wiktionary entry, for example. With over 200 million Arabic speakers, I'd say that's a major omission. Owen× ☎ 03:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then add them. That's no excuse for doing lexicographic work in the wrong project; nor does it invalidate what I said. Uncle G 09:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was move to User:R4gnar0k. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Hamilton[edit]

  • Speedy delete. Yeah, absolutely no problem at all, feel free to wipe it from the database. It was merely a joke page (if it wasn't obvious from the self-sending up) to demonstrate to a friend how to create a Wikipedia article. - R4gnar0k

A vanity article for a 19-year old university student who has yet to achieve sufficient notability. Delete. Sliggy 18:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I agree a better solution is to userfy. Sliggy 23:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Vanity page, non-notable person. Note the contributor of the article is R4gnar0k and the article says that his “online presence” is Ragnarok. His claim to fame is for the parties (“shindigs”) held in his garage. ◎DanMS 18:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reads like a misplaced user page. Snurks T C 19:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy userfy to User:R4gnar0k. The article indicates that Ragnarok is Hamilton's on-line pseudonym. The user currently has no user page, so this article can be speedily userfied. Pburka 22:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to R4gnar0k. Capitalistroadster 22:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. New folks mistakenly set up articles so often when they should be setting up user pages instead, I wonder if it would not be more appropriate to allow admins to speedy userfy these pages. Jtmichcock 03:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Capitalistroadster. Note that a vote is not required to userfy a page; anyone with 25 or more edits can be bold and do it. Stifle 15:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Davidson[edit]

Previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Davidson. Renomination request by an anon at WP:AFC. Seems like good-faith, so I'm finishing it up. Kappa 18:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, in the previous afd FCYTravis said: Delete unless verifiable sources are found for the information within. Right now, it's a bunch of unsourced original research, with dubious "allegations of vote fraud" and peacockery. I concur, no sources added and that "key player" is a dubious claim. feydey 19:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have provided references from the New Republic and the CNN confirming claims made in the article. Capitalistroadster 23:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster's research. Movementarian 01:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE "Davidson became a key player in the effort to recall Governor Gray Davis," this is simply not true, unless my notions of what "key player" means are totally wrong.
  • Strong Keep, Davidson is obviously a huge player in politics (he's the Executive Director of another huge youth organization) and the man has a huge successful career in front of him. He's going to be President of the United States someday, also per Capitalistroadster's research. NJPowerPlayer 01:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ariabel[edit]

Delete: The page is an unencyclopedic vanity page a doting parent wrote about their very young daughter. Hu 18:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Underlying the gushing love toward this young person, to my mind definitely vanity, there is also an article on how the neologistic name "Ariabel" was formed. Not verifiable, not encyclopedic, etc. Sliggy 19:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sliggy. Movementarian 01:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sayula[edit]

Article that should be about a town in mexico is hijacked by an article on some mexican personality. Article is badly written and orphan. Mecanismo 18:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Juan Rulfo. The Land 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Why shouldn't we have an article on a prominent Mexican town [[29]], especially when it's the birthplace of notable people? Maybe cleanup, would have been a better start than AfD. -- JJay 00:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User:Ejrrjs says What? 01:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Club D[edit]

Article on obscure event organized in an obscure college Mecanismo 19:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, insufficiently encyclopedic. The Land 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic vanity. feydey 19:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Mentioned in main University article -- JJay 00:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The event is a major and long running event at the university which is highly popular and well known both by university students and others besides. Evil Eye 13:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe that a local event at a campus fails to minimally relevant to earn an article on an encyclopedia. --Mecanismo | Talk 20:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you also presented it as an obscure event at an obscure college, when it is actually a major event at a well-known college. Many events/clubs etc at colleges and universites could merit articles. -- JJay 21:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The themed party can only be considered a major event inside the Derwent College and maybe to some extent in other colleges of the university of York. The event is trully not notable outside of that. Therefore that doesn't give it sufficient notoriety to deserve an article on an encyclopedia. Besides, what I defined as "obscure" was the Derwent College and not the University of York. To put it simply, the school is notable but the place where they teach two courses isn't by itself all that notable. --Mecanismo | Talk 13:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed JJay, it is perhaps the most well know event at the whole Univeristy, certainly the biggest and hosted by the first college to be opened at the Univeristy of York, one of the top univeirsties in the UK. Certainly not just any old event at any old university. Evil Eye 22:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I Know and presume that Mecanismo did not have time to research it before making the nom, which should now be withdrawn. -- JJay 00:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you can read above, I indeed researched the subject and the article is indeed worthy of a deletion. Local campus parties aren't notable enough to earn an article on any encyclopedia. --Mecanismo | Talk 13:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should have researched it before nominating. Please try to do that in the future. My vote stands-- JJay 18:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An entry on a themed night in some bar? Pilatus 02:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very nn.  Grue  17:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added some more information to the article and some links to web pages backing up the information (following the addition of tags for verification of info). Evil Eye 19:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aketarak[edit]

Band article that doesn't seem to have any releases or a label, fails WP:MUSIC's guidelines for band notability. Not on AMG, 26 hits on Google [30]. --W.marsh 19:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good nomination, Will. You give the case for deletion (i.e. why it isn't notable) and refrain from voting. That's great to see. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC with flying colors. No hint of being notable on the page or in google. - Bobet 02:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Groucho 05:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's author has been repeatedly asked why the band is important enough for an article, but hasn't come up with a reason. Presumably this is because it is not sufficiently notable or otherwise encyclopaedic. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of jazz bands[edit]

Underdeveloped article made redundant by more complete Category:Jazz ensembles Mecanismo 19:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, ensurig all entries are in the category stated. The Land 19:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. -- JJay 00:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why? --Mecanismo | Talk 13:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not? You make no case for deletion. -- JJay 18:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can't you read the AFD submittion's note? --Mecanismo | Talk 23:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unrequired list. Stifle 15:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Illingworth Song[edit]

Not notable File Éireann 19:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SamStock[edit]

Pretty blatant advertising Bjones 19:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisment Removed

  • Delete of no use.--File Éireann 19:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete not sure it is advertising, but it is surely vanity. Movementarian 01:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Science Reading Room[edit]

Article on room which may or may not exist in the churches of a cult Mecanismo 19:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, really, they do exist. Thirty million Google hits. The Land 19:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, they're definitely real and pretty widespread.Bjones 19:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and hopefully expand. I see these everywhere and I'd like to know more about them. Snurks T C 19:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. These are real. Joyous | Talk 19:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definitely. There are Christian Science Reading Rooms in many cities and have been for many years—at least 40 years to my memory, and probably much more. The article needs to be expanded. •DanMS 21:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the nominator will withdraw this nomination this will be an obvious speedy keep. •DanMS 21:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They exist in pretty much any community that has a Christian Science church, of which there are about 2000 worldwide. There's one within about a quarter of a mile of where I'm sitting right now. 51000 Google hits on exact phrase "Christian Science reading room." There's a directory of them at http://www.churchofchristscientist.org/worldwidedirectory/ . They are an important part of the Church of Christ, Scientist which is usually considered to be a legitimate Christian denomination, is included in our List of Christian denominations (under "Non-trinitarian"), and at least a million adherents. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC) P. S. Umpteen hits on exact phrase "Christian Science Reading Room" in Google Books and www.a9.com book search, most of them attesting to how ubiquitous they are. I've added a paragraph about this to the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oh yes these are real, though I've heard less about them recently. There was an All in the Family episode I remember where the entire family was quietly reading -- way too quietly, for a comedy set -- and Archie came into the room -- "What is this, the Christian Science Reading Room?" -- huge laugh, but that was the 1970s. Antandrus (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's proof they're real: they're mentioned in The Simpsons. In "Lisa the Skeptic," Flanders complains that science tells us "things we don't want to know--important things" and sets off an anti-science riot which attacks a museum, a laboratory, and a Christian Science Reading Room. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Christian Science, and its Reading Rooms, are much more familliar in the U.S. than elsewhere. Nevertheless, there is a Christian Science Reading Room where Mecanismo lives, in Lisboa, Portugal, located in the Christian Science church at Av. Rainha D. Leonor, 15-A Loja, 1600-683, and open Wednesdays from 2 to 5:30 p.m. Telephone 217 571 451. Or at least that's what the search page says he lives. Of course you have to misspell the city name as "Lisbon." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Over 2000 of these worldwide. I have been to the main one in Boston and that would probably merit its own article. Jtmichcock 03:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Gazpacho 10:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's one across the street from my law firm. And consdering there's a million Christian Scientists worldwide, and non-believers like me are allowed inside, I bet there's thousands of rooms worldwide. Plus, they aren't a cult; they just have very atypical beliefs. --Mareino 17:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really obvious keep. This is just a special name for what most people call a "church" and for what I call a "church building." It's just as real and valid as "mosque," "cathedral," "synagogue," "temple," "shrine," and (for Jehovah's Witnesses) "Kingdom Hall." Seeing an AFD notice for this was shocking. The "cult" assertion is utterly irrelevant. The fact that the submitter calls it a "room" when it is really a building shows he didn't check up on it much. In fact, the article should make this more clear. Would also like to see someone expand the article with more information on the assemblies held in reading rooms (what other people would call "worship services"). Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, but I think you miss the distinction between Christian Science Reading Rooms and Christian Science churches. You may be confused because the term for people who conduct Christian Science services in Christian Science churches on Sunday is "readers." The churches hold worship services on Sundays and usually look recognizably like churches. They say "First Church of Christ, Scientist" on their façades, except for the Mother Church in Boston which is The First Church of Christ, Scientist. I don't think Christian Science Reading Rooms conduct organized group worship. We do have an article on Church of Christ, Scientist, by the way. IMHO the nomination could have been more courteous. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for clarifying. I was definitely confused. So the Reading Room is more a library, then? The article could definitely use more info, and it sounds like I'm not one to add it. :) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEN-NET[edit]

Incoherent article about what seems to be a school project. Non-notable. 'Delete'. Catamorphism 19:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is SEN-NET ?, after reading the introduction I still don't know. Delete per nominator. feydey 20:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Judging from their website (link on article page), SEN seems to stand for seniors (at the Czech Technical University in Prague). The SEN-NET apparently is an internet portal that has been established for the Department of Computers, Faculty of Electrical Engineering at the university. All the best to the seniors and faculty, but this does not seem particularly notable. •DanMS 21:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; seems to be a non-notable regional school project. Article is difficult to follow. MCB 08:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of the most chaotic stub articles I've ever seen. deosn't seem to have an encyclopedical importance. --Mihai -talk 10:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Laspina[edit]

Bio of a musician. Just going by the claims of the article, doesn't meat WP:MUSIC because the first release isn't out, and won't be until 2007. Having serious trouble Verifying any of that... all of 3 Google results for his name [31], 2 of which redirect to casino webpages for me. --W.marsh 19:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — per nom. — RJH 19:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete flagrant vanity --Mecanismo | Talk 23:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chankast[edit]

The software has no awards, merits, notability or special qualities. Promotion. feydey 19:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's the first (and currently only) Dreamcast emulator capable of running commercial games. The article would need massive cleanup and expansion though. About 113,000 Google hits [32]. Well-known in emulation circles. However, it is also no longer being maintained. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 02:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Scoops. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i'd say being the first emulator for a platform is a "special quality". I researched and added some more information and a template, but the article has a long way to go. --ThrashedParanoid 22:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:02, Dec. 17, 2005

Webmonkey ash[edit]

Probably non-notable biography, but making some claim to notablility. Joyous | Talk 19:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN --Schmiteye 19:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. I bet 100 % of wikipedia admins would say that they are "talented web-designers"? feydey 20:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

he is well known in internet circles. 'weebl and bob' gets millions of hits..and the webcomic list is also very popular. both are well known sites particularly the weebl and bob one. but if hes not well known enough for wiki im sorry --Aubiekat 20:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, weebl and its creator get hits, but this is a totally different person, just professionally connected, a webmaster i'd guess. feydey 20:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, The Webcomic list may deserve an entry (doesn't have one as of when I checked) but I don't see this bio as notable. ++Lar 19:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well i see your points. if i can get a promise an entry for the webcomic list won't be non notable I'll write one about it. it really is an interesting site--Aubiekat 00:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I suspect no one can promise you that. But you yourself could review the notability guidelines and the deletion criteria and decide for yourself if you feel the site is notable before you invest time in writing an article. Some thought starters: (don't answer here, just think about them): How many users does the site have? What other sites reference it? has it had articles written about it in printed media? have notable webcomics authors cited it as an influence? Does it provide a meaningful service that other sites do not? Does it have industry presence? Are the owners included on convention webcomic panels?These pages may also help: WP:GD and WP:WEB If you conclude that the site would not be judged notable enough for a Wikipedia article, consider an article at Comixpedia Hope that helps. ++Lar 17:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least seriously amend it. Webmonkey Ash might well not be worthy of an entry, but then he has coded the Weebl and Bob website which gets millions of hits (meshinks), although I would say that the webcomic list doesn't warrant a seperate entry, although certainly on Comixpedia. At least change it so it doesn't look like his mum wrote it Perks 11:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Only two voters were citing all the articles added to the nomination, but since the articles are essentially identical, and are about the same subject, I will delete them all.Mindmatrix 01:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic calgary etc[edit]

Advertisement File Éireann 19:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Atomic tea, Calgary tea, *atomic, Atomic experience, which should all be deleted as spam. Morwen - Talk 20:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panocracy[edit]

Term fails the google test. Appears to be original research. Article is orphan. Mecanismo 20:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if it's a real term, it's better suited to Wiktionary at this point. | Klaw Talk 20:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete synonymous with anarchy as defined. Not encyclopedic in any case and not worth Wikitionary. Durova 20:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Isn't "rule by everyone" an oxymoron anyway? If everyone rules, who's left to be ruled? --Agamemnon2 08:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pick of India[edit]

Company spam. Sole editor is Pick of India. Site has an Alexa rank of about 276,750. --Deathphoenix 20:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not notable enough to merit an article. --Cswrye 20:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct me if I am wrong...but isnt this supposed to be an encyclopedia. I would think that company information if any would also merit inclusion. If you feel that the external hyperlinks are a problem they can certainly be removed, but I dont see the merit in deleting the article as the company information may be usefull to some other users...Pick of India 20:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question is whether a web site is notable enough to merit inclusion in this. Wikipedia is not a web directory, nor is it a source of advertising. --Deathphoenix 20:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How pleasant of you to come here and use this website's resources (without paying) to promote your company and your website. Such finesse! Did you read Wikipedia:Your first article before starting the article? Read our established guidelines for website inclusion and company inclusion and see what contributions are welcome. -- Perfecto 20:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is indeed supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a business directory. That's what Yellowikis is for. If you wish to demonstrate that your company merits an encyclopaedia article, please demonstrate that more than a simple business directory listing can be written about it in a manner that adheres to our Verifiability and No original research policies, by pointing to any independently-sourced "in depth" magazine articles, books, significant news stories, papers published in journals, television documentaries, or consumer reports that are about the company. Please demonstrate that the company satisfies our WP:CORP criteria. Uncle G 20:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough delete it if you feel that this it is not "notable" enough. I would have thought that the term encyclopedia would mean a repository of information (and in my view any and all information because you never know what is relevant to whom). I could understand your views if the intention was only to try and get PR for the site, but I assure you that was not my aim (hence the suggestion for removal of all external hyperlinks). My 2 cents...:) Pick of India 20:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 15:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I was going to vote transwiki to Yellowikis, but I see it's already there. D-Rock 13:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

G. W. Adams Educational Center, Inc.[edit]

A non-profit organization that runs a historical house. House might be significant, but the "Adams Educational Center" gets 57 google hits. Renata3 20:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not-notable. Renata3 20:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --rogerd 04:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nonsense. Enochlau 01:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rusting rabbit[edit]

Nonsense? Web site ad? Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't really understand what it is, but it doesn't belong here. spam for a website.--Alhutch 20:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Pburka 22:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mada mada dane[edit]

A catchphrase from an obscure character isn't encyclopedic material Mecanismo 20:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Ryoma Echizen. Pburka 22:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Otakucruft -- Taiichi «talk» 02:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very common phrase, no reason to redirect to a random character who says it a lot. No potential for more than a dictdef, though. —Cryptic (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 04:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thru-hiker[edit]

Dicdef. I propose a move to Wiktionary, then delete. Klaw Talk 20:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's a lot to say about thru-hikers and thru-hiking, and in the backpacking world this is a huge topic. The article doesn't start to address it, but an article on the subject is a great idea. Although thru-hiking is probably most closely associated with the Appalachian Trail, it's relevant to other long trails, so I think it deserves a standalone article. (I may try to work on it but will be out of town for a few days.) Bikeable 21:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and redirect to Thru-hiking and expand. Pburka 22:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As it stands, the article is nothing more than a dictionary definition and is also defined in Appalachian Trail#Hiking. This could possibly be expanded into an actual article but I would suggest to Bikeable (comment above) that the scope of the article be expanded to include such terms as "section-hikers," "north-bounders", "south-bounders," trail names adopted by the hikers, and other things involved in hiking the long trails. In that case, the article name and concept could be expanded to something like Hiking the North American crest trails or something similiar. Be sure to include Canada and Mexico if they have such trails. I could provide some photographs from a friend who has done extensive hiking on the Pacific Crest Trail in Washington and Oregon. •DanMS 22:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into something that gives some context, and is less geo-limited, like Long-distance trail. 24.17.48.241 01:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I (re)wrote the article, and while a lot more can be said, I think it is a decent start. I would support moving to Thru-hiking and redirecting the existing page per Pburka, but I'm not sure if that's appropriate during AfD, so I'll wait till this closes. Bikeable 01:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm amenable to withdrawing the AfD if the above objections are all met. It's certainly beyond a dicdef. One question: Is Thru-hiking the right name for the topic, or is it "geo-limited?" | Klaw ¡digame! 01:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good question, but I don't have any knowledge of this outside the US, nor am I able to find any equivalent terms in a quick scan through UK/Australia trail info. It may be that this is predominantly a US phenomenon. Bikeable 05:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's applicable to hiking throughout the U.S., I think that's broad enough for Wikipedia. I got the impression from an earlier comment that it might be a regional U.S. thing. Needless to say, I think any distance long enough to require the verb "hike" is best traversed in a car. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Gravy Train[edit]

Advertising. worthawholebean talkcontribs 20:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. From the article "This is actually just to advertise it". Pburka 22:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and Pburka above. Besides, it does not exist yet. •DanMS 22:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert --rogerd 04:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maniyka[edit]

Non-notable. Google search [33] returns 642 results. worthawholebean talkcontribs 21:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Long history, help to counter systemic bias, would once have been the dominant force in its market niche. Dlyons493 Talk 21:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The authors of the article think it is suitable for an Internet encyclopedia such as Wikipedia and it does not contradict to the terms of activity it has adopted. Maniyka is indeed a commercial company, but we think we fully followed the NPOV concept to form this short content. Moreover, Maniyka is a current leader in its filed in Bulgaria and according to us a short historical preview of it is needed for Wikipedia readers.
  • Delete, though I have wikified the article, it fails WP:CORP by virtue of having been written by its owners. --YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 23:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No Consensus(see talk page) karmafist 21:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Van Dam[edit]

Delete Yet another tragic tale of death, but one that is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is a not a place for memorials. Caerwine 17:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then delete the Samantha Runnion article as well. Tell me what is encyclopedic about that one? Both got them same amount of coverage in their respective California areas. Preceding was an unsigned comment by TripleH1976
    • Comment In general, if this article is deleted you ought to delete this other one is not an argument for keeping the first, but deeting the latter. However, in Samantha's case, her tragic death led to the creation of a continuing non-profit foundation dealing with the art of and the proetection of children. Danielle's death only led to a lawsuit against the killer by her parents. Caerwine 04:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • yeah, and that's unprecedented too. It's not all the time a victims family sues the killer. Plus the MO of the crime parallels the abduction of Polly Klaas in 1993. Furthermore, the case is unique because Westerfield doesn't fit the typical mold of a pedophile. He wasn't a dirty man with a history of child molestation. He was a successful guy, an engineer, self-employed was living a good life at the time. Sure Samantha's mom made a foundation in her memory but it's not the first. It doesn't promise anything differently then the Jacob Wetterling Foundation or Klass for kids. Preceding was another unsigned comment by TripleH1976
        • The foundation may not be particularly unique, but it does make a continuing impact on the surrounding community. Wrongful death suits are hardly novel. The main reason they aren't pursued all the time is that often the killer has no assets worth recovering. At most your arguments would mean that the article should be merged into that of David Westerfield, but the relevant details seem to already be there. A redirect might be worthwhile tho. Caerwine 17:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok do a redirect then. I think the article is worth keeping. In no way do I see it as a memorial, I simply gave a brief introduction to the girls life and then went into describing the events of her murder. TripleH1976 9:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (Sorry,Caerwine! Cover your eyes if you don't want to read it again. 1. This article should not be candidates for deletion per policy since it has encyclopedic information in it. Merger should be discussed on the talk page of the article. 2. We're not writing for the future, we're writing for today. Today a large segment of the U.S. population wants to read about child murder victims not just the killer. Let's make this article an example of how to do it right. Please, think this through. This isn’t a smart move. Picture this: Someone writes a nice article about a child murder victim. They proudly announces it to people that care. It's deleted for lack of notability. Someone looks for the article, can’t find it, reads the deletion page, and notifies high profile child victim advocates. John Walsh, Marc Klaas, Nancy Grace, Dan Abrams, Greta Van Suteren, and more. Now picture this: Newspaper articles. Talk radio. Jimbo paired off against one of these advocates on cable news explaining why we delete well written articles about child murder victims, but keep thousands of dreadful articles. A foolish way to discover notability. 3. This is a famous case. In modern society we remember people and events by writing the facts down. If we don't put the information in encyclopedias and textbooks, she will be forgotten. I suggest we close this deletion case ASAP and move the discussion to the talk page.--FloNight 04:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Thank You FloNight."' I also do not understand why this article, is being considered for deletion. This case got more coverage then the Samantha Runnion case(referring to CourtTV coverage), yet that is not being considered for deletion because her mother dedicated a non-profit organization in her memory. --TripleH1976 12:01 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This article should not be deleted. If you feel the information and the way it's presented has too much of the tone of a memorial, edit it. But victims of notorious crimes are, like it or not, figures in history and should be discussed in a comprehensive encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.119.135 (talk • contribs)

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 21:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, cleanup of too overly personal material. -- Natalinasmpf 21:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. This was a bizarre case, on of whose elements was the parent's participation in swinging clubs that is not even mentioned in the article and which led cops to uncover a lot of uncomfortable stuff in the community. Balance this and it will work. Jtmichcock 04:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Slaven[edit]

Outside guidelines for WP:BIO. Link provided does not even verify the weak claim to notability stated. TimPope 21:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — appears borderline non-notable, although he's dealing with multi-million dollar properties. — RJH 19:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 15:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity --rogerd 04:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the manager of my apartment building. Since when does a person need to have widespread name recognition to be worthy of a listing? He is very well known as within the real estate community in lower Manhattan. That should be sufficient. Also, see the "King of Soho" article. -- db7267 10:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Please read WP:BIO for guidelines on the inclusion of biographical articles. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Ethnic group. Owen× ☎ 02:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnick[edit]

Dicdef; no potential for expansion. Should be deleted, Wiktionaried, or merged into ethnic. This article was created as part of a vandalism/trolling/POV campaign — see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chooserr and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chooserr_again]. Psychonaut 21:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as dicdef. There just isn't anywhere to go with this topic. FreplySpang (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Maybe it should be put under an article like Dropped Ks. Chooserr
  • Delete or merge -- getcrunkjuice 00:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, since it was part of vandal/trolling/POV campaign --rogerd 04:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a dictionary --rogerd 06:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to ethnic as possible misspelling. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef. An article on spelling changes would be fine, but we don't do articles on words. I would like to take exception to the above nomination. If you want to file a request for commment, file one—but don't bring allegations like this into AfD. It's very nearly a personal attack, frankly. -- SCZenz 23:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per howcheng 's idea. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 19:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RadicalZero[edit]

Article about a personal homepage. Alexa has no traffic rating and shows no sites linking to the site.[34] Delete as per WP:WEB. --Allen3 talk 21:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteClearly a vanity/self-promotional page which makes no attempt to say why it's relevant to anything but the owner--Hraefen 21:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious does not belong into an encyclopedia. nn. site. jni 08:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity --rogerd 04:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ameritania Hotel[edit]

Spam. Main claims to notability feeling of perpetual nighttime and the prices - insufficient in my estimation.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — non-notable — RJH 19:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert --rogerd 04:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sapiosexual[edit]

This was speedy deleted under the vandalism criteria, with the deletion summary indicating something about a personal attack. The current content is identical to previous, and I don't believe that it meets the criteria. No vote. Sean|Black 21:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

for info ... I just copyedit the page; I think it is an improvement ... Vamp:Willow 17:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Term gets 633 Google hits, though I didn't really look to see what type of hits it got. Doesn't look like a personal attack to me. Could stand to be rewritten, though. Hermione1980 22:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the newbie who wrote the article. Sorry it's kinda weak (I'm new here - first post :). Anyway, I heard the term today, and came to wikipedia for a definition, none found, so did some research in to where it got started, and posted the artcle based on what I saw here about "Metrosexual". Rock808 22:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a personal attack, but a neologism created by a non-notable blogger. One of the top google hits (out of only 47 unique hits) is unwords.com and most of the rest seem to be blogs. Pburka 22:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neologism. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in defense of my article, "Metrosexual" is also listed in "unwords.com" and IS listed here in Wikipedia as well. "Ubersexual" is also listed on Wikipedia and is called a "neologism" even in it's definition here!! Other wikipedia entries include pomosexual and pansexuality Also, everyone is "unknown" until they become known, so that point seems rather invalid. It seems that if people are using the word as much as they are, they should be able to look it up here. Rock808 22:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is true that metrosexual[ity] is also a neologism. However it's a neologism which has achieved widespread use (over 1600 unique google hits and another 150 google news hits). It's also true that everyone is unknown until they become known (in fact, it's a tautology), but Wikipedia's goal is to document notability, not establish it. If you can find some instances of sapiosexuality used in print or the media I will reconsider my vote. Pburka 22:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sapiosexual is used in this film review by SlantMagazine. It gets 1,550 hits on Yahoo. On OkCupid.com (dating site) there are 27 people who list Sapiosexual as an interest, 0 as ubersexual, only 12 listed as metrosexual, 2 listed as pomosexual. These other words are already in Wikipedia yet used less! Social networking site Tribe.net has 126 people in a sapiosexual tribe, whereas ubersexual and pomosexual have no tribes at all. The word is defined in here in the Urban Dictionary. (I'll continue research and add more)
    • Actually, yahoo only has 103 unique hits. If you keep clicking "next", it stops on page 11. And a lot of the hits that it did find appear to be duplicates. I think that yahoo's duplicate detection isn't as sophisticated as google's. However I think that you're making a strong argument for the deletion of ubersexual and pomosexual. I'm going to list ubersexual, but I think that pomosexual is borderline notable. Pburka 00:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Pburka FreplySpang (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. We can reconsider if the word gets popular. Rhobite 00:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, after reading the policy of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", then I see how it's possible there is not enough data on this yet to get an ENCYCLOPEDIA entry, but it bothers me that no admin here suggested moving it to the Wiktionary (which I knew nothing about). Rock808 02:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Same deal there are here. Wiktionary isn't there to popularize new words, but to report on already widespread usages, which this doesn't seem to be. FreplySpang (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Sapiosexual seems to be used more commonly than other similar terms which HAVE been accepted in Wikipedia. If a word is being used and I don't know what it is, then where DO you suggest I go to look if not here?? 70.112.22.25 03:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Google? Or ask the person you saw using it? There are plenty of communities (Internet and otherwise) that have internal jargon/slang that doesn't appear in general references. FreplySpang (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ridiculous. If someone used the word "love" and I did a google on that I'd have millions of links to pages where people use the word, but that does not DEFINE it. How many hours of looking at how people use it would it take to get just an "idea" of it's many possible meanings. That's why we have a dictionary or encyclopedia. A single source to directly get an answer as to the meaning and enfluence of a word or topic, it's history, evolution, and references.
  • Weak keep. I considered speedying this last night, but there were enough Google hits to suggest to me that a worthy article could be written with just a little more than would be proper for a dictionary entry. Most of the hits, though, were other people using it on their blogs. Daniel Case 02:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki, if Wiktionary wants it. Non-notable neologism. android79 02:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep probably better to Transwiktionary. Its just another neologism... but its certainly got a few people using it... more so than some of the stuff on the Simpsons Neologism list.  ALKIVAR™ 07:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wiktionary's popularity has made it a launching pad for meme wannabes; it takes no time whatsoever any more for a new word to appear on some blogs/sites. This is a term that somebody made up within the last few weeks/months. If his/her sexuality was dependent on blogs about podcasts, we could create blogcast-o-sexual and jump on three bandwagons at once! - DavidWBrooks 13:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blogs ARE the new media. More paper news print will be replaced with news blogs and RSS. Just because you see something on a blog doesn't mean it should be discounted. The validity should be based on amount of use/acceptance. Rock808 13:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - were this a neologism used solely by one person I might agree with the call for a deletion, however this is a word that has spread widely in the 'blogosphere' outside its original source. Unlike some neologisms it also fulfills a need for such a word-expression and, I note, pre-dates blogosphere, etc. Additionally, re DavidWBrooks's comment above, there appears to be no intent to use WP as a 'launch pad' as this is a term with pre-existing widespread usage on multiple continents. --Vamp:Willow 16:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain how 47 hits are "spread widely in the blogosphere". User:Zoe|(talk) 22:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. --Fire Star 17:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, absolute, acknowledges neologism that does not have widespread traction. Google for yourself, eliminating Wikipedia mirrors, if you don't believe me. I count maybe 50 hits, and I'm being super-generous. Wikipedia is not here to help you popularize your non-notable memes. Nandesuka 18:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Used by a small but growing subculture. Kit 20:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism with 47 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - the word has been in use for months, it fills a need, and applies to a small but vocal segment of the pouplation 69.248.183.237 22:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - it's an important word who's popularity is growing, there are around 600 users on livejournal who list sapiosexual/sapiosexuality as an interest, and another 30 or so communities who do the same Baerana 22:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism used by a small group of navel-gazers. Come back when it shows up in the real world, like (shudder) "metrosexual". --Calton | Talk 01:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is a substantial list of people who list sapiosexuality as an interest. Even if it is only beginning to be used off Livejournal, is almost 500 people still not notable enough to merit an entry? Wikipedia is not paper, and once a word has this kind of following it deserves a write-up. Yes, it is not as big as metrosexual but Britannica will probably have a metrosexual article if it doesn't already. Including emerging words like 'sapiosexual' makes wikipedia better than britannica. If the word falls out of use what's the harm -- we can revisit this in a years time and discuss it again then. There seems to be substantial support for keeping this article as well as substantial support for deleting it -- I certainly see no consensus at this time. Kit 05:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Livejournal-created neologism with 49 unique Google hits. Sockpuppet-supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlton and others --rogerd 04:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's borderline, but I think the author of the article has made a strong case for keeping it. I also think if it's deleted, it's just going to reappear again given growing usage. --Jakob Huneycutt 06:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bloggercruft.  Grue  17:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to have made it out of the blogs. -- JJay 18:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have finally found a term that describes me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.150.98.18 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 14 December 2005
  • Strong Keep I first heard the word two years ago at a party (in real life). I have since heard it often (in real life). I know people who own the T-shirt (though I wish I knew where they got it). I've used the word to describe myself to other human beings (in real life). I would estimate that of the people I know (in real life), aproximately 300 of them would know exactly what I'm talking about when I say "sapiosexual", because they've heard and used the term before. I know this mainly because they attend the same parties where I hear and use the term.  :) Maybe it's just a Seattle thing, but the word seems like it's here to stay. lunaverse 06:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add a comment to my comment: I was flipping through the replies to the original "sapiosexual" LJ post, and saw that someone there stated, "I've had similar success spreading the fabulous word infornography". This is a word I have not heard in real life or general usage at all (outside of the anime show Lain), yet obviously there is a Wikipedia article devoted to that particular neologism. Granted there are more Google hits for "infornography", but seriously... how many have ever actually used or heard this word IRL? Remember that once upon a time, words were created and spread into common usage long before Google or the internet were developed. People still speak to each other face to face, and this should be as much (if not more) of a yardstick than number of Google hits. lunaverse 06:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention if we can have an article on the O RLY? meme, I see no reason this cant stay.  ALKIVAR™ 09:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with both Alkivar and Lunaverse. Like Lunaverse I first heard this term in real life. Kit 09:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Open snipe[edit]

Non-notable neologism - at best a dictdef

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism with no references. Plus, as the article is written, it's a noun, not a verb.--BillC 23:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 04:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (A7). Physchim62 (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Night-Warriors.com[edit]

As determined on its translation request entry, it's an nn-spam group. YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 22:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jamie 09:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Dissonance Carnalitas[edit]

original research File Éireann 22:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Also note the page with alternative grammar that I have just redirected to this one. -- Francs2000 22:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. –Sommers (Talk) 00:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry Tony, I like you as a person, but this article is a violation of the Wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:No original research. May be you can help on the subject that has our mutual interest. Andries 19:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR --rogerd 04:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes if it isn't accepted as anything other than original research perhaps it should be tagged on somewhere else or deleted...--Aoclery 22:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Tony.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (nomination withdrawn). --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scottrade[edit]

Advertising - doesn't meet WP:CORP

  • Delete as per my nom. Withdraw nom - I seem to have Googled something else :-( Dlyons493 Talk 22:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Well-known and large US discount broker. Annual revenues over $250MM. Comparable to (albeit smaller than) Ameritrade. | Klaw Talk 22:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Large company with a notable online presence. Jtmichcock 04:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well-known discount broker that can afford TV ads. Gazpacho 10:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was IDelete. - Mailer Diablo 06:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IDoFind[edit]

Not notable search engine. You can buy the site for $12000 but it's cheaper to ...

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Architecture[edit]

Advertising for non-notable company.

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

The result of the debate was delete. RobertG ♬ talk 13:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The big ventus[edit]

Was marked with a speedy delete tag but it's not. But it still fails WP:MUSIC big time so Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 22:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — clearly not yet notable. — RJH 19:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC --rogerd 04:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Idelete. - Mailer Diablo 06:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ibox[edit]

An advertisement File Éireann 22:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 16:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poppermost[edit]

notabilityMelaen 22:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Good. -- JJay 03:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but edit out all the advertising guff. A couple of albums, reviews in a few papers and a local fan base. --Spondoolicks 15:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 02:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Charismatic Church[edit]

Unimportant church, and a poorly written stub unlikely to improve. Not really a speedy delete. Harro5 22:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 23:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Church seems bonafide. A quick google shows that there are branches the US, Canada, and even one in Kenya. Yes it is poorly written, but two day old stubs usually are.
Merge into Independent Catholic Churches or probably (if it fits those descriptions) into Catholic Charismatic Renewal or Neo-charismatic churches --Ezeu 23:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Paw Print[edit]

Contentless article about a high school newspaper whose originating high school lacks an article YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 23:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete non-notable, and no content about the subject matter --BillC 23:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we had an article on the High School, I would vote to merge. As we don't, I vote to delete. Capitalistroadster 23:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable publication. --Ezeu 23:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --rogerd 04:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Her words kill[edit]

Band vanity. Google results are mainly self-promo, plus a BBC local article about their participation in a 2004 Battle of the Bands. FreplySpang (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, last part indicates it is vanity. Gazpacho 10:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN vanity --rogerd 06:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete band vanity. Stifle 15:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cryptic (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Charts[edit]

Seems to be a minor local band. Hard to do a websearch for because "The Charts" and "Time is up" turn up thousands of matches. Richfife 23:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Form of Preaching[edit]

Previous AfD here was sort-of set aside by Deletion Review in light of the recreation we now have. The people there expressed some concern that it may still be original research. Reading the article, it doesn't appear to offer external sources for its claims about the various things it talks about, unless that one reference at the bottom says all this. AfD should consider carefully whether this is still original research: and delete it if it is. -Splashtalk 23:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination seconded. Original research. Delete it. I may be inclined to strike my vote later. Xoloz 06:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, the subject of the article looks like a real book. The work used as the only reference looks like it's real. Looking at the article, yeah, a lot of the content should probably be removed or fixed. But I don't see a reason to delete, unless the argument is that what's there is unsalvagable and we're better off not having it as a starting point. I don't see a reason why that's true, so I say keep and clean up for now. I'll take a few whacks at the article over the next few days. Friday (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep/clean-up I'm one of the two people who voted to delete the first time this was AfD, I also voted to undelete on deletion review (are the voting comments there not archived, they would be relevant to this vote also). The article was contributed by a graduate student as part of classwork (University of Waterloo) on the history of rhetoric. It's encyclopedic material, I'd say the problem is more verifiability than OR. It really needs the student to come back and add references of some sort. It's my understanding that this will most likely happen sometime early next term. Pete.Hurd 01:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are two cited sources, and I don't see how this qualifies as "novel narrative or historical interpretation". I'm interested because I've been mulling over the idea of asigning WP work to graduate students as part of their course work. While I would not have done it in the way that the prof associated with this article did, I am mindful of some of the problems they might run across. I'm trying to understand how you think this qualifies as OR, Splash, Xolos, can you explain your reasoning? It just doesn't make sense to me. Pete.Hurd 07:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This should not have been listed; it's a manifestly encyclopedic topic, a seminal work on medieval rhetoric. If there are too few citations then more should be added. Deletion is not an acceptable alternative to editing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & cleanup. A google on Form of Preaching Robert of Basevorn shows plenty of references to the book. Given that it's a 14th century text, it's had enough longitivity to make it worth keeping. -- JLaTondre 00:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Thompson[edit]

no reference found Melaen 23:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm convinced it's all nonsense (eg. she lived in butt, she managed a brothel etc.) --Melaen 00:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Convinced is not good enough. AfD is a serious process that should be respected. Why can't you be bothered to check an article before you nom? [[35]]. -- JJay 04:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Clearly referenced. Dlyons493 Talk 10:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 45 seconds work with Google turns up a reference. -- William Pietri 10:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. — RJH 19:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami rangers[edit]

notability Melaen 23:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I would have voted keep anyway, since you can't be bothered to give a reason for delete, but I would also point out that this group is well known in the kayak world and have released books and videos. -- JJay 04:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Reasonable number of Ghits. Dlyons493 Talk 10:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've never heard of them, but they seem to be reasonably well-known in the kayaking world. Mo0[talk] 20:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 02:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Import classic[edit]

Not a commonly used phrase; appears to have been created to list Japanese games, anime, etc., that Americans like. tregoweth 23:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteI have to agree. It seems like a very silly and useless page that's 100% not NPOV to boot. Melodia Chaconne 17:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism, inherently POV. Nandesuka 18:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 05:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is not POV or original research. This is a list of games that came to be widely liked and known. This is not limited to Americans. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 20:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_10&oldid=1081091788"