Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 10 December 12 >

Purge server cache

December 11[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

André Dumontagne[edit]

Unverifiable. No results on Google for this guy under various alternate spellings, not listed on Classical Net Composer Index. No results for his alleged wife's name [1] are related to the article. No sources are cited in this article. Without any verification whatsoever, I must conclude that this is a hoax, albeit an unusually subtle one.. --W.marsh 23:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we get the input of a Wikipedian interested in classical music to be sure? Perhaps he's just not mentioned online. People with access to books on the subject may be able to find sources we can't. - Mgm|(talk) 00:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no entry for him in Don Michael Randel's Harvard Concise Dictionary of Music, and that calls into question whether he is notable even if he is real. --Metropolitan90 01:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verification is forthcoming (I've posted an enquiry to the contributor 70.112.34.87 (talk · contribs)). Tearlach 01:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While this looks like a really good article, I must vote delete unless verification can be established. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow, too bad really that it's a hoax. (Bjorn Tipling 07:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. His name is not found in Webster’s Biographical Dictionary, 1980 edition. I surely hate to give up a classical music composer, but there does not seem to be any verification. At least the contributor has five days to provide verification. •DanMS 08:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like an elaborater hoax. Fr.wiki hasn't got him and dumontagne isn't a likely French surname. Various Google searches for him and his works show nothing. I think it's the worst kind of timewaster. Dlyons493 Talk 10:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete' as per above. Olorin28 20:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I listen to and play classical piano music all the time, and I've never heard of this guy. Hoax. --YixilTesiphon Say hello 04:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nomination --Mecanismo | Talk 21:49, 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andvakaar[edit]

Also unverifiable. No sources cited, no results on google for Andvakaar or Yrmand Yothbersim. Of course, Google is far from definitive on obscure historical subjects... but if nothing can be presented to verify this article, we can't just assume the subject for real. --W.marsh 00:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both Andvakaar and Yrmand Yothbersim don't seem particularly Italian, nor do they appear to be real words/names. I'm tending towards a delete on this, but would still love the input of an Italian historian Wikipedian. - Mgm|(talk) 00:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't believe the names either. Tearlach 02:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am also leaning towards delete on this one. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there an italian version of this in Italian Wikipedia? (Bjorn Tipling 07:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Nothing on it.wiki either Dlyons493 Talk 10:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No google etc.. Olorin28 20:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nomination --Mecanismo | Talk 21:50, 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Main series[edit]

useless list see Talk:Dancemania. --- Melaen 00:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, listcruft with bad title Snurks T C 02:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need two lists for the same thing. Movementarian 02:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the above. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a very helpful article. (Bjorn Tipling 07:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. We have seen plenty of useless, pointless lists pass through AFD, but this really scrapes the bottom of the barrel. •DanMS 08:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, utterly useless list, badly titled. — JIP | Talk 11:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list of quite breathtaking pointlessness. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eloquently expressed, Guy: “breathtaking pointlessness.” Mind if I use that phrase occasionally? (with proper attribution, of course) •DanMS 00:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Main sequence. Gazpacho 23:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Spucatum tauri. Celcius 20:16, 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) 12:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Fullerton[edit]

Closer's notes
For the record, several user's comments/votes were disregarded:
Ciaranmcgonagle (talk • contribs) (edits almost exclusively to pages related to this one)
Fieldmarshalamin (talk • contribs) (edits only to this page)
Nzamcdza (talk • contribs) (given low weight, very new user)
Furthermore, all IP comments/votes were disregarded.

This article was originally requested at Wikipedia:AFC. It was created by User:Johnfullerton, and looks like WP:Vanity. I originally flagged it for speedy-bio but the creator objected so I am listing here. The article seems to make no claim to notability for its subject, outside his community. The thesis statement is John Fullerton (born January 18, 1957) was a past-pupil of St. Columb's College in Derry. Google gives a lot of hits for someone else of the same name. I am sure that Mr. Fullerton is a local community leader, but I don't think his autobiography is encyclopedic. - orioneight (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy to User:Johnfullerton. Unfortunately, he fails to meet WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 00:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy per Capitalistroadster and my above explanation. - orioneight (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he may have minor notability as a footballer. However, problems remain: any claims of his general notability being on a par with people like Martin O'Neill, John Hume and Seamus Heaney need documented proof (as I said, no sign in the Derry Journal, nor in the NewsBank newspaper article). And are the minutiae of the business dealings of a school PE teacher and the planning politics of his department really worth including in an encyclopedia? Furthermore, the interference with the afd and the influx of newly-signed editors endorsing his importance suggests there's astroturfing going on with this article. Tearlach 14:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - non notable biography.--File Éireann 00:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC) Keep - now shown to be reasonable.--File Éireann 10:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll go out on a limb here based upon the comments below I think this might be worth keeping. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Changed to delete after reveiwing the article and discussions. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is of substantial importance and significance to the local population of Northern Ireland, specifically Derry City. He is just as renowned in the city and famous institution of St. Columb's College as fellow illustrious alumni such as Martin O'Neill, John Hume and Seamus Heaney. I do not see any challenge to the existence of these men's articles. John Fullerton is also a name common to many ears outside his local community as I will discuss below.
I feel that the article does make numerous claims to notability for it's subject. John Fullerton was not only a past pupil. The initial statement is a mere introduction. There are other reasons for this article and I feel I have mentioned them within the content, thus warranting the article itself.
For example, he is recognised as an overhead and free kick specialist and along with Tony Furey, a fellow member of the Physical Education department in St. Columb's College and a powerful diplomat, he famously negotiated with the British government and brokered numerous deals for the state-funding of his department, resulting in the much-needed investment totalling £2 million to be allocated to the department over a period of 7 years between 1987 and 1994. One of the monthly sums personally designated to John Fullerton for his development proposal can be seen here. This was the standard monthly sum for John Fullerton for 2 years, while Tony Furey received a similar sum and the College was given half a million pounds sterling due to the successful negotiations. As far as I know, further details of the payment are not allowed for reasons of commercial confidentiality as the institution is permanently operational and is currently awaiting acceptance of further development. John Fullerton's ground-breaking negotiations were a huge achievement and are well-known throughout Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as a major breakthrough for Catholic/nationalist equality during the "troubles" era. These negotiations had been the first of their kind since he worked for a department in a Roman Catholic school in Unionist-dominated Northern Ireland. They set an extremely important precedent for Northern Irish politics and social policies. Catholic schools had previously been neglected by the largely Protestant-biased UUP. He is held as a local hero by many among the nationalist community as he demonstrated that the goal of full equality and peace could be achieved by diplomacy and co-operation, rather than violent tactics, like that employed by the IRA. This approach he adopted was similar to that taken by John Hume. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 159.134.207.171 (talk • contribs)

The previous comment is mine by the way. Also, I am not John Fullerton himself. I merely adopted the screenname to create the article. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Johnfullerton (talk • contribs)

I would have to agree that John Fullerton is a notable character. I’m from Belfast, Northern Ireland but living in Derry, but I had heard about Fullerton before moving here. His often-hilarious exploits at Derry City FC get a brief mention in Norman Giller’s “Football and All That: An Irreverent History”, where he famously scored from near the half-way line in a league football game. This is quite an achievement in football and Giller describes him as “an influential and witty personality to local football at a time when Northern Ireland needed something to cheer about”. The distance he scored the free-kick from was the second furthest distance ever scored from in the UK and Ireland. He is also mentioned in “From Civil Rights to Armalites: Derry and the Birth of the Irish Troubles” by Niall O'Dochartaigh for his breakthrough in cross-community negotiations in Northern Ireland. “an influential and witty personality for local football at a time when Northern Ireland needed something to cheer about”. The article includes all the relevant information. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 84.64.215.208 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment You should add this information to the article because it would show he met WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 02:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, vanity. Ifnord 03:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as the article is rewritten well enough to show notability. Snurks T C 03:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am from Newry in Northern Ireland and John Fulerton is one of Northern Ireland's greatest characters of the past 50 years. NzaMcDza T C 05:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note User's second edit. - orioneight (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable to me. (Bjorn Tipling 07:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak delete Main notability is by association. Has done laudable work but unencyclopedaic. Dlyons493 Talk 10:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Derry Journal online archives do not go back to the when Fullerton carried out his most influential work. Although the article is about a man who planned his physical education department, which does not sound notable on the face of it, the individual circumstances in Fullerton's case are what give him special prominence. He set a famous precedent in Northern Irish politics, as has been noted, by negotiating the planning of the department. Also, although I was aware of his speciality in the area of overhead and free kicking I was unaware that he held the record in football mentioned in Giller's book. I am aware of O'Dochartaigh's book and the mention of Fullerton. - unsigned comment by Johnfullerton (talk · contribs)
  • Keep I think this should be kept. I believe that fullerton was also one of the minds behind the original anti-bullying wristbands. vote was by User:Ciaranmcgonagle (user forgot to sign signature added by SusanLarson)
Note User's sixth edit. Also not user's vandalism here and fishing for votes here. - orioneight (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think another reason why this article ought to be kept is that, in a school noted for the brilliance of its past pupils, john fullerton is a man who has achieved great status in his field. He is important to people in Derry and surrounding areas. It would be a disgrace if he is once again shunned from the limelight that he so richly deserves. I believe some of the best chapters on Fullerton have yet to be written!

  • Keep how can anyone say John Fulerton is "not notable" ??? that is insane, he is one of the most widely know and respected figures in Northern Ireland of the past 50 years. I had forgotton about the fact that he was also one of the minds behind the original anti-bullying wristbands worn by thousands of people including many celebrities all over the U.K. What else must one do to be deemed "notable" ??!!?? Nzamcdza 16:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies on the following people may be included in Wikipedia. This list is not all-inclusive. There are numerous biographies on Wikipedia on people who do not fall under any of these categories, but there is no intention to delete them all.

Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles. Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions.

Notability can be determined by: Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following An independent biography Name recognition Commercial endorsements Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more Recording musicians who have sold more than 5,000 albums, CDs, or similar recordings (see WikiProject Music's Notability and Music Guidelines) Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events

I have included in bold all the various criteria which John Fulerton meets and considering you only have to meet one of these criteria to be included there can be no doubt that he is notable and his page should be kept. Nzamcdza 16:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a vote. You have already said "keep" three times now, please label comments as such. As far as your claims, I have yet to see a verifiable piece of evidence that would prove that any of these are true. All that has been provided here are paragraphs of personal testimony and claims, but I have yet to see a link posted, a news article, anything that we can verify. I've exhausted Google and come up short. We've already tried the Derry Journal. Please stop posting ridiculously long paragraphs of your personal, unverifiable testimony and give us something we can look at. —— orioneight (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tearlach. Regarding the criteria that he apparently meets according to Nzamcdza: I believe that to be quite subjective, I'd like to see some (unbiased) sources agreeing with that.. --JoanneB 17:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fullerton played for Derry City FC in the professional Irish football league whilst on trial and his famous wonder-goal is mentioned in Giller's book, as has been pointed out. The Derry Journal office archives on the Buncrana Road in Derry will have numerous articles on Fullerton dating from the time of his most prominent work. His importance to NI society and politics was also pointed out in O'Dochartaigh's book. This clearly demonstrates that he is a major local political figure. Does this not satisfy the criteria? Regarding the anti-bullying wristbands, I'm not sure how influential he was in their creation. Have you any evidence of this? If anything, I think he merely promoted them. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 159.134.206.82 (talk • contribs)

he has also been briefly mentioned in an article by Queens University Professor Kieran McEvoy ("Restorative Justice and the Critique of Informalism in Northern Ireland " (with Harry Mika) (2002) 43 British Journal of Criminology 534 ) as one of the people who have made strides in promoting cross community relations. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Ciaranmcgonagle (talk • contribs)

Fullerton is a legend and deserves to be on this site. I remember watching him as a young sweet heart of the local game, not only did he have great ability with his feet he was also a major heart throb. I say keep this hunk of a man on! GRRR! —the preceding unsigned comment is by 81.156.245.112 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment This is not a vote so I don't see the point in people adding their personal views or support in order to keep this article up. It is both futile and detrimental to any chance of Fullerton being taken seriously by anyone who is unaware of his work. As Tearlach points out, "the interference with the afd and the influx of newly-signed editors endorsing his importance suggests there's astroturfing going on with this article (Tearlach 14:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC))". I'm not sure who these people are but the interference is certainly damaging the subject's credibility so I'd be pleased to see excitable people refrain from treating this debate as a voting arena. Now, regardless of these interferences, the facts are as follows:
  • Fullerton is a notable sportsman. He played for Derry City FC in the professional Irish football league whilst on trial and scored a record goal for the UK and Ireland. (Norman Giller, Football and All That: An Irreverent History)
  • Fullerton is a notable personality in Northern Irish politics and society. He made famous and ground-breaking negotiations with the British government, changing the face of the political and social scene in Northern Ireland gaining increased equality for Roman Catholics in the area of education. (Niall O'Dochartaigh, From Civil Rights to Armalites: Derry and the Birth of the Irish Troubles (I am well aware of this book, as it is in the Central Library in Derry and I have borrowed it previously. If needs be I could check for its availability, borrow it and scan the relevant pages for people to see.), Kieran McEvoy ("Restorative Justice and the Critique of Informalism in Northern Ireland " (with Harry Mika) (2002) 43 British Journal of Criminology 534 )) Evidence of the actual investment resulting from the negotiations can be seen at, http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/qanda/writtenans/000131.htm#eti, as has been pointed out above.
  • Claims have been made that he was influential in the setting up of the global anti-bullying wrist-band campaign, although I am not convinced by this. I feel evidence of this is necessary as Fullerton merely promoted them within Northern Ireland, if anything.--Johnfullerton 20:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Sockpuppet invasion. android79 20:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this subject is totally relevant to this page. John Fullerton was footballs original heart throb. Had he been about nowadays he would be as big as Beckham,he certainly takes a better set piece. A sportsman, a humanitarian and a prince and I say keep him. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Fieldmarshalamin (talk • contribs)


KEEP: I detect a lot of jealousy amongst posters on this discussion of this great man. Don't hate him because he is better than you. Fullerton would not hate you for feeling this way, he is humble in his greatness and I think it's time that you people take a leaf from John's book and honour this beautiful tribute. This is a man who embodied class, touch and vision on and off the football field, it is truly a disgrace that his name be soiled in this way. hame on the lot of you! KEEP this homage to John Fullerton. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Fieldmarshalamin (talk • contribs)


here is a link to a match report involving a recent game of fullertons, making an appearance for an inishowen team - http://www.inishtimes.com/sport3.htm —the preceding unsigned comment is by 82.19.66.27 (talk • contribs)

That's an Under-18 league, and the person discussed is named Declan Fullerton. — orioneight (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep --156.34.70.132 21:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity article. With puppetfest bonus. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete noting sockpuppetry. I don't believe this guy is actually notable. But userfy if the user-who-is-not-the-subject wants. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability has not been established. Demiurge 23:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. Arkon 23:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not John Fullerton so I cannot see how the accusation of vanity against the article can stand. Anyhow, I apologise for the mess this has become. These trolls are not sockpuppets of mine and have nothing to do with me. I am as much frustrated by their interference as other serious contributors to this site, as they are damaging the subject's (now slight) chance to remain credible. Before their interference there was a consensus for possibly keeping the article. However, since, this has changed and I feel their interuption has put some contributors on a side against the article. Nevertheless, serious sources relating to Fullerton's notability have been mentioned. Are these enough to ensure the page is preserved?--Johnfullerton 00:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously I am trying here. But the problem is that verifiable sources haven't been provided, to justify the claims of notability in the article. Read this page . . . nothing but paragraphs and paragraphs of personal testimony, but no one has provided the link we ask for. I can only barely prove that this man exists, let alone that he is one of the most well-known and important figures in Northern Ireland. If he is so important, than why does a Google search for "John Fullerton" Derry turn up no hits for him? Surely there would be something, either from his work in politics or in football. But alas, there is nothing. Even the link to the school's website shows that he is not even the head of the P.E. department, but rather the school coach. I'm sure his work toward a new school gym is important to that school, and perhaps to that community, but it is not of interest to an encyclopedia reader from a general audience. — orioneight (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn bio, google for (Fullerton + "Derry City") returns no results for this person.  ALKIVAR™ 02:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google hits aren't everything. wikipediatrix 03:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pound with asteroids and execute the sockpuppets. --YixilTesiphon Say hello 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the sockpuppets. karmafist 07:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct me if I'm wrong but this appear to argue, then, that all you need to do to get the cabal to delete an article is VfD it, then flood Wiki with sockpuppets supporting its retention, at which point, no matter how worthy it is, it gets deleted for sock-puppet support. If this is the Wiki policy, please tell me, and I can go and do likewise.
      • Nope, it isn't, since the sock votes wouldn't be counted anyway. 95% of the time, socks only hurt your chances to do whatever it is you want to do on here since people will view the credibility of the claims of your side with suspicion since they had to resort to socks. The other 5% of the time is when a losing side puts socks voting for the opposing side, usually because it's so obvious that the other side will win that the losing side feels they have to do something to break consensus. karmafist 17:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Judge the article on its worth - not on the fact that there has been an invasion. These people have nothing to do with the initial article and they frustrate me as much as anyone else who wants to ensure that Wikipedia can be taken as a reliable and serious website. I understand the strict regulations but sources have been provided so I do not understand how anyone can claim otherwise. Before the invasion, I recall a few users had argued that the article should possibly be kept with a clean-up. I have done this and will try to provide more information if possible, but the invasion should not be allowed to discredit the subject.--Johnfullerton 09:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment OK, so this guy has had brief mentions in one obscure academic paper and in one obscure book by an unknown author, and his name is included in a NI assembly document as the recipient of a government grant (as well as a local newspaper article which turned out to be a completely different Fullerton). Still does not establish notability. If this guy was in any way notable, the Derry local press at least would have heard of him. Demiurge 10:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The local press online archives do not go back far enough to when Fullerton carried out his work. The Derry Journal Office archives on the Buncrana Road would have planty of information. So far we've established that he has been mentioned in two books, not one. And who are you to say they are obscure? O'Dochartaigh's book is an important publication for anyone interested in Derry City and the history of the "troubles" in NI, while Giller's proves that he played in a professional football league. Not only did he do so, but he scored a record goal. There are biographies on here for modern-day professional Irish league footballers. Why should it be any different for Fullerton? --Johnfullerton 11:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about the sockpuppets. They're an irrelevant nuisance. The point is still verification. Even if the references in those books are verified, the bulk of the material in the John Fullerton#Career section remains unverified by published sources. What reputable publication tells us about his tendon injury or his meteoric rise in the ranks to be, erm, deputy head of a school PE department? Who "argued that only George Best in recent times has been more successful at using the medium of sport to bridge political divides in Northern Ireland"? Who suggested "that the reason why his success has not been more noteworthy is due to" etc?
As to one of the sources offered: the NI Assembly document lists a John Fullerton as recipient of £8,467, but provides no detail: for all we know, it might be a different John Fullerton and refer to a contract to clean the windows. Another current example: the Alumni Illustrissimi site only lists winners up to 2003] so currently we've no proof that he won that award in 2005. Tearlach 13:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, sockpuppet-supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Obvious Delete. Notability, if any, should be mentioned in the first sentence and should be verifiable. What a waste of everyone's precious time! Logophile 14:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have visited the Central Library in Derry and asked the receptionist to direct me to books she knew to refer to Fullerton. She directed me towards:
  • Walker, Past and Present: History, Identity and Politics in Northern Ireland. (At page

72-73 Fullerton and the St. Columb’s College affair is talked about in enough detail to make it notable I feel.)

  • Hargie and Dickson, Researching the Troubles: Social Science Perspectives on the Northern Ireland Conflict.
  • Mahon, The History of Gaelic Football (In the chapter relating to GAA in Ulster, and a specific sub-section on Co. Derry, the divide between the “soccer-playing city” and the “gaelic-playing rural areas” are noted and Fullerton’s name is mentioned in connection with this and somewhat contributing to this. People in Derry city viewed him as a local role-model while nationalists in rural areas felt he always has a soft attitude towards Britain, a fact which was allegedly backed up by the fact he played the “foreign game of soccer” according to Mahon.)

She also pointed me to O’Dochartaigh’s book and some newspaper and sport cuttings from the early 1980s and late 1970s. These mention his record goal even though he played only 4 times for the Derry City full-team and mentions the reasons for this return to St. Columb’s. The St. Columb’s College affair is also documented in later cuttings. More detailed articles should be available in the Derry Journal offices although I don’t currently have the time to visit there.

I have borrowed Walker’s book as I feel it is most useful. --Johnfullerton 15:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per pretty much everyone that isn't a sockpuppet. Vanity. --Last Malthusian 15:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I have a keen interest in football history, I’ll admit I have never heard of Fullerton in real-life but I can submit that I have 100 Years Of Football: The Fifa Centennial Book which has Derry City’s John Fullerton name on a page near the index of top-three record-holders in 1977 among a list of furthest distances scored from free-kicks.

He is ranked third here, however. This ranking includes the worldwide record, though, and the chap in second place is Peruvian. This backs up the claim about his professional footballing I feel. Definitly noteworthy. --88.107.17.245 16:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, HOAX. Googling "John Fullerton" with virtually any keyword from the article yields little to no results (any results are purely coincidental). Ral315 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I refer to the comment that the academic journal was obscure. I would argue that in the realm of northern irish criminology it is well known and is usually a set text on any criminolgical university syllabus. Outside of this it may be called obscure however, if this is not a forum for knowledge and historical insight which is not well known or has thusfar been overlooked in the public domain, then i fail to see the purpose of this site! I would also hope you disregard the views of the so called sock puppets, both for and against, and give regard to the original authors. (ciaranmcgonagle)

As regards the Hume speech, it was made at the past pupils reunion dinner in October of this year. Unfortunatly, Hume's speeches are referenced less and less now due to his illness.

Another thing you may want to consider is Irish president McAleese's speech, referenced at http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=5&speech=17&lang=eng which talks about the importance of the educators at st columbs college. - —the preceding unsigned comment is by 82.19.66.27 (talk · contribs)

Quote from Mary McAleese's speech: "Today, we look in awe at John [Hume] and his contemporaries in St Columb’s College - so many giants in so many very different spheres, some names well known inside their professional worlds, others household names like Phil Coulter, Bishop Edward Daly, Seamus Deane, Mark Durkan, Brian Friel, Seamus Heaney, tAthair Brendán O Doibhlin; and Martin O’Neill - each name eloquent testimony to a job well done by pupils, parents, teachers and management in the “education for life” community that is St. Columb’s". Spot the missing name... Tearlach 17:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of missing names. What does this prove?--Johnfullerton 17:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It proves he's not cited specifically: evidence against your claim that among alumni he has a similar level of fame to Hume and Heaney. Tearlach 18:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If "hoax" accusations are going to be lazily hurled at the subject they'd need foundation. Does the fate of this article rely on Google now? I do not see where it is the official policy of Wikipedia for its articles to pass the "Google test" before being accepted. Source evidence has been provided to prove Fullerton's professional footballing and his notable role in NI politics. Doesn't this establish notability? By the way, it was 2004, not 2005, when Fullerton won the past-pupil award.--Johnfullerton 17:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The speech - so many giants in so many very different spheres, some names well known inside their professional worlds, others household names like Phil Coulter, Bishop Edward Daly - I believe this relates to fullerton and people of that ilk. I think these sites have a duty to spread the word of lessor know people such as fullerton. I think if the site is allowed up it would create a hub or a basis for further works into fullerton and the body of work will expand from there. Surely if everything on this site could be referenced on google there would be no need for it?? This is the whole point of this community and people such as fullerton should be allowed, people who are unfashionable like this will never get the acclaim that they deserve in the normal arenas. - —the preceding unsigned comment is by Ciaranmcgonagle (talk · contribs)

I think these sites have a duty to spread the word of lessor know people such as fullerton.[sic]
Then start a website about him yourself. This is an encyclopedia, not a memorial to "lessor know people". - orioneight (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And also see Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. The "Google test" isn't a bad assessor of notability, but because it produced nothing, I tried newspaper archives: neither Newsbank nor the Times Digital Archive find any reference to him. Tearlach 18:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt a memorial - he is still alive. Furthermore, Fullerton is very important to the people of Derry. Are you saying their views arent important? - —the preceding unsigned comment is by 82.19.66.27 (talk · contribs)

The edits of 24.203.199.202 (talk · contribs) might be instructive. This person is running around adding information about someone named Herbert Becker, and adding to the request for article creation an image uploaded by User:Johnfullerton which he claims is a "friend" of John Fullerton, but whose name is not Herbert Becker. Also note that Fullerton is not listed as being a member of the Past Pupils' Association at http://www.stcolumbs.com/html/extra/extraset.html, let alone their Alumnus Illustrissimus. Also Googling for '"John Fullerton" Derry football' or '"John Fullerton" Londonderry football' brings up no hits for the person in the article. Zoe (216.234.130.130 21:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - the "references" consist of two sites that don't mention Fullerton by name and one that refers to him as "Deputy Head/Organise/Soccer Coach" -- if he's the correct J Fullerton. I was going to vote for a limited keep for verification until I saw the sockpuppet parade -- and suspected an organized campaign here. B.Wind 01:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I can assure you there has been no organised campaign. The interference has clearly damaged the subjects credibility. I certianly would not want that.--Johnfullerton 11:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The annoying ad campaign overpowers his limited notability. Tom Harrison (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should it? It's damage has frustrated me as much as anyone. It's like saying that a product with an poor ad campaign is not worth buying. The two are not synonomous.--Johnfullerton 11:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The evidence is conclusive, this is a complete hoax. Delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, the evidence isn't conclusive. Where is your evidence?--Johnfullerton 11:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seen as I have given sources for information but certain people choose to ignore them, I have scanned Walker's reference to Fullerton in his book, Past and Present, which I borrowed from the Central Library in Derry. It can be seen [here]. (I hope this is legal and does not breache copywrite.)--Johnfullerton 13:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting "book" and very well done. Too bad it has so many egregious misspellings. Could have done with an editor. Who wrote this "book" again? Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • Just curious, what is the book's ISBN number? - orioneight (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, it is ISBN 0853897697. — orioneight (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And here is a scanned image from a St. Columb's publication of his winning the past-pupils award. [[2]] --Johnfullerton 13:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that image which you cropped to create the Tony Furey photo from and called a "personal photo"? Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment As a past pupil I feel well placed to ad my voice to the fact that John Fullerton truly does deserve a mention amongst our illustrious allumni. He had a left foot like no other I've ever seen He was a gentleman and a scholar. From Mr Bunyip (BSc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.211.102.175 (talk • contribs)

Well said Mr Bunyip. My only issue with this article is the failure to credit "Mr.F" (as my class called him) for blazing new sporting trails by bringing 'Strider' trainers to the forefront of athletic pursuits! Oh and he made my class run 2 laps of the Industrial estate for making our German Teacher cry, too. "Amazing times". D.Bronco M.A. B.A.(Hons) —the preceding unsigned comment is by 212.54.164.36 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nom. When an article is nominated for deletion like this, the best course of action is not to engage in vigorous dispute here, but to add good, verifiable citations to the article. Two days into the AfD the editors of the article have not done so. Unfortunately, the references currently in the article do not confirm the claims to notability being made here in AfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has everyone just ignored the refernces posted by Johnfullerton  ???

  • Delete vanity. Possible Hoax. 200 Google hits when searching Fullerton and Northern Ireland. Non-Notable. Olorin28 01:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First thing i noticed when reading this post, is that most of the "Delete" comments are being made by people living outside Ireland, north and south. Asking for proof because they have never heard of JF, well just going to make a few points, If you are not from the surrounding area then you are not going to have heard of them man, most of his work was done before the internet came about and i would wager that all of your so called refrences came from the internet, how many people went down to the derry journal office to get research, how many went to inish times for information. I am cuently studying in Derry and had to write a report on the history of derry's sport. Firstly i must thank wikipedia for providing information helping me in my report. Although the info was hard to come by i stumbled upon the report about john fullerton which led me to here where this debate is happening. Is it taking up so much space on your webpage that it should be deleted? If you were to ask the people of derry who they would rather have represented by their city John F or Nadine Coyle (whom you have on your site) i would say most of them would say john. As for the facts i don't know much about them but i'm guesing he is on this more becasue of his work for the funding rather than his footballing skills. To anyone not from Derry you will never understand what it was like during the troubles and for John and his co-workers to pull that off was an amazing feat from somone on "the city side." As for the football I couldn't give a damm I'm a GAA man to the end and i find it amazing that no one has mentioned that John played Gaa for donegal team. - unsigned post by 212.219.92.232 (talk · contribs)

When did he do these amazing feats, please? If they occurred prior to the time the intenet came about? Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Also, the point is that the many users from outside Derry have heard of other names referred to, particularly Heaney, Hume and Martin O'Neill. He is simply not as famous as the rest: that is our objection, to the exaggeration of his fame. Tearlach 22:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr. Fullerton has contributed much to local sport here in Derry and it is only right that this page should be kept as a tribute. (Thebdogg 17:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Wonderful. We're still waiting for evidence. Zoe (216.234.130.130 22:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

"Wonderful. We're still waiting for evidence" what is it with you people and your need for evidence, there has been evidence listed *free kick record *money obtained for school *Derry journal archive in the derry journal office (the journal website is no good for archived evidence the page dosn't go back far enough proof of this is i was searching the journal webpage for a report of the Derry barcelona match and it didn't have anything on it, so i suppose this never happened either??) as for when they happened i would say when fullerton was around 17-19 (if he was still in school playing football) now you gonna tell me that internet was about then?

  • Comment Just to expand on what Demiurge said, if you can't find anything to verify the guy's notability that the wider audience you're attempting to reach via Wikipedia can actually read (because it's in some office in Derry), then it's a good indication that he isn't notable to that wider audience. --Last Malthusian 11:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, it's not a good indication of non-notability. The only thing it indicates is that the internet as we know it today was not in existence when Fullerton made the news. Also, the evidence that has been produced has been intentionally ignored. The victimisation continues...
Free John Fullerton!--Johnfullerton 11:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
....with every five gallons. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'And lo, the Last Trump blew; and God came down upon Wikipedia, and to those Wikipedians that had lived pure lives he said: "Come with me; a Paradise awaits you of unending bluelinks and NPOVs as far as the eye can see; and truly, none of you shall know conflict nor strife again, for in Heaven we have devised a method of writing that all accept is better than both British and American English." And to those that had not lived pure lives, he spoke: "You I condemn to Hell; there you will be forced to translate articles from Tagalog and expand Wikipedia's excellent article on shoe polish for all eternity." And there was a great wailing and gnashing of teeth.' --Last Malthusian 12:34, 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Narniaism[edit]

Neologism, self promotion, no google hits, borderline spam. Bachrach44 00:25, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 01:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Datacomsys[edit]

Delete because: a) this is an English encyclopedia; b) apparent copyvio from [3]. Tearlach 00:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately, the time has expired on this so it will have to go through the full AFD. Delete as copyvio and non-English page. Capitalistroadster 00:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam User:Ejrrjs says What? 01:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio and non-english. Movementarian 02:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A foreign language article may be translated. , if worthy. It is not the case, though. User:Ejrrjs says What? 10:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record: I did consider the translation option. However, depending on who posted it, it'd still be copyvio or promotional. Tearlach 11:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered translation, but the copyvio won out. Movementarian 14:04, 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 (or at worst no consensus). bainer (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Übersexual[edit]

Non notable neologism, unverifiable, and possibly a hoax. Pburka 00:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've heard this word used several times on the radio. Mentioned in WorldNetDaily news [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46788 in this article]. Fox News uses it in this article. NBC News uses it in this article. You mean Wikipedia is not going to be a reference for people trying to find the meaning to these words? —the preceding unsigned comment is by 141.198.128.25 (talk • contribs)
    • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -Willmcw 01:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Curiously, all three of those articles were published within a few weeks of the publication of the book which coined this word. Publicity, perhaps? Pburka 01:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Willmcw User:Ejrrjs says What? 01:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Metrosexual. 49,200 Google hits without the umlauts [4]. This term is used in American culture and has been mentioned by established media sources. But at this juncture it's just a dicdef by itself... it should be mentioned as a notable spinoff of Metrosexual, and redirected there for curious people searching for it. --W.marsh 02:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Willmcw. Movementarian 03:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - valid description of sexuality. I've heard it used a lot when boasting. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is fine. (Bjorn Tipling 07:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge to Metrosexual per above. Does Wikitionary have this word? Saberwyn - 10:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Metrosexual, as per above. D-Rock 10:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a real term, I have seen it mentioned in Finnish newspapers weeks before reading this Wikipedia article. — JIP | Talk 11:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've seen this used quite often, and it absolutely shouldn't be merged with Metrosexual. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 16:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This neologism is entering the mainstream and I think it is notable. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I have heard this being used more and more recently, however this article needs some verifiable sources. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with soft redirect to wiktionary to insure that advertising for Future of Men doesn't again grow in this spot. Also, as a note to Zordrac, Bjorn, JIP, Nazgjunk, and malo: Personal testimony of editors does not count as verification.
    brenneman(t)(c) 22:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this article is fine Yuckfoo 01:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with metrosexual. 132.162.213.109 01:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into Metrosexual, but do not delete it. -- H005 14:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Open question: When someone on the internet creates a neologism, it's AFD. Should it be any different when that someone gets it published in a book? I don't know the answer to this question, but I am certain that it's the same as the answer to whether Wiki should delete this article. --Mareino 15:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's AFD? -- H005 17:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"AFD" means "article for deletion" or "articles for deletion." Maybe I used it incorrectly, but when I wrote "it's AFD", I was trying to clarify that these sorts of articles should be deleted, but the words themselves should not be deleted or censored from our speech. --Mareino 17:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I don't think the mere fact that "someone on the internet created a neologism" can justify a deletion - the question should rather be for the likelihood that people would want to look it up in Wikipedia, which is related to the question how often it is used (and not or not fully understood by the audience). Of course the chances of a neologism to become used regularly are better when spread through an often-quoted book than through a poorly-read website or newsgroup. But the medium itself shouldn't matter. He're I'd say press coverage is so high that chances for regular look-ups are good. This might be different in five years - words come and go. But for the time being the article should stay. -- H005 20:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A well known word that becoming as ubiquitous as Metrosexual was a year ago. Neologism, by my read, is a word invented in creating the article. The objection does not deal with new words/concepts that were simply created recently. Otherwise blog should be tossed out. Jtmichcock 01:34, 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cilek[edit]

scarce surname notability Melaen 00:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ans a not notable surname or alternativley rewrite the page for the Turkish firm Cilek [5]. Movementarian 03:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Complete vanity. (Bjorn Tipling 07:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete: while it is surname of some Czechs (e.g. Václav Cílek) the text has no encyclopedic value. Pavel Vozenilek 02:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a collective nn-bio. - Bobet 16:55, 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. Owen× ☎ 23:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overnightscape, The Overnightscape (duplicates)[edit]

Non-noteable podcast, vanity, non-verifiable, non-encyclopedic. Delete. JanesDaddy 00:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for reasons reasons listed in the talk page of the article. Movementarian 03:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. (Bjorn Tipling 07:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: There is also an identical article at Overnightscape (without the 'The'), which should be deleted if this one is deleted. I tagged them both for merger before nominating for AfD. JanesDaddy 14:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Note that I have tagged the other article and merged the discussion pages. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:16, 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. Owen× ☎ 23:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rockman Resurrection[edit]

This site no longer exists having been active for a year in total and with three attempts to get going. 108 Google results for Rockman Resurrection. Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 22:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: all user's edits are to his userpage, this article and this AFD. -R. fiend 17:18, 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 deleted as articles with no content except section headings

Hangu City (Pakistan), Ghanche, Khaplu, Karak City (Pakistan), Chilas, Jhang Sadr, Toba Tek singh, Tank City (Pakistan), Shangla, Malakand, Dir Lower, Dir Upper, Khuzdar[edit]

these articles (all about Pakistan cities) are a list of section titles without any utility. Melaen 00:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Assuming these are real cities they belong to Wikipedia. Instead of starting this thread, why don't spend the time filling'em in? User:Ejrrjs says What? 01:33, 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× ☎ 23:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who resisted the Holocaust[edit]

the article is not even the list it claims to be Melaen 01:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. How can you have a list without listing anyone? Movementarian 03:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a coherent explanation for the nom and the situation with this list. -- JJay 04:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs some content though. (Bjorn Tipling 07:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. This list article has been in the Wikipedia for seven months and has not gone anywhere at all. Might as well dump it. If someone wants to make an actual list later, it can be re-created. •DanMS 08:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was a redirect, that someone broke and then added content to. -- JJay 16:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete substub. I also agree with the POV tag in that one cannot separate "resisting the Holocaust" from resisting the Nazi regime in general. Gazpacho 08:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it may be recreated when the author actually finds people to list in it. — JIP | Talk 11:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons stated above. CG 17:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the above reasons. Note that the actually list if it will ever be made will proabably include millions of people. Olorin28 20:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure what the original author meant by "resisting" anyway. --Metropolitan90 01:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to the original redirect it was. - Mgm|(talk) 10:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No content, vague title. Logophile 14:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of content. — RJH 16:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:09, 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. Owen× ☎ 23:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Humphrey[edit]

This appears to be WP:VAIN and a non-notable entry. There are no sources and I've not found any mention of this person on Google - not verifiable. Creation and initial edits were by an IP and then a username which have no other contributions. I initially did some tidying but then thought it might be better if the article was deleted. I've not nominated an AfD before so please be gentle... --Whouk (talk) 01:10, 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× ☎ 23:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Craig[edit]

Weak Delete. Seems NN to me. Paul Cyr 01:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity full of POVness User:Ejrrjs says What? 01:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See Ejrrjs. D.valued 01:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would say merge it into the Lincoln Group article, but that reads like the company's website already with a bunch of bios that need to be deleted. Daniel Case 02:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Ejrrjs - Vanity. NN. JanesDaddy 03:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. (Bjorn Tipling 07:31, 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. Owen× ☎ 23:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sennis[edit]

It seems like a hoax. I couldn't find any info on google. It is a dangerous sport though, it can even cause sterility. Garion96 (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, to be complete, I did just found one link where it was mentioned [6] Garion96 (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps speedy. Obvious hoax.--Kalsermar 02:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax (note the deleted link too) - seems to be some kind of collective in-joke among some Vancouver users). Unlike "Toccer", Google shows no sign of "sennis" being a synonym for Tennis Polo. Tearlach 05:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It shows that "Sennis" is an alternative name for "Toccer" though... Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't: the handful of hits for sennis toccer are all mirrors of the disputed older Wikipedia version , not independent verification. Tearlach 10:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No they aren't. There is no disputed older Wikipedia version. They are mirrors of Wiktionary. Uncle G 12:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I stand corrected: I saw GNU and assumed they came from the old Wikipedia Toccer. I've seen dispute somewhere about the name change, but clearly not here. However, as you say, an unsupported defintion on Wiktionary is hardly verification. Tearlach 12:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I really hate pages like this one. Daniel Case 02:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as verified. [7], [8] as well as a variety of message boards. Its apparently alternately called Toccer. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup An option on the AFD main page. This article needs to be cleaned up. (Bjorn Tipling 07:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • How, exactly, do you propose that editors do that, given the lack of any sources whatsoever? Uncle G 12:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. — JIP | Talk 11:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article as it stands, purporting to describe a "game invented in 2005" as it does, is unverifiable. The article cites no sources and I can find no sources describing such a game. As Tearlach points out, there are no sources that state that this is a name for Tennis Polo, either, so a redirect there is inappropriate. There is a verifiable thing known as Sennis, though. It is the Sennis River in the Toledo District of Belize. Unless the article is completely rewritten to be about the river, delete. Uncle G 12:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax and/or nonsense. Logophile 14:44, 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. Owen× ☎ 23:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz-Ellis[edit]

Delete Non-notable; could not find anything on Google Daniel Case 02:08, 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 keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Hath No Fury (Charmed Episode)[edit]

Article is short and provides no information about the espisode, Banana04131 02:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep as rewritten by Ifnord --Banana04131 01:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was going to say give it time, but it was written in June 2005, and has only ever had 1 edit, so I think its safe to assume nobody is going to expand on it to make it useful. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it has been five months without anyone adding even the most basic info about the episode's plot, then there's not much chance this article will ever be needed. — JIP | Talk 12:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep as rewritten by User:Ifnord. What, does it really take five months of total inactivity and an AfD nomination to get a TV show episode article into at least a half-way decent state? — JIP | Talk 17:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Imagine my disgust to see episodes of Pokemon survive AfD. It seems that consensus is to keep episodes. So, when I stumbled across this, I rewrote it into a stub. Maybe now it has a fighting chance. Ifnord 16:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. - Mgm|(talk) 10:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten, good job Ifnord. To Zordrac and Jip: it wasn't categorized and wasn't marked as a stub. It's easy for an article like that to get lost. - Bobet 16:00, 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. Mindmatrix 19:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Payload Type[edit]

Delete — One sentence of jargon. One link to Asynchronous Transfer Mode. Not useful enough to merge. — Lovelac7 02:20, 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. Mindmatrix 19:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Championship Death Wrestling[edit]

Delete. Nothing on Google; pretty obviously promotional Daniel Case 02:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I was swinging on this one, since "Death Wrestling" is a term in relatively common use, and has been used in various computer games as well. But the specific way that this format is proposed is not the only way that it works. Whilst there is a pretty good chance that Championship Death Wrestling will be popular in the future, and it is a concept that has been discussed hundreds of times over the past 5-10 years at professional wrestling tournaments such as WWF, the fact of the matter is that right now its not notable enough. So Crystal Balls applies. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Creator just removed AfD tag, a major argument for deletion AFAIC. Daniel Case 03:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Contributor’s user name Metalhead12 2006 (talk • contribs) was created yesterday (Dec. 10). User’s only two edits were to create the article and remove the AFD tag. •DanMS 08:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN D-Rock 10:41, 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. Mindmatrix 19:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua-Gero[edit]

Website/forum with 31 members, no Alexa rank [9], apparently no independent links to it [10], and very few independent mentions of it [11]. Fails WP:WEB's proposed guidelines for minimal webpage notability. --W.marsh 02:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete External links indicate one man's quest... to run a website. Ashibaka tock 05:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable website. D-Rock 10:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The site recently opened. I just created this Wikipedia article just to let people know of the site. AppleG5 18:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not self promotion. --W.marsh 02:25, 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. Mindmatrix 19:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Emond[edit]

Non-notable biography. Original had vague claim to notability. Current version has different POV, Google doesn't help with the "truth". --Scott Davis Talk 03:31, 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. Mindmatrix 19:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pier Nine Brawl[edit]

Doesn't cite any sources. 45 Google hits for "Pier Nine Brawl" and 35 for "Pier 9 Brawl". Doesn't seem particularly notable. —Sesel 03:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN band, does not appear on all music, no major or important indie label, does not meet WP:MUSIC DeathThoreau 15:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC, and per nom. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. -R. fiend 17:21, 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. Mindmatrix 19:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Christmas[edit]

Member of Pier Nine Brawl (see above). 191 Google hits, most of which are in the possessive form "Nikki's Christmas" or entirely random. Another SPUSA/YPSL member (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Moody). Non-notable. —Sesel 03:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Person is notable because of membership in a non-notable band (see above notes on Pier Nine Brawl). There are no third-party indications of notability, and having published stories on the internet certainly isn't much of a sign. DeathThoreau 15:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, member of non-notable band. -R. fiend 17:22, 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. Mindmatrix 19:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Throwbacks (Band)[edit]

From the looks of it, it fails WP:MUSIC. --Spring Rubber 03:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I forgot to recommend Delete, if it wasn't obvious enough. :P --Spring Rubber 05:06, 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 Deleted as copyright violation by User:DragonflySixtyseven Pilatus 17:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Becker[edit]

This article was put up the other say by User:Infrasonic, who likely is Dr Becker himself. I cleaned up the article and am now submitting it here for consideration because it looks too much like a vanity biography.

According to the article, Dr Becker has published a bunch of papers and is on the lecturing circuit. That alone doesn't mean much, it's the work of any academic to publish papers and give lectures. Being a member of any professional society doesn't establish notability either; as long as one has the requisite qualifications anyone who will pay the membership dues can be a member.

The article states that the Dr Becker appeared on a TV show and was featured in several popular journals. Being mentioned does not make one sufficiently notable to warrant an article here, one should be something of a household name. I don't think that is the case here.

I'm unsure about the inventions Dr Becker lists. We read that a few patents have been issued, Google Scholar mentions the "Wells Johnson Becker-Rojas powered liposuction device" once, but nothing states that those patents are licensed or that the inventions are somehow widely used or groundbreaking in a way. The suction cannula is reported in ANNALS OF PLASTIC SURGERY 25 (2): 154-158 AUG 1990 and cited a whopping eight times. The adjustable breast implant is described in PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY 73 (4): 678-683 1984; that paper is cited a respectable 65 times. However, implantable pockets that are filled with saline over the course of a few weeks or months are common in reconstrucive surgery for the raising of skin flaps to use in autologous grafts, I fail to see why a breast implant with a septum is a novelty. Altogether, delete as vanity. Pilatus 03:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Based on your nom, Becker invented a new type of breast implant in the 1980s that changed his field. He holds patents and his Becker Expander/Mammary Prosthesis was approved by the FDA. That seems good enough for inclusion. -- JJay 04:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: anyone who pays the application fee can receive a patent, especially in the United States, there is no peer review involved. (Exercising the cat with a laser pointer is patented!) What I fail to see sources that prove the notability of the adjustable breast implant. I fail to see backup for the claim that it is either widely used or has revolutionized the field. As usual proof is with the person that submitted the article. Pilatus 05:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What are you contesting? The procedure bears the guy's name. It is discussed in breast implant faqs on the net. It is used and studied all over the world. [[12]][[13]] -- JJay 05:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry for being insistent, but it's the surgeon that is under consideration here, not the procedure/device that he invented. Unless he has something to speak for himself beyond the fact that he invented the adjustable implant this article should go. Pilatus 06:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Insistence is fine, but I completely disagree with you. I plan on resubmitting this. -- JJay 16:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a reference to the article. However, the text in some places seems similar to Becker's home page see [14]. I would appreciate someone having a look over it to see if it is a copyvio. If not, I would vote to keep. Capitalistroadster 05:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was extensively rewritten by the nom. Check edit history. -- JJay 06:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tagged as copyvio from [15]. Pilatus 11:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Capitalistroadster 09:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This version of the article was a straight copy & paste from Becker's autobiography. Uncle G 11:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was rewritten. That is an accepted way of dealing with copyvios. It could have been stubified. It could have been listed on the copyvio page. This was improperly deleted. -- JJay 16:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it wasn't rewritten, and no, that isn't accepted. Copyright violations are always removed. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems. By policy, we do not include copyright violations or works derived from them. Uncle G 19:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are quite wrong. Was any attempt made to secure permission of use? This was completely irregular. -- JJay 19:20, 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. Owen× ☎ 23:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Rockefeller Milton O'Neill[edit]

Pure vanity. Google test lists zero results. Page is orphaned and uncategorized Mecanismo | Talk 22:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Almost a speedy delete, but I guess "great-granddaughter of a famous guy" is a claim of notability, albeit a weak one. ESkog | Talk 01:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Wackymacs 20:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Dr Gangrene 22:55, 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 no consensus to delete. --Angr (t·c) 13:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gower[edit]

Not independently notable. Should be merged with the RuneScape and Jagex articles - Ezeu 03:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Subject listed as co-creator of RuneScape and nonetheless has a prominent position in the corporation that owns prominent web game. Jtmichcock 04:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is Articles for deletion. Do not bring articles here that you do not actually want to be deleted. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. Uncle G 12:24, 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 keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Very Brady Christmas[edit]

This is a less substantial version of what already exists within The Brady Bunch article. Her Pegship 03:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Legitimate TV movie and there are plenty of TV movie articles out there, as well as articles on individual series episodes. 23skidoo 04:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokey...then does anyone want to expand it, or expand the other "spin-off" portions of The Brady Bunch, for the sake of consistency? Her Pegship 06:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. Well known telemovie. Capitalistroadster 09:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanded and referenced as requested. Capitalistroadster 10:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please now it is even expanded Yuckfoo 01:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article. It's a movie that directly inspired a TV series, and to my knowledge that doesn't happen too often. Mo0[talk] 08:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it the other way around? - Mgm|(talk) 10:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is the other way around, but then again, the movie does stand on its own... Its success helped start a trend of movies reminiscing successful TV series that continues to this day in the US. Keep. B.Wind 01:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a film about a very popular TV series. If anything can be broken out of the main Brady Bunch article to make a separate one, this is it. - Mgm|(talk) 10:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been kept and beautifully expanded by User:Capitalistroadster. Thanks all. Her Pegship 20:07, 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. Mindmatrix 19:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of sets of two or more songs by the same artist used in movies[edit]

Pointless listcruft. I fail to see any value in this. 23skidoo 04:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this will either become too short or too long to be useful Ashibaka tock 04:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination Snurks T C 05:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Interiot 05:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Topic is way too specific and narrow to be encyclopedic. No one is going to search for this. — JIP | Talk 12:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 16:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Punkmorten 19:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 01:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It took me a couple looks to even understand the title. Very confusing. Croat Canuck 02:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can this be useful in any way? Delete EliF 12:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 02:10, 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. bainer (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

M.A.C.A.R.R.O.N.I.[edit]

This article is for a TV show which is barely notable. Its information value is roughly zero; at best this series deserves a single article for each season (recalling that an encyclopedia is "a collection of fact-based articles, intended to introduce the reader to an unfamiliar subject"). Instead of nomming all the articles (which would be mean) I am just going to do this one to see what the consensus is to do about it. See Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Television episodes for a discussion of the notability of television episodes.

  • I think this is complete fancruft; delete Ashibaka tock 04:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable episode of a TV show. Andrew Levine 05:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuetral, Still debating this one, the editors have not listed every KND episode, it appears to only be certain ones, although there is not much notability about that episode either. xaosflux T/C 06:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unlike many articles of this type, the article is complete and well-written, and all the articles follow an established format. Somebody seems to be making an effort to write all these articles and collect all info on this show into an organized collection of data (note info template at the bottom of all the pages). While its true that guidlines discourage articles on individual TV show episodes, this is more like somebody's project than just random articles. I hate to throw away someone's hard work if it's in good shape and not hurting anything. Maybe they're practicing on this, working up to a later project on Hitchcock's films, or Moliere's plays, or something. I hope. Herostratus 08:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, but only because we're not going to delete the whole series (which I believe we should). This kind of article belongs on a fan site, not in WP. JanesDaddy 15:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to point out that just because a series is notable doesn't mean its episodes are. Individual episodes of Survivor probably don't deserve their own articles, right? Ashibaka tock 02:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Ashibaka. -^demon 15:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the fancruft, and the awful template promoting it. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid article about a notable series that does no harm. Not sure why the nominator thinks the show is "barely notable." This is a fairly popular series, and the number of pages and amount of edits on Wikipedia support that. Turnstep 20:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This show is completely unoriginal and unmemorable. Of course this is POV, but notability isn't created by the number of fans writing articles; it comes from whether any non-fan will need to know the information, ever, and while they might want to know about the show itself, writing an article for an individual episode is unnecessary. Ashibaka tock 02:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems an odd criteria. How is one to judge whether someone will ever "need to know" the information? I would humbly submit that someone who finds the show "unoriginal and unmemorable" would not be the best person to make that judgement. Would you also AfD all the existing Star Trek, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and The Simpsons episode pages? Turnstep 05:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, because those shows have a good amount of cultural value, so it's possible that some non-fan might want to reference what episode a certain Simpsons reference came from. I would support merging all those articles into a season-long summary, but such a summary would be pretty long. Ashibaka tock 14:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shorten to one sentence and merge into the parent article. Zocky 00:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The level of detail involved here makes this too narrow a topic for an encyclopedia article. Per nomination, it would be nice if we could develop a policy, or at least guidelines, with regard to determining whether a television episode deserves a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 02:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Any valid cartoon broadcast by Cartoon Network is certainly notable. We're not going to delete existing television series based on their popularity (at least I'm not). - Mgm|(talk) 10:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said above, does this mean individual episodes of Survivor deserve their own articles? Ashibaka tock 14:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No more than individual episodes of The Price Is Right. As for the article at hand, I'd suggest we merge into Codename: Kids Next Door and contune the discussion of the series' noteworthiness on that talk page. B.Wind 01:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, reality and game shows are a whole different thing that fiction and cartoons. The first don't deserve articles on episodes, the second do. - Mgm|(talk) 11:33, 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 merge into Typeface#Novelty fonts. --Angr (t·c) 13:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ClaWrite[edit]

Sort of interesting, but I don't see the value in having an encyclopedia article about a little-known font. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-11 04:41:00Z

I would support merging into that section as an alternative to deletion. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-15 08:39:45Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  Grue  17:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Beasley[edit]

This page is almost entirely about Chris Beasley's website google-watch-watch.org, which as far as I can tell is a barely known site. Its only content is an attack on a relatively-little known site, google-watch.org, which itself critiques Google. Doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia at all. AaronSw 04:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If Daniel Brandt is notable because of his Google Watch website, then Beasley is notable as well, because Brandt devotes considerable space to him, and the media frequently mentions the two of them together to get both opposing viewpoints. If nothing else, in the interest of fairness, Wikipedia needs this article to balance out the considerable attention Brandt is given in his own article. wikipediatrix 05:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is does Google-watch-watch meet WP:WEB. 681 Google hits - not a large number for a blog see [16] Further, there don't seem to be a large number of hits for it. No Google news hits for it or for "Chris Beasley" Google see [17].

Had difficulties getting Alexa but given the low Google count, I doubt it meets this criteria. Delete. Capitalistroadster 06:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, seems notable, or at least make an article about Google-watch-watch. — JIP | Talk 12:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about merging this with the Daniel Brandt article under some sort of general article title like "Controversy about Google"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.65.34 (talk • contribs) 00:14, December 12, 2005
  • Delete both articles, before the crufters found Google.watch.watch.watch just to get a Wiki entry --SockpuppetSamuelson 07:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Daniel Brandt or Google Watch article Chanlord 02:57, 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. Owen× ☎ 23:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tuchas[edit]

Slang dicdef; not appropraite for an encycliopedia. --Spring Rubber 04:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps merge and redirect to the pertinent article? --Dschor 05:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Dicdef, unverified, inappropriate. -Wiccan Quagga 05:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NPOV, slang dicdef. Comments about female physique are sexist and inappropriate. JFW | T@lk 17:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. I don't know where Jfdwolff got his information from but tuchas doesn't refer to the female physique, just the buttocks in general. And the word isn't sexist ... it's just how you say butt in Yiddish. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the article history. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yiddish dicdef Descendall 21:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dic def. --Bachrach44 23:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just a dicdef. Catamorphism 00:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Previous edits in the article history may be sexist, but the word itself is not (it refers to the buttocks of either a male or a female). Nevertheless, this article cannot become anything more than a dicdef. --Metropolitan90 02:07, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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× ☎ 23:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mass of Lightning[edit]

Delete: Hoax and/or nonsense as pointed out in Talk:Mass of Lightning -- JimR 05:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Units in the equations are not cited. A method of attempting to find if an equation is true or not is to calculate the units. From what I can see, the units appear to be kilogram metres to the power of 4. Sounding like a hoax? Deskana 08:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is unverifiable. JCA vol. 9, pp. 77-104 (2002); I found:
  1. Journal of Contemporary Art
  2. Journal of Contemporary Asia
  3. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia

None of which have anything to do with lightening or the correct field of science. - Mgm|(talk) 10:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above and the talk page. Also, lightning seems to be a very odd phenomenon to be related to a universal constant. The form of the equation seems quite odd: I don't think that anybody would use P2(x2) in that context. They would expand the polynomial. It strikes me as an attempt to make the equation look more complicated than it is. Finally, fundamental constants are quite rare, and a new one would certainly get a lot of attention. ManoaChild 11:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and the talk page. Jasmol 21:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and the simple fact that alleged mass is a distance measurement. Das Nerd 21:37, 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 speedy delete, at the request of the author of the page. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-11 05:28:42Z

Woo young jung[edit]

the wrong page name Koter18 05:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've nominated it to be speedy deleted. - Akamad 05:18, 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 Second Coming. Owen× ☎ 23:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second advent[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This is a "book in progress," so it should be an "article nonexistent." JHMM13 (T | C) 05:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I forgot to say. In the meantime, the author deleted my afd tag and added thousands of words from his story. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Second Coming (aka second advent of Jesus) --Ezeu 05:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not a free host. -- RHaworth 07:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per Ezeu — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Really ugly mess of a page that totally lacks paragraph breaks. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy. Personal essay, original research, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Wikipedia is not a free web host, not notable, etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Ezeu. Do not userfy. The user only contributed to this particular article and does (as of yet) not seem interested in contributing to Wikipedia without advertising. We shouldn't allow people to abuse the userspace for advertising purposes either. - Mgm|(talk) 11:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Duh. --Mihoshi 18:30, 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. Owen× ☎ 23:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ketchup on hot dogs[edit]

Unencyclopedic. Can never be more than an essay, and will always be NPOV challanged Ezeu 05:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article deals with an ongoing, albeit humorous, controversy that has been particularly notable in the Chicago area. Similar to the great "soda vs. pop" debate, sources are cited, including the national council cited in the article, and the debate has had prominent appearances in the media. Issues of NPOV were ironed out very early on after the article's creation and great care has been taken to insure the article's neutrality. Jtmichcock 05:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Frivolous. Not encyclopedic. An essay. -Wiccan Quagga 05:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More here than you might think. Needs a little work, but it can make it. Daniel Case 07:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I support Chicago's patriotic effort to preserve our culinary heritage from the Red Menace. Gazpacho 09:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wish the hot dog article could fit this in, though. D-Rock 11:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see how the use of ketchup on hot dogs deserves an encyclopedia article. — JIP | Talk 12:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepSjc 12:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete Surely at best all the subject deserves is a pargraph in the main ketchup or hot dog article? -- Wezzo 14:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what is gained by this article again? -^demon 15:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with hot dog. It's definitely an interesting topic, but I think it's more worthy of being included in the main article rather than by itself. Make sure to cross-reference with Dirty Harry. 23skidoo 15:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like an WP:NOR vio. karmafist 16:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand, and do not merge. Initial reaction was delete, but this ties in too well with the hot dog article. Can't be merged because of length. Therefore, default keep and expand for other condiments. -- JJay 18:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I learned something new today. Next time I have a hot dog I shall try it without ketchup. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Straight Dope reference and two newspaper citations... borderline topic but commendable adherence to WP:V and WP:CITE makes it a keeper. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hopelessly unencyclopedic, hopelessly POV. --Bachrach44 23:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, there is also a Chicago-style hot dog article. Maybe the controversial subject (in Chicago) of catsup on wieners can be covered there. --Ezeu 00:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shorten to a paragraph and merge into hot dog. Zocky 00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into hot dog or ketchup. -- Mwalcoff 02:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for obvious reasons stated above. wikipediatrix 02:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- discussion of notable food meme. (And I don't like ketchup on my hot dogs, but I don't like ketchup much to begin with.) Haikupoet 04:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Wikipedia is not a propaganda or advocacy machine. --Ezeu 05:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia also has a civility requirment. Jtmichcock 05:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure it does.--Ezeu 05:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be unclear on the multiple meanings of the word "discussion". Haikupoet 05:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because this is an opportunity for people to learn of the cultural differences between many Americans and Chicago citizens. This is a learning an opportunity. (personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxonjf (talk • contribs)
  • Merge and redirect to Chicago-style hot dog which appears to be the proper place to discuss this. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per [[User:MacGyverMagic. This is a duplicate and an essay. Pilatus 14:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, this is somewhat borderline as a notable topic, but it is starting to lean towards an encyclopedic article on a genuine food-culture touchstone. I think it should go on Wikipedia:Unusual articles if it is improved further. Andrew Levine 07:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If Wikipedia can have an article Hitler has only got one ball, Ketchup on hot dogs fits right in. Jtmichcock 15:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • LOL. Good point. Looks like we may be setting a precedence for future AFDs. Maybe we should ask assistance from Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines --Ezeu 15:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, a widely known propaganda song created and/or popularized by WWII Allies as a part of psychological warfare seems like a slightly more encyclopedic subject than a local debate over whether a certain ingredient should be used in a certain dish. Zocky 03:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then would Toilet-related injury be more comparable? As stated by Wikipedia: "These articles are valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, but are somewhat odd, whimsical, or... well, something you wouldn't expect to find in Encyclopædia Britannica." Wikipedia ≈ Britannica. Jtmichcock 03:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Toilet-related injuries are a matter of public health concern, and have been studyied in detail by scholars. --Ezeu 04:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Kind of like food, or even hot dogs [18] -- JJay 04:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete I don't see this article as requiring anything more than a subsection of hot dog or ketchup --Mike5904 04:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This article was created to allow for a more thorough discussion of the topic that could have been fit intot he hot dog article itself. If the vote comes out as merge, I would reccomend that it go to the Chicago style hot dog article, as opposed to the main article, however. Youngamerican 16:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge or Delete A paragraph or two may well be appropriate in another hot-dog article, most likely the Chicago-style one. This topic though, 1) does not deserve its own article and 2) does not merit this much coverage in any article. The Literate Engineer 08:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 14:03, 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. Owen× ☎ 23:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Juiced N.R.G.[edit]

Ad for a Canadian alternative energy company. Site has no Alexa ranking <amazing fall from a rank of 287 000>. Googling for "juiced.ca" gets [http://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&q=juiced.ca&btnG=Pesquisar&meta= about 2500 hits . The entire text was copied (would have added much more if not for the removal of the page, its not like i can afford to pay some kid to sit here and update all these sites on a daily basis!) from the company's site by User:Juiced (contrib). On the belief that this person is somehow connected to them and has authorization to post this material, I'm taking it to AfD(??) instead of copyright-problems (?you could have easily contacted me...). JoaoRicardo 05:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's advertising by a nn(??) company. Does this company even meet WP:CORP? -^demon 15:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if because of bad formatting if nothing else.(!!) --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 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.
 Funny how i was never informed of said debate, not by phone nor email! Simply put, due to the educational efforts I put out through the Co., i believe it is worthy of a notation in Alexa.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as an attack page which only served to disparaged this street. Contained no factual content either apart from the city it was located in. - Mgm|(talk) 11:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Lane[edit]

This is a non-notable street that also seems to be some sort of attack, which is not fair because streets can't defend themselves on Wikipedia as they don't have internet access.

  • Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what a sad, sad article. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as silliness. I almost hate to delete it, as I live on Marian Street (not this one), but it’s got to go. •DanMS 21:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an attack page which serves no other purpose than to disparage its subject. (I never saw an attack on a street before). - Mgm|(talk) 11:14, 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 no consensus; kept. Johnleemk | Talk 16:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arcbeetle[edit]

Whaa? Animecruft. Denni ☯ 05:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ok, I love anime and I still say delete. -^demon 15:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Medabots. I like anime and I don't have a clue what the hell this is. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tone is not the best, but if this is an existing Medabot, it should be kept. Send to cleanup and see whether it cleans up in a month's time. - Mgm|(talk) 11:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into what Cyde said Ashibaka tock 06:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mgm. -- JJay 08:58, 19 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.  Grue  17:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_gallery[edit]

This existence of this article goes explicitly againstofficial Wikipedia Policy: in particular, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. There is already a Wikipedia Commons page for this purpose. Wiccan Quagga 05:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy redirect to commons:William-Adolphe Bouguereau which seems identical. -- RHaworth 08:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commons page has fewer entries than the Wikipedia page; comparison should be made to update Commons page before the Wikipedia page's deletion. -- ShaneCavanaugh 20:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just brought the Commons article up to date with the WIkipedia article (excepting some images that need to be transfered to the Commons server). Could someone check this against the previous edit to make sure I didn't accidentally delete anything? -- ShaneCavanaugh 22:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to redirect as per RHaworth's recommendation --Wiccan Quagga 23:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: If the redirect is enacted should the orphaned Wikipedia images on the be deleted in the interest of saving space? --Wiccan Quagga 23:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update the commons (transfer images where possible) and delete. We don't redirect across projects and galleries are very clearly not allowed. Images should not be deleted, but tagged with {{Nowcommons}} instead. - Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Commons is, in my opinion, a poor place for image galleries of this type. This galery provides valuable understanding of the artist in a manner that cannot be provided in any other way. In order to understand art, one must look at art. In order to understand a complex art topic, such as the development over artists career, or the characteristics of particular artists style, one must look at a lot of art, therefore, in my mind, the information provided by this gallery is clearly encyclopedic, the only question then is how to present it. I believe Commons to be a poor choice for the following reasons.
  • Unsophisticated users of Wikipedia (who, I beleive, is who we should also keep in my mind as the primary audience for everything we do here) could be confused by following a link that takes them away from the English Wikipedia without warning.
  • Despite having seen many claims on Wikipedia that it is the purpose of Commons to host image galleries, I have never been able to find such a statement on Commons. In my understanding, Commons was created to allow the several Wikimedia projects to have access to the same images without having to reload them to each project. In order to assist that effort, images are sometimes organized into gallery pages, however that is merely ancillary to the main purpose. If any one is aware of where on Commons it says something to the effect of "this is the place within Wikimedia for image galleries used in support of other Wikimedia project articles", please point it out to me.
  • Commons is a multilingual project. As the project develops, more anad more pages will look like this one. Sending users of an English language encyclopedia to such a page a bad idea.
  • It creates an additional burden on editor interested in developing and protecting such content since it would require them to watch two projects, rather than one.
Please note that I am aware of the restriction at WP:NOT and disagree with it and believe that this policy should be changed. Please see Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposal_to_modify_WP:NOT_an_image_gallery. Dsmdgold 15:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've looked at this gallery and I've looked at the Commons page. The gallery article is superior. It has informative captions — in English — where the Commons page has ugly filenames. It's a beautiful, informative encyclopedic page. It's much more useful than the average "list of" article and I still vote to keep those. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
and other galleries that have been claimed to have encyclopediac value and which have not been taken to AfD:
--- Charles Stewart 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The dogged mantra of "if in doubt, do not delete" does not mean "if one editor disagrees with a policy no editor may apply it". You can say keep, but your doubt about the policy does not render others unable to be quite sure of it. -Splashtalk 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is something there is consensus for - or at least 70% support. I don't think a rule prohibiting quality image galleries like this one would gain that kind of support if put to a poll. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've quoted that phrase precisely three times in my 16 months here at WP: it's hardly a dogged mantra of mine. Following the links I provided, and following the discussion on the WP:NOT talk page will show that there is considerable uncertainty about both how to interpret this rule, and whether the rule is, as currently phrased, a good rule. If three people are sure that rule should be interpreted one way, and three quite sure it shoould be interpreated in another incompatible way, does that make it a clear-cut rule? --- Charles Stewart 16:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from this project, and do whatever is needed on commons The JPS 16:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with William-Adolphe Bouguereau. This is indeed an informative gallery which can become even better with a commentary on the painter's style through his career. -- Ranveig 17:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, "In order to understand art, one must look at art.", as per Dsmdgold and Charles Stewart. linas 17:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Commons per RHaworth. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 17:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complete the transwiki to Commons and delete it here. Clearly belongs there more. The way to improve our sister projects is not to try to duplicate their mission here. —Cryptic (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not understand today's transwiki votes. All but the six fair use images have been copied across to commons yesterday, there would be nothing to transwiki. People should compare the two galleries to make an informed judgement before voting. --- Charles Stewart 18:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - What I wrote was not true. There are PD images still to bring over. Sorry. --- Charles Stewart 18:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is an excellent addition to the page on William-Adolphe Bouguereau. He was a very famous artist and an annotated gallery of his works makes perfect sense to me.  The Steve  19:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Commons and delete. I see no encyclopedic discussion (or dicussion of any sort) for any of these images. --Carnildo 19:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Commons is a repository of media. This is an encyclopedia. Commons is akin to a project page, with an interface optimized for dispersing media to all of the wikimedia projects. Unlike Wikipedia, it isn't an end product. An encyclopedia needs galleries to efficiently communicate knowledge about art. — David Remahl 20:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adding my vote -- reasons for keeping have already been more eloquently expressed than I could manage...So just saying -- KEEP. --Nemonoman 20:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does not defy NOT, useful addition to the Wikipedia. --Oldak Quill 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect as per RHaworth, this is what Commons is for. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where, on Commons, does it say that? Dsmdgold 00:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, from the welcome message on Commons Main Page:
The Wikimedia Commons is a project that provides a central repository for free images, music, sound & video clips and, possibly, texts and spoken texts, used in pages of any Wikimedia project
The key words are central repository. The use of the media contained in that repository should take place in the individual Wikimedia projects. OK, we arrange all the William-Adolphe Bouguereau images on commons with annotations to suit en.wikipedia. Great if you are French, German, Spanish, Italian, Korean, Japanese or any other non English speaker .... in short a recipe for anarchy and disaster. The use of the images must be the responsibility of each project separately. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic content is useful. Images properly categorized (perhaps in a an ordered series) serve to build a case in an article. --Ancheta Wis 22:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Because commons is a multi-lingual site, all those image captions could rightly be changed to french, chinese or whatever language, which would not help people wanting to see the info in english. Or to think about it another way, what if the German wikipedia wanted a gallery on Bouguereau, and they had to have a commons gallery with all the captions written in English. ---- Astrokey44|talk 22:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful addition to the Bouguereau article. Could of course be made more useful with more annotations, but we can't have everything. I understand the point about duplication with Commons, but it is not clear to me that Commons will present the material ideally for our (the English Wikipedia's) purposes, as their purpose is different. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC) (via edit conflict)[reply]
  • Delete, duplicated on Commons whose mission it fits perfectly. Cross-fertilization of other WIkimedia projects is a good thing. Not every last bit of information must be absolutely contained with en.wikipedia; the Foundation would not have made the other projects if that were the case. WP:NOT an image gallery remains policy. -Splashtalk 23:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful supplement of William-Adolphe Bouguereau article, allowing annotations in English (Commons is multilingual).--Patrick 00:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A fine collection of work, sequenced and titled. Definitely encyclopedic. Denni ☯ 00:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to the Commons FAQ, it is inappropriate to put galleries in the main namespace, but they may be put in user space. Where the idea comes from that Commons is a good place for galleries, I do not know. --- Charles Stewart 00:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a gross misinterpretation. The only place in that document that mentions userspace galleries is in the section "How do I best make a gallery of my own pictures?" (emphasis mine). —Cryptic (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where does the Commons policy/guidelines talk about housing and maintaining galleries outside userspace? Commons appears to have no editing policies about galleries in the shared space, which is to say that it is not a suitable place for galleries whose quality one wishes to maintain. --- Charles Stewart 15:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I find, at a very brief glance, Commons:Commons:Project plan, Commons:Commons:Village pump#Article or category?, Commons:Commons:Village pump#Image keywords; redundant cats; what we call ourselves, and Commons:Commons:Images on normal pages or categories:Vote. And if gallery pages are forbidden on the Commons, I suggest you head over there right now and start nominating for deletion; there are some 23,488 of them that need to go. —Cryptic (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are indeed many galleries/articles on Commons even if they don't have a clearcut policy on when to use them. One of the discussions you link to uses the Linx gallery as an example. That article starts with these words: "de: - Linz ist die Landeshauptstadt des österreichischen Bundeslandes Oberösterreich". Or take the Köln gallery. The multilingual information is very nice on Commons but it is in many cases unnecessarily distracting and cumbersome when compared with English language galleries on the English Wikipedia. - Haukur 16:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • The way to fix that is not to fork the project here. —Cryptic (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • The purporse of commons is not to house galleries whose purpose is to illustrate wikipedia articles. Commons is not broken and does not need to be fixed. Haukurth's point is merely to show how unsuited Commons is for a purpose other that that for which it was intended. --- Charles Stewart 16:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cryptic: Thanks for those links, some were useful to me. I had conceded that galleries outside user space were allowed on Commons: I am sorry if that was unclear. The second point I made is that Commons has no editing policies for maintaining the quality of galleries in this shared space: unsurprisingly since it is not an encylopaedia. The point of galleries on Commons, according to the links you give, is parallel to the point of lists here on Wikipedia: they are a flexible alternative to categories. --- Charles Stewart 16:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless duplication of content between projects.--nixie 04:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This collection of images is encyclopedic in itself. Additionally, adding a lot of additional text would make it more difficult to process visually and cherry-picking a few images and including them in an article would make them less informative by taking them out of visual context. Crypticfirefly 04:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nixie and provide a link to commons gallery from William-Adolphe Bouguereau. --Gurubrahma 05:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Entirely encyclopaedic and beautifully complements the main article without overwhelming the page. Commons is the wrong place for encyclopaedic use of content, it is a central repository. Read the welcome message on the main page if you have any doubts as to its intended function. All appropriate galleries should be kept. Cactus.man ✍ 09:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Now that we've established that there's significant support for keeping quality galleries like this one I think we should develop some pretty restrictive guidelines on what kinds of galleries are acceptable. A blanket "keep galleries" policy could lead to a lot of bad articles. Galleries of the type "Gallery of Artist X" are generally a good thing when there is a significant number of works and some intelligent captions. "Gallery of vaguely related stuff I like" should be out. - Haukur 10:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh! And we can have featured galleries like featured lists. We're going to have so much gallery fun! ;-) Haukur 10:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Looks like a photographic list to me. Ashibaka tock 01:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This kind of stuff belongs at Commons. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-organized supplement to article. Commons welcomes a copy, where annotations can be in multiple languages, but English Wikipedia needs its own gallery in English. Fg2 05:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful in art history to show the full development and change of the artist's work over time. I also suggest people take a look at [this] policy proposal to allow for visual list articles / galleries in Wikipedia. --ShaunMacPherson 07:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sure there's a lot of gallery webpages out there, but maybe the world needs a special Wiki just for galleries... -Wiccan Quagga 21:13, 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. – Robert 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Www.ufck.org[edit]

Vanity page for a non-notable website; sadly not speedyable. Delete and drop a note here if you'd like. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-11 05:58:24Z

  • Delete Entry was also not created by the admin/owner of the domain (me). It would be cool if we deserved a wiki entry, but we're not that cool. Whelck 06:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep- Obviously not vanity as was created by someone not associated by the board at all.BBwoman1 06:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This users intentions are very clear from his entries on my talk page. This entry and the random entry about Venskus are irrelevant. Whelck 06:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:VAIN. Vanity articles are those created by people who try to promote entities which they are a fan of or give them excessive praise. - Mgm|(talk) 11:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alexa has it ranked relatively low, and the consistency of that ranking indicates the only reason it has a ranking at all is because one frequent visitor of the site has the Alexa toolbar. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JHMM13 Alexa rating. More attack than promo. Funny, but not worth keeping. Herostratus 08:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable forum. I suggest that User:BBwoman1's vote is ignored because of his/her gratuitous personal attacks on User:Whelck's talk page. — JIP | Talk 12:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Nobody cares what an UFCK is, it shouldn't be on here
  • Delete From WP:WEB "A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community". There is no mention of the forum having an impact beyond its own community, and it would seem by its own admission parts of the forum have little impact on others. The article is POV, if there is some proof of impact (verifiable third-party proof) then the article needs to be cleaned up. DeathThoreau 15:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable forum. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DeathThoreau. 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 NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 00:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Susie frankeberger[edit]

This stub was tagged nn-bio, but it does contain a claim of notability... so I brought it here. Abstain. PJM 06:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Here's what I've found on the subject: [19]. PJM 06:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speed delete I'm not seeing any claim of notability here. I quote in extenso: Susie Frankeberger is a television news reporter who currently works with CBS affiliate KGPE, Channel 47 in Fresno, California. OK to delete slowly I suppose. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per original tagging and per Geogre's law. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I hate to seem contentious among good people, but I am surprised neither of you think that an article which states the subject is a TV news reporter for a CBS affiliate has no claim of notability. Also, please fill me in on "Geogre's law". PJM 15:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Joe Haynes of KTBS might be the most obnoxious weatherman ever, but I don't think he's article-worthy either. If the subject was a contributor for "60 Minutes" for example, I'd say keep. Barring extraordinary circumstances, newspersons for local network affiliates are notable to about one-third the population of their respective viewing areas at best. That's pretty narrow, in the scheme of things. Geogre's law can be found at Wikipedia:Glossary#G. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with much of what you say, but I still think this stub makes a claim of notability - perhaps not a strong enough claim to earn a stay, but a claim nonetheless. In my view, the nn-bio speedy tag should be used for articles that don't make any sort of claim whatsoever. Geogre's law is a very interesting one, but I've seen a few cases, like this: [20], where it doesn't hold up. PJM 15:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If she's a reporter on TV I'm inclined to say keep it. She's probably seen by hundreds of thousands of television watchers in her area on a fairly regular basis. By contrast, some of the other Wikipedia articles refer to towns or places that barely anyone visits. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems nn.  Grue  17:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well known and may have won awards. -- JJay 18:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non verified.Gateman1997
  • Keep and rename. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 14:04, 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. —Simetrical (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of the word Jew[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and etymologies do not deserve their own articles. Transwiki to Wiktionary (and merge with Jew if appropriate). —Simetrical (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Err, Simetrical, this article was once part of the article Jew and it was spun-off (with many other sub-articles since they made the Jew page toooooo large... get it ... not more than 32k and all that stuff...?) and precisely because it is a complicated subject in and of itself it was judged by a number of learned editors to be worthy of a comprehensive article. Unfortunately, you are focusing on the word "etymology" here in its narrowest sense, which is NOT what the article is about, if you bother to read it carefully. IZAK 10:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, in fact, read the article carefully, and it is clearly a discussion of nothing but etymology and word usage. As such, I feel that it belongs on Wiktionary, and I don't think it belongs in two places. Clearly, I'm outvoted.
    As for merging with Jew, obviously not the entire article could be merged. I meant maybe a paragraph in Jew and the rest at Wiktionary. —Simetrical (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nobody says WP is a dictionary, but the etymology of this particular word and controversies around it are worth entire encyclopedic article. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Jew. Etymologies belong in books about it or in dictionaries, but if there is already an article on the word, there's no harm in throwing in a section about the etymology of it. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Jew already has a good summary paragraph with a link to this article, which is on a reasonably important and encyclopedic topic. Snurks T C 10:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The content of the article is certainly encyclopaedic. If the name was "origin of the term "Jew"", just like many other articles have a section like this, there would not be this fuss. Sorry if the term etymology annoys you, but it is correct and should stay. Batmanand 13:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is encyclopedic, and to merge it with "Jew" would kind of much up that article, would recommend reworking the Etymology section of "Jew" to link over to this article. DeathThoreau 15:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dictionaries do not contain articles like this one. Rhollenton 16:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And I hope this establishes a clear precedent that etymology articles are okay :) We're thinking about branching the bloated etymology section of Odin into its own article. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Haukur Þorgeirsson. Etymological articles should be encouraged and nurtured here. -- JJay 18:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons given above. This one is definitely notable. And etymology is about a lot more than mere definitions; it tells you a lot about history, which sure as hell belongs in an encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for above reasons. Olorin28 20:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not a dictionary definition, and there is no policy excluding etymology articles from Wikipedia (nor should there be). Where, exactly, would an expansive etymology article be appropriate if not an encyclopedia? Certainly not a dictionary. - Jersyko talk 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would just like to note that to my knowledge, expansive etymologies are very much a part of Wiktionary's mission, which brings up the question of whether we should have articles on exactly the same thing in two different MediaWiki projects; lengthy etymologies certainly aren't considered out of place in dictionaries such as the OED; and I would never think of an individual word's etymology as being encyclopedic, personally. But it seems that's just me, and JHMM13. —Simetrical (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While etymology is not normally worth a seperate article in an encylcopedia, it does make sense to cover it in an artilce on the term. Then, if that article is too large, it would also make sense to split it out. I have no problem with duplicate information in other Wiki projects, if the information belongs in both places. Mjchonoles 03:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Etymology is a window on cultural history. Where words have strong historic resonance, extended treatment of their etymologies may well be encyclopedia material. This article is one example of such. Smerdis of Tlön 04:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because User:Simetrical obviously has no idea how the articles relating to Jew are necessary and are connected to it and are absolutely needed (see my comments above), sheesh. IZAK 10:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your generosity and civility, and thank you as well for explaining why this belongs on Wikipedia and not Wiktionary above. —Simetrical (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep worthwhile encyclopedic content.--Alhutch 10:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic and interesting. No reason to delete. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Haukur Þorgeirsson. Scoo 16:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems such a strong consensus that I'd suggest we close and speedy-keep at this point. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a Speedy keep to me. Jayjg (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely looks like we have a consensus here, yeah. No point in keeping that ugly template up. —Simetrical (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is not a word in a typical sense - contains much deeper meaning and good and bad connotations as to transcend the normal definition of etymology. iyao 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (4 delete, 1 move). Mindmatrix 00:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once Moore[edit]

This is a procedural nomination. This article was previously deleted on 16 Dec 05. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Once Moore/2005-12-11. The article was recreated on 27 Dec 05. It was mistagged as {{empty}} (a speedy-delete template). This new version is not "substantially identical" to the deleted version and therefore does not qualify for the re-created content speedy criterion either. However, the verifiability issues raised during the first AFD discussion do appear to still be relevant. Rossami (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it to Hell it's first creation was a mistake, now it's a big mistake. The album has yet to be titled. It's an illusion created by the "fake" mandy moore site apparently. It should be deleted at least until Mandy Moore post it on her site. Parys
  • Move to Mandy Moore's fifth studio album and merge to Mandy Moore following a complete removal of all the information (and the album cover) that originated from http://www.media-press-release.com/release-69.htm, as well as the external "Hey!" lyrics link. The direct quotes from Moore and the list of people she collaborated with on the album are from reliable sources, however, and probably deserve a mention in Moore's article (at least until the actual title of the album is announced). I'd take out the false information right now, except that the article is currently protected. Extraordinary Machine 22:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What if, god forbid Sire refuses to release the album? Then we would have an article for nothing. That press release isn't anything official, trust me, it's easy to make a fake one. Like i said DELETE. Parys
      • Exactly. That's why I'm suggesting a removal of the information that originated from the press release and a merge to the Mandy Moore article. Extraordinary Machine 22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the cover? And what about that song "Fear of Flying", i have heard no such song, and i have searched it, and all I found was a mirror of the wiki article and also Mya's album Fear of Flying.
  • Delete. Apparently a hoax, or at least not reliably sourced. We don't need a page on her next album until there's a definitive announcement about it. *Dan T.* 06:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, we'll just have to wait on mandy.

Parys

Delete Am tired of seeing this branded about. JackO'Lantern 07:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

R-theory of time[edit]

Vanity article promoting the theories of a doctoral student named Jeffrey Grupp [21]. I'm completing this nomination, as it was orphaned for some reason (original nomination dated December 2 below). Delete Wile E. Heresiarch

  • I nominated this article for deletion. I had previously added the cleanup tag and POV Check tags and discussed why on the article's talk page. However as it is written, it seems very pov and has only a single webpage as a source. So until it is cleaned up, it seems to much like original research, and so therefore my vote is Delete.TheRingess 22:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:TheRingess. Non-notable pseudoscience. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-11 07:34:08Z
  • Delete vanity. The referenced article was just published. Gazpacho 09:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for vanity. Publishing theories of time in Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies doesn't provide proper peer review. Rasmus (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - theories of the universe that rely on philosophy and religion rather than science have no place in an encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I disagree strongly with Cyde but this is original research, not someone's religious belief. Ashibaka tock 23:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Croat Canuck 02:40, 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. Owen× ☎ 00:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract atomism[edit]

Vanity article to promote a theory of a doctoral student named Jeffrey Grupp. His vanity bio Jeffrey Grupp was speed deleted. Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 07:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; non-notable philosophy and self-promotional. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-11 07:38:26Z
  • Delete vanity. The referenced article was just published. Gazpacho 09:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for vanity. Publishing theories of time in Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies doesn't provide proper peer review. Rasmus (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - theories of the universe that rely on philosophy and religion rather than science have no place in an encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with the above. Philosophical and theological theories are encyclopedic if they're prominent enough. This one isn't, though. Delete. --Agamemnon2 06:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 02:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability not established AustinZ 21:20, 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 ] 18:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Gaines[edit]

Is an Arena League defense specialist notable? I'd say no. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'd say it is notable to people who follow Arena League football. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 07:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Indisputably meets WP:BIO criteria for sportspeople, and indeed did so before he even played Arena Football. Rhollenton 16:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep professional athletes as long as they are verifiable. ESkog | Talk 18:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep tried to add verifiable info, see the link. Sam Vimes 22:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's pro football, at least sort of.--Mike Selinker 18:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up and keep - if there is no cleanup, merge into Georgia Force. B.Wind 01:44, 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. Owen× ☎ 00:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha Goodison[edit]

Not notable. Does not meet the WP:MUSIC guidlines. One self-published album, released a year ago (plus a remix album, also self-published). Can't find any evidence of a national tour, significant venues, etc. -- even on her web site. Seven Google hits on "Aisha Goodison", all about the lawsuit, none about her music. Search on "singer Aisha" turns up a a couple references to the lawsuit, and a bunch of singers who are not her. No entry in allmusic.com for "Aisha Goodison". There is ab entry on an "Aisha", a reggae singer. Unless she's a reggae singer (doesn't look like it), that's probably not her; it's probably Aisha Davis. I found one one-sentence passing mention on a minor web site of a singer "Aisha"; that turned out to be Aisha Davis. The only possible claim to notability, I think, is that she has filed a nuisance lawsuit against Madonna, on what looks to be bizarre grounds, which I guess got a small amount of press notice. Anybody can do that. I don't think that comes close to making her notable. (If it does, I think the article should be rewritten to feature the lawsuit.) As a bonus, she (or a catspaw) created the article as vanity, then engaged in revert wars when editors NPOV'd it.Herostratus 07:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Much as I kinda regret the time I put into NPOVing it, I agree that she's non-notable and the article should go. Zora 07:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your good work on that, Zora. I've done the samy myself. I almost wanted to not nominate the article and waste your work, but I think this is better all around. Herostratus
  • Delete as per nom. DeathThoreau 15:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I think the lawsuit, especially if it develops further, gives borderline notability and I wouldn't object much to the current stub version. Tearlach 18:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - bring it back if anything comes of the lawsuits or she gets on a label, otherwise non-notable - Dharmabum420 00:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm. Her editing of the article didn't helpSethie 16:43, 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× ☎ 00:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2362 (show)[edit]

NN. Slight vanity (not really drooling, at least), but very likely created by people behind production. "will be featured on Machinima.com, although only the teaser trailer is available at the moment." (Wikipedia is not crystal ball). --Drat (Talk) 07:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN --Ezeu 07:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a crystal ball. — JIP | Talk 12:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I created this entry and, as you suspected, I am also part of the production team.
I think that this article is factual and unbiased. Vanity would imply that I have boasted about the show being fantastic, or at least presented an opinion. This article is neutral in the way it has been written, merely presenting facts and useful information.
This show will no doubt appear on Machinima.com, but if you feel that that sentence is not appropriate then it can be edited (after this is Wikipedia).
I feel this article provides useful information for those who have seen the trailer and\or have read about the series, and would like to know who is involved, what it is about, which episodes are in production, who the characters are etc.
Rather than deleting the article, we could simple add a notice such as the one at the top of the X-Men 3 page, stating that the production hasn't yet been completed and as such this information may be speculative.

If, having read this, you still feel this isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, you may remove the article.--Unsigned comment by EvMaster

  • Comment X-Men 3 is a major studio production that follows up two very successful films about a highly-notable comic book series. Your work, however good it may or may not be, is none of those things. While it could be argued that Machinima.com is an important vehicle for your particular genre, appeareance there does not necessarily indicate notability as wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete--Unsigned comment by DeathThoreau
  • Comment Don't let this whole thing discourage you, EvMaster. I'm sure you could contribute to wikipedia in other ways. As it is, it doesn't belong. If, however, it gets released, and becomes really popular (let's face it, even a tiny fraction of Red vs Blue's popularity would be quite an achievement), and has a big impact, then maybe, who knows. And remember, if your production becomes really popular, someone else may well create an article on your show.--Drat (Talk) 16:38, 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. Owen× ☎ 01:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Digimon Wrestling[edit]

Fiction? Manga/anime cruft? Unreferenced. No recognisable Google hits. -- RHaworth 08:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain this article rules, DIGIMONS ARE AWESOME!
  • This article is based on fact and therefore doesn't violate WP:V. This is shown by the title history placed at the bottom. This does not violate WP:RS due to us giving a source.
  • Beware of sockpuppets! Since the "article" is written in the first person, delete as vanity. First person articles do not belong in Wikipedia. Also, nn per (from above discussion) There are four current members and we really do fight for paper belts. B.Wind 01:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain because isn't Wikipedia a site to spread knowledge on through sharing our own knowledge with the world? That's what I believe, so If this is a true organization, which I feel it is due to the history being way to long to sit and create from just imagination, it should be kept to spread the knowledge of this organization. No information deserves to be thrown from our site with out extensive reasoning that would deem it fake because no true knowledge is insignificant.
    • This anon user has voted twice and has only contributed to this article. --Apostrophe 18:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 14:06, 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 REDIRECT to Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2. Owen× ☎ 00:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse Tank[edit]

Fancruft article about a single unit in C&C:Red Alert 2. I don't think inanimate PC game characters are worthy of inclusion. Agamemnon2 08:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Less notable than Leeroy Jenkins. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:32, Dec. 11, 2005
  • Redirect to Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2. Soo 20:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Well now I know what "C&C" stands for. But it looks like the relevant information is already at the main article, so I still say delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:07, Dec. 11, 2005
  • Delete, POV material already covered in the main article. I don't oppose a redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 11:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't know where much of this material comes from (and I've played both RA and RA2), but I doubt it's notable enough regardless of accuracy. A mention of the tank on the main C&C page would be nice, though. AustinZ 21:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless truly notable, we really don't need a page for every little facet of every computer game. ranieri 3:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Indeed. There are specialized wiki project servers for that. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:56, Dec. 16, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles A. Anderson[edit]

non-notable biography entry. - Akamad 08:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete CV. No one but the person himself would have chronicled his life, so unverifiable. Sam Vimes 22:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Speedy This person is not notable per guidelines in WP:BIO -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, no discernable assertion of notability under WP:CSD Unremarkable people. Sliggy 23:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, non-notable (auto?)biography. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No claim to notability? How about: He is a trial lawyer who has conducted trials at every level of the state court system and a variety of types of cases including a murder defense that was written up in a Washington Post Sunday magazine article "A Body of Evidence."? - Mgm|(talk) 11:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The italicized quotation doesn't separate him from the thousands of other trial lawyers in the United States - the name of the newspaper and the newspaper article, having been changed, of course. B.Wind 01:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of Wikification hurts, too... delete for now. B.Wind 01:55, 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. Owen× ☎ 00:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pupuhanska[edit]

I seriously doubt the existence of this, given that I was in an elementary school in Finland during the 90s. Agamemnon2 08:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, either a hoax or an utterly non-notable neologism. I'm Finnish and I have never heard of "pupuhanska". It gets no Google hits. Also I find the spelling of "Heikkilae" rather strange. The author is obviously Finnish (otherwise he/she wouldn't understand any Finnish at all), so why couldn't he/she find the "Ä" key on the keyboard? It's on the second letter row, two keys left from Return. — JIP | Talk 12:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JIP. Just as silly as it sounds. Zero Google hits, too. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Perhaps we can get some more Finnish Pedians to check in case Agamemnon just missed this supposed craze? - Mgm|(talk) 11:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've dropped a note at User talk:Jni and User talk:Ulayiti for principle, but I don't think there is very much hope of this article getting a single "keep" vote. — JIP | Talk 13:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have never heard of this, neither has Google or Finnish Wikipedia. Either totally non-notable or a silly hoax. jni 15:07, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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× ☎ 00:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlas[edit]

NN. Yet to be released. Vanity. Drat (Talk) 08:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. 132.162.213.109 01:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Drat. --OGoncho 02:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ~ Hibana 03:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Drat, not encyclopedic until some more verifiable information about release date or gameplay is available from outside sources.- Mgm|(talk) 11:45, 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 keep or merge (3 keep, 3 delete, 5 merge, discounting new users). -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 22:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lueshi[edit]

Severe fancruft - better merged with GameFAQs message boards if mentioned at all. Article was restored because of inapporpriate AFD procedures (see Talk:Lueshi for details). Hbdragon88 05:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to GameFAQs message boards. - Mgm|(talk) 11:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even Shigeru Miyamoto has acknowledged the fad. - Stoph 04:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge individual pieces of ascii art aren't encyclopedic, and Google hits are extremely low for an "internet phenomenon". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pointless and non-encyclopedic. Couldn't this get speedied? Toffile 05:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been speedied; the second AFD was speedied. Unfortuantely, an admin restored it because of "inproper procedures," which is why I've renominated it for AFD again. Hbdragon88 06:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fortunately, my friend, fortunately. Deletion is a serious act, not to be done on a whim or carelessly. mikka (t) 19:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, on the second thought, please do not merge. There is no place for this in either GameFAQs or GameFAQs Message Boards. --Toffile 00:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a significant piece of internet history that deserves to exist. Cowpowder 21:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has 8 edits. --Toffile 00:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. -Sean Curtin 06:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to GameFAQs message boards. mikka (t) 19:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe because I myself am a LUEser, and LUEshi is important in its own right Sceptre (Talk) 10:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (but do not delete) to GameFAQs message boards as per Mgm. Although I am not a hardcore gamer, I am quite familiar with this image. LUEishi is worth mentioning on the GameFAQs article IMHO, but not so notable that it needs an article of its own. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ♦ Pabix ℹ 13:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep LUEshi may have started out on the GameFAQs boards, but since then has gone far beyond it. Even Miyamoto has acknowledged the fad, and it's well known. There's no reason to delete or merge the article when it makes sense for it to have its own page. Ahnonamis 19:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is the user's fourth edit. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 22:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous unsigned votes[edit]

  • keep. One of the internet's finest fads. Keep in quick reference alone. Deletiion is discrimination - kunae — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.216.235 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see why these "less significant topics" shouldn't have articles of their own. I mean, really, its not like anyone else is going to use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LUEshi. Also, don't you think wikipedia should really be about the spread of knowledge, freely? I reiterate. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.140.166 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 18 December 2005 UTC (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a waste of space, and exists solely for the amusement and egos of a few people from one website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.169.124.140 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 18 December 2005 UTC (UTC)
  • Keep. i agree keep this because i know years from now someone will be looking for this information and everything about it, and how miyamoto acknowledged it and everything !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.140.74 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 18 December 2005 UTC (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a symbol for thousands of people at least, and is important to a huge number more. It has a history and is very significant to a famous part of a big website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.244.197 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 18 December 2005 UTC (UTC)
  • Keep. This is so significant. Why even consider deleting it in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.168.194 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 December 2005 UTC (UTC)
  • Keep. This is the single greatest wikipedia article in the history of mankind. 10/10 WOULD BY FROM AGAIN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.209.154 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have you ever been signed by Miyamoto? Exactly, therefore it is an accomplishment. -ACinsomnia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.98.138 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are other things people should be worried about getting rid of on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.51.185 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 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 Speedy delete (as non-notable) --Nlu (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenis[edit]

In Greek, about non-notable Ithaca local politician, images all come from the subject's website. Delete Jamie 08:41, 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× ☎ 00:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Banana Boy Arrest[edit]

Delete; minor ephemeral news story of no encyclopedic interest, possibly a publicity stunt. MCB 08:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; I heard about it, and it's verifiable, that does not add up to being worthy of an encyclopedia article. My crystal ball says that nobody will remember this a year from now. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-11 08:53:10Z
  • Delete; Article having no importance whatsoever!!! --Mihai -talk 10:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons mentioned above. Daniel Case 14:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It doesn't even explain why he's called "Banana Boy". — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Verifiability and references (especially from estabilshed news sources) go a long way in helping an article to be kept. However, this is a pretty good example of how not everything that shows up in the news is an encyclopedia article candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If every stupid happening featured on Fark.com had its own encyclopedia article we'd be drowning in crappy non-notable news. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cyde Weys
  • Delete with banana-powered rocket launcher because it is poorly-written, non-notable, Wikipedia is not a news site, POV (i.e. hilarious), need I say more? Croat Canuck 02:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you haven't been playing too much Worms lately? Please lower your weapon and take a few good breaths. Banana rocket launchers are bad for you. ;) - Mgm|(talk) 11:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Starblind. Clear example of something verifiable that's still unencyclopedic. There's hundreds of people bearing knifes on a daily basis. Even if you make the news for doing so it doesn't mean you should end up in an encyclopedia. - Mgm|(talk) 11:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally not notable. Masterhatch 20:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally not notable. Rlevse 19:02, 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. Owen× ☎ 00:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PiALOGUE[edit]

No evidence for existence of this unlikely idea; neologism? Flapdragon 09:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, incomprehensible, unverified, and likely vanity. Gazpacho 09:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added external link references. PiPhD 10:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Fredrik | tc 11:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about it do you not understand? PiPhD 11:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverified. The external links point to a 404 Error page, a web forum, and what seems to be a personal web site. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's clear to me, I was on the Bohm Dialogue mailing list when the "pialogue" issue came up and feel that it is an accurate description of a useful communication tool. And, ALL of the links work for me. -- Heuristic 14:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heuristic's only edits are to this discussion. Fredrik | tc 17:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn neologism, see Google. Melchoir 22:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this seems to be complete nonsense. Tompw 23:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Wiktionary? PiPhD 22:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem would still be with the "nonsense" bit. Flapdragon 15:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does not "nonsense" convey "opinion"? Who is the highest level intellect at Wikipedia who is respected such that they could or would "rule" upon whether or not it is nonsense? PiPhD
        • The community is. Fredrik | tc 11:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is not the "administrator" the final arbitor with actual "delete" capability? How can the appearance of democracy demonstrated by the "loud few" (out of literally millions) be actual democracy? Actual truth? So, my real question is, who is the most intelligent "administrator" who would be "able" to determine whther or not it actually makes sense and who would perform the actual deletion? Or, are or might the people who used the word "nonsense" actually be the same person with multiple accounts? Is there a way to determine this possibility? -- PiPhD 20:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not them, and it's nonsense. Melchoir 03:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rodin Aerodynamics utilizes PiALOGUE (bottom of page) -- PiPhD 21:48, 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 melted. DS 02:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Diel and Layeroffrost.com[edit]

The first article is fairly well written, but still nothing but personal vanity. The latter one is about his website, which has no Alexa rank. Delete. If the user wants it on his user page, I won't oppose that. - Mike Rosoft 09:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleted. However, I was unaware I lost my Alexa rank, d'oh.
  • Delete. I can write thousands of articles about people like these too... i consider it a vanity page behind a encyclopediac page! le petit vagabond 16:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. Bill 17:38, 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 keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Airliners.net[edit]

Vanity for a semi nnwebsite with little facts and more advertising to it --Reid A. 09:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article maybe badly written, but the site itself is a popular place for planespotters to get / exchange pictures of aircraft, airports and the like. I'm not an airplane nut, but I've still heard of it and visit occasionally. Jamie 10:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A very popular site which deserves a mention here. News from within the aviation world often appears first there. Also the faked picture of a man on the WTC just before impact Tourist guy used a photo stolen from the Airliners.net database here Dave 14:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Really needs a better article for this entry then, as all that this one is, is advertising.71.3.123.8 21:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Alexa rating is: 2,251, so this site has enough visitors to be more notable than the nominator claims. Article also doesn't look overly promotional or full of praise. - Mgm|(talk) 11:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well known site, should be inproved, not deleted Prodego talk 21:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article should be edited, not deleted. At least post a message saying the article needs to be cleaned up or something. --Mohaas05
  • Strong Keep; very well-known and popular aviation site. Good Alexa rank, and I believe the assertion of forum membership. May need editing to be less promotional, but it's a notable site. MCB 01:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Alexa ranking. Jendeyoung 02:44, 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. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Random run[edit]

This is not really notable enough to deserve its own article. "Random run" seems to be something the sitemakers thought up, and Alexa doesn't agree that randomrun.org is notable ([22])..therefore..we might wanna delete this "social phenomenon". -- SoothingR(pour) 09:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-per Soothing -Reid A. 09:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; silly neologism and website, not notable. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-11 09:50:02Z
  • Delete: Not Notable Nonsense. But please don't bother citing Alexa. It is completely unscientific and is hit or miss because it depends on who signs up and misses large segments of the population like myself who refuse to sign up. Hu 11:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unless an article cites sources itself, we have to rely on things like Alexa and Google to determine it for us. Any search engine will miss sites that are not visited/linked to by people who use that particular search engine or sites that are listed in it. - Mgm|(talk) 12:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Google is a fine impartial citation because it is automatically generated. Alexa is self-selected according to the marketing they employ and who signs up, which makes it useless as a citation. Hu 13:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete: People (especially kids) have always done random runs so the phenomenon exists long before the Wikipedia article and the website randomrun.org. The article is an attempt to formalize the phenomenon. If banal daily activities as running and sitting (especially Chair sitting positions Sitting#Chair_sitting_positions) have articles so should random running as well. As for it not being successful on Alexa - I do not see how an internet monitoring service can be relevant in determining weather something that exists much before internet is relevant enough to have a Wikipedia article. Also it is not a neologism because it is not a newly coined phrase or even a phrase, it is just the only possible description of the action just as good food is not neologism but just a basic way to describe food. To name random running something else would be to create a neologism. People do random runs but it is not something that was ever formally discussed or documented - this is the only issue. However I agree that it needs more resources than a personal website randomrun.org and a much better text. If these are the reasons to delete it please do until better definition and resources are found, but I think random run is something that deserves an article nevertheless. Maybe random run should be included within the article “Running” since that article seams very narrow - it focuses mostly on competitive running which is a sport while random running is not a sport. Thanks. NikolaT
  • Delete Wikipedia should be used for things that already are notable, not to publicize them or make them notable. --Groucho 16:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is updated - please check the new article. Thanks. NikolaT
  • Delete per nom and others. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and frankly, this article would be acceptable if it was talking about random paths in computer science. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete: examing and naming identifiable slices of life is a worthwile endeavor, and once classified, could lead to more fruitful research. joseph mcelroy
    • Comment: Wikipedia is not a research institution. I think this Random run junk is another prank just like the Bitties joke: see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitties. Hu 01:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I don't mind if you delete the article based on reasonable arguments because this very process is a learning experience, but I would appreciate it if you refrain from insults and provocations such as calling what I wrote junk. It should be clear that this is not a prank nor a joke. Even if it were, that is not a reason for aggressive behaviour. This is by no means an emotional discussion. Thanks NikolaT
  • The author, writing above, states that "[p]eople do random runs but it is not something that was ever formally discussed or documented". That is a strong argument that this article is unverifiable and original research. By our policies, subjects do not belong here until they have been discussed, documented, peer reviewed, and accepted into the corpus of human knowledge. The author thus makes a good case for the article to be deleted.

    There are documented things known as random runs. There is a social event held at The International Conference on Random Structures and Algorithms in Poznań and a game made up by a sports equipment manufacturer. But they have nothing to do with what this article purports to describe. Delete. Uncle G 01:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: No one still answered the argument about Chair sitting positions Sitting#Chair_sitting_positions. Thanks NikolaT
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Internaught[edit]

Neologism. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A Google search gives few results, and most of them don't seem to be related to what's in the article. I'm not entirely sure but I think that the statement "and should not be allowed to participate in the Internet" might be considered POV. Bergsten 13:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. Only 1 vote besides nominator's. Mo0[talk] 18:27, 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 keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stil FM[edit]

This page appears to be patent nonsense, or perhaps random vandalism. -- Taiichi «talk» 09:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy it as nonsense BL kiss the lizard 10:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I cleaned this up and added links to the station and others. This is a legitimate radio station in Romania, and apparently fairly well-known there. Unfortunately I was not able to find any sites in English, but I was able to figure out enough from the Googled websites to add the info that I found. Now the question is: Is the station notable enough to be listed in the Wikipedia, and do we include non-English-language radio stations in the Wikipedia? If this article is kept, it should be moved to Stil FM. (page moved) I will abstain for the moment. •DanMS 22:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I will go to bat for this one, since I cleaned it up and added info. •DanMS 05:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verified. Gazpacho 22:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since DanMS cleaned it up, I now Abstain. -- Taiichi «talk» 00:55, 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. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Romanian language radio stations[edit]

This is similar to the page Stilfm, and was written by the same anonymous author at the same time. patent nonsense, or something. -- Taiichi «talk» 10:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy it as nonsense BL kiss the lizard 10:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jwissick(t)(c) 10:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, duplicate of Stilfm. Lord ViD 10:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cleaned up Stilfm (above) and also renamed it Stil FM, so the content of this page is no longer duplicate. However, this page is not a list of Romanian stations anyway. If there were such a list, it should be named List of radio stations in Romania. There is a link to a source list—in Romanian—at Stil FM if anyone wants to create such a list. •DanMS 06:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this particular page. A list of such radio stations should be named per DanMS. - Mgm|(talk) 12:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Pavel Vozenilek 02:15, 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. Owen× ☎ 00:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Game[edit]

NN. Alexa rank of 682,250 [23] Jwissick(t)(c) 10:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. | Klaw ¡digame! 20:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Free advertising? --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking content. Is mere substub to support the link. I find 26 sites linking to it on Google more telling than its Alexa rank though. - Mgm|(talk) 12:05, 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 delete, request by creator. Thue | talk 11:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Smith (cat man)[edit]

The name seems to be wrong - his real name is Dennis Avner, and we already have an article on him. Thue | talk 10:41, 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 deleted by User:Jni. Jamie

FazekasG[edit]

spam

  • Speedy? Doesn't seem to make any sense or have the potential too. Has been there over a month without improvement. --Whouk (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What what what? Unintelligible. 132.162.213.109 01:28, 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 keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby league in Germany[edit]

  • Keep - Not much content at the moment, but the sport is in its infacy in Germany. The page can only grow with RL in Germany. I'd like to see persons involved with the sport in Germany put more content to show the RL-sceptics out there that the sport is growing on continental Europe. Sjgenius 21:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Interesting to watch the subject of the article grow, and with it the article. The article is now fit for inclusion. --Ceevee 09:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poorly written. Sounds like an advert. Not notable yet for a place in the Wikipedia. --Computerjoe 13:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - worthwhile topic, AFD should not be used for editorial work - David Gerard 13:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak Keep. The article, as it stands, is certainly poorly written. The subject is worth keeping, IF THE ARTICLE IS RE-WRITTEN, because it's dealing with a VERY popular sport in a country that isn't known for playing it well, but that plays other sports well. JanesDaddy 14:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I attempted a re-write at Talk:Rugby_league_in_Germany. Is that any better? As you'll see, there are articles about rugby league in a bunch of other countries too, some of which have an article is under construction banner. JanesDaddy 18:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - information on the page is relevant and interesting. At most needs a clean up. POds 14:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Clearly needs clean-up rather than deletion. Rhollenton 16:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up. Relevant information. I liked JanesDaddy's rewrite. Carioca 19:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite --Tim Fellows 04:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, page has been cleaned-up quite well now. Grinner 10:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, small needed cleanup have been made. Lincher 04:29, 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 ] 18:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toda Erika[edit]

Just put up. Bad English and I don't know what the hell it says--Looper5920 03:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Maybe someone has fixed it since the AFD went up, but it seems like a perfectly legitimate stub for a Japanese actress. 23skidoo 04:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she's on IMDB and has a page on the Japanese WP. Nice cleanup, but the AfD tag was removed during the move... not quite sure what to do to restore it (since the page name is different now). --W.marsh 05:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added an ersatz note to draw attention to the vote. If someone can figure out how to reinstate the AFD tag (I can't find the original one) feel free to replace my note (which was placed out of fairness to the system). 23skidoo 06:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I did the move & clean-up, and I assure you, I didn't see a tag. In fact, I came across the stub from Special/New pages (RC patrolling), and the edit history shows only myself and user:Ryobreak (who created it). Was there perhaps a previous entry that was speedied?Keep. And heap praises on whoever cleaned it up! The Literate Engineer 06:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no tag. The nominator simply didn't follow the instructions. Uncle G 12:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess that explains why I couldn't find one! ;-) 23skidoo 15:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a decent start just needs some work. That's what stubs are for :) -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 15:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not in doubt. Rhollenton 16:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing wrong with stubs. Fg2 07:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Erika Toda to follow English naming conventions (given name, surname). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:01, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist philosophy of time[edit]

According to the article another name for R-theory of time (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/R-theory_of_time.) Delete. Rasmus (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There should be an article on the topic but not starting from the premise that it's another name for the R-theory of time. Dlyons493 Talk 12:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Computerjoe 13:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. Ashibaka tock 23:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as with the others. Gazpacho 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice to re-creation. A worthwhile article could be written under this title. This original research is not it, and is not helpful to someone who wants to write a better one. Smerdis of Tlön 04:45, 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 KEEP, it's been transformed from the article nominated for deletion and at least the deleter asking for sources can be presumed satisfied. -Splashtalk 00:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Godiva Memorial Bnad[edit]

Non-Notable Has google hits [24], but allmusic doesn't have anything on them [25] Delete per WP:MUSIC KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 03:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat notable, but merge with Skule. - SimonP 04:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spelt the google search as the article's title was written. The article notes that they spell their name that way as part of their gimmick. "They usually employ spelling with numerous intentional grammatical and typographical errors in any of their promotional material" KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 04:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, is it notable or not? I think it is, but merging with EngSoc is not a bad idea. What happens for other schools? The University_of_Michigan Engineering does not have separate articles for student groups. This debate should also apply to the Brute Force Committee (BFC) as it has a simular scope, size, notablilty, etc.s as the BNAD and has an article. Cafe Nervosa | talk 19:29, 5 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} 13:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources can be given. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check out the recent changes (added today) 4:53, 12 December 2005 (sorry I don't know how to post properly) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.33.138 (talk • contribs) 09:54, December 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Judging from the article content, delete looks wrong. If the voting ends in a delete (which looks very likely), the article should be merged, not simply deleted.—Gniw (Wing) 05:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep — With the recent couple of major edits, deletion looks more and more wrong. This should have been put on stubify, not AfD.—Gniw (Wing) 04:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While merging with University of Toronto Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering is tempting, that would result in an overly-long article. If we can have half a dozen pages about the Toronto Transit Commission, we can have more than one about goings-on at one of the largest universities in Canada. --Christopher Thomas 21:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per reasons above G-Man 17:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has been given a thorough re-write, and is based on recorded fact from the Archivist of the University of Toronto Engineering Society. 17 December 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamgravitis (talk • contribs) (user's second edit)
  • Keep. This is a great article! At worst it should be Merged. I never went to UofT, but I've heard of this years ago! Nfitz 20:48, 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 DELETE. Mo0[talk] 18:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True Crime 3: Streets of Hong Kong[edit]

After much Googling, the game doesn't seem to exist. There was some speculation that a True Crime game based in Hong Kong could exist, but it ended up being based in New York. See this video which leads to truecrime2005.com for my source. PS2pcGAMER 05:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it was originally could have been True Crime 2, as Google turns up lots of hits for True Crime 2: New York. True Crime 3 doesn't seem to exist anywhere as any title. I guess the article could be moved to True Crime (2): Streets of Hong Kong (not sure if the 2 should be there or not). I've never played the series, so maybe someone who has could chim in. PS2pcGAMER 12:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
yes, you're right: it might have been an early version of the 2nd game, but there's no evididence that it's planned as a 3rd -Meegs 18:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • True Crime 2 is New York City. This pig of a stub doesn't deserve to be merged with anything. If there is a Hong Kong game (and I see no evidence yet), someone will write a real article later. Delete. TheMadBaron 13:55, 4 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} 13:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this article seems based on faulty information at best, and the article is just barely a stub anyway. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the December 5 revision reads much better, but the article is now nothing but speculation. There's some evidence that Streets of Hong Kong was planned as the second game, before was changed to New York City. That tidbit _might belong in True Crime: New York City, but I'd just as soon leave that decision to those editors who know the subject matter. Perhaps a merge with Talk:True_Crime:_New_York_City? Anyway, no one has been able to find evidence that the title is still being planned as the third game, so I have no problem with an outright delete (I crossed out my merge vote above). -Meegs 09:24, 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. -Splashtalk 00:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cabalis/[edit]

Malformed article title, reads like a copyvio though I can't find it, but there are only 23 unique Google hits for "Jean de Cabalis". User:Zoe|(talk) 08:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment he has very little internet presence; no way to confirm that he has 400 followers in his guild. His teacher's school "Alexandrian Witchcraft" is much bigger and probably could support an article. If anyone wants to defend this article, Cabalis at least seems to have contributed to some kind of pamphlet or book that you can buy on his website -Meegs 08:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like self-publishing to me, which doesn't aid his claims of notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/magicks_of_cabalis/ for members of his Guild and http://cabilis.topcities.com for his home page. This person is head of a number of occult organisations and one of the most famous magicians in the world today. See also cabilis as spelling. Of his groups, Apostolic Guardian Church of Grace and Blessing, Et Custosi Tutelae, Ordrine Scatere Stellae and others. - also see Guardians of Grace Blessing and Sustenance. There are also references to this person being involved with Boucca Wicca and the Golden Dawn. I notice this person has used two spellings jean de CABILIS and jean de CABALIS which need to be considered when researching him. The ECT book list is way out of date, there are about another 40 books his Et Custosi Tutelae organisation has published by him.

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete That his order has 400 members seems to be based on a yahoo group, rather than any third party verification. This is a non-notable person. DeathThoreau 16:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. An occultist with 400 followers would be on the fringes of notability anyways. No other claims to noteworthiness, publications or controversies, are given, other than that he founded a Yahoo group. Smerdis of Tlön 04:54, 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 00:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Pittendreigh[edit]

Unknown author who has written one non-notable book which discusses a small local cemetary in rural Tennessee. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:37, 4 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} 13:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per nomination. --Apostrophe 00:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination. -- JLaTondre 00:12, 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. Mo0[talk] 18:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lamestream[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: it's a neologism and a weak pun on mainstream. However, it does get 23,700 google results (470 in groups) for me so it might be considered to be in wide use. If kept, needs to be cleaned up. - Bobet 18:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a fully used word, in wide use on the internet. This terms meaning usually must be determined by its contextual use. This is a disadvantage which Wikipedia exists to solve. The Wikipedia exists to help ellucidate and verify correct word use up to and including neologisms and puns. It gets 2 google news results, 460 group results, and 25,800 total results. This words importance is increasing in circulation and pervasiveness. Please recommend clean up proceedure for retention.- oadine 10:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC) The preceeding comment was the first edit ever made by oadine (talk · contribs).[reply]
    • No, Wikipedia does not exist for verifying correct word use of neologisms and puns. For starters, word usage information is the job of a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 02:07, 12 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} 13:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the word is attested, it appears to be a simple pejorative epithet used to describe mainstream news organizations. Although I can find many instances of people referring to the mainstream media as "the lamestream media", I can find no actual sources, describing any underlying concept, that could be used to construct an encyclopaedia article. The article cites no sources at all, and the specific concept that this article ascribes to the word appears to be a novel one invented by a Wikipedia editor. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 02:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take issue with the notion that this word is simply a "pejorative epithet used to describe mainstream news organizations." Lamestream can be used as the definition describes in more than one context. Example, Mainstream Rock and Roll (standard music industry drival) depending upon the label and artist can be categorized into Lamestream. This was evident at the end of the 80's and the beginning of the 90's with big hair bands. The Lamestream Rock and Roll movement tried to hold on while being eroded by the grundge movement. Thus it lacked relivancy but still believed it held a popular position. Another example, mainstream science education believes the Coriolis force affects water in a toilet bowl. This is incorrect and is yet another example of Lamestream science education. Lamestream is not just used for the supposed popular press it also is used as the definition defines. The popular press is just an enormous example so it was used. On another note this word could be moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikitionary an I would be satisfied with that. By the way the word Fuck is defined and used in Wikipedia not Wikitionary and I hear nobody talking about movement or deletion of it from Wikipedia. Tell me the improvements to Lamestream you would like to see and I will make it happen?- oadine 13:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism lacking encyclopedic potential. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:43, Dec. 13, 2005
  • Delete. It's quite clearly a neologism if there are no secondary sources on it. Dig up some and cite them, then consider this a neutral. Otherwise, there's no reason for this to be kept on an enyclopaedia. Johnleemk | Talk 18:44, 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. Even discounting the tagged editors, there is no consensus on whether to keep as-is or to merge. -Splashtalk 00:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

National Socialist black metal[edit]

This is not a valid music genre. The music style is no different from standard black/folk metal, with the lyrics being the sole difference. This, along with Pagan metal (black metal with slightly different lyrics)and Battle metal (black metal with yet another lyrical theme)should all be removed based on the aforementioned criteria. If, for some reason, someone truly believes this article is necessary, merge it and the others with the Black Metal page.

  • Merge . This is actually a genre of music, with an extremely large following. It is best to merge this article with Black Metal however, as its not a genre on its own. Putting in the template for suggested Merging as a soloution to the deletion. ~~Leyasu
  • merge. Per Leyasu. Basically, this is black metal with "nazi-lyrics" Spearhead 16:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • these bands do tend to function as their own scene and some people refuse to listen to or support them because of their politics. i think it should stay seperate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.219.215 (talk • contribs)
  • I see no reason whatsoever to delete this entry, nor to "merge" it. National Socialist Black Metal is, though not a label for a musica genre that has nothing in common with other musical genres, a label for a specific category of bands and music nonetheless. Like it or leave it, thats about it. The most proper way to handle this would be to leave this as its own entry and link it in the black metal or other sections suggested above. NSBM as an acronym for this genre of artists and music is a search term that should link to an entry for National Socialist Black Metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.188.222 (talk • contribs) 20:27, December 10, 2005
This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article's claim for notability seems to be that, while the topic is not *musically* very different from other genres, it is considered different in critical analyses, and has a different fanbase. If these statements are correct and verifiable, then we could have an article; otherwise, perhaps a mention in one of the other articles. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the topic to make any decisions. -- Creidieki 14:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it seems like a viable topic for an independent article. Tuf-Kat 16:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is there a way to put an article on probation or something? Like, "We're not sure whether we believe you, get some sources in the next month or we'll renominate you for AfD"? -- Creidieki 16:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separately, like Christian pop. Gazpacho 23:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep, but dont delete If you are thinking of merging it, go ahead. this is definately a sub-genre of black metal, so maybe it should go in a list with the other sub-genres mentioned; or it could just be linked to from the black metal listing along with the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.214.195.116 (talk • contribs) 23:36, December 11, 2005 (UTC), and constitutes his/her sole edit.
  • keep If you are thinking of merging it, go ahead. this is definately a sub-genre of black metal, so maybe it should go in a list with the other sub-genres mentioned; or it could just be linked to from the black metal listing along with the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.214.195.116 (talk • contribs) 23:36, December 11, 2005 (UTC), and constitutes his/her sole edit.
  • Keep This ought to be kept separate, not merged or deleted. It is an actual genre, but because of the ideological differences, it should not be merged with the black metal page. GreatCthulhu — the preceding comment was this user's third edit ever.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, although the amount of cross-duplication indicated in the debate suggests somehting ought to be merged somewhere. -Splashtalk 00:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs that have been considered among the greatest ever[edit]

POV selection results in very short list, almost completely biased towards 1960s/1970s rock. Will essentially repeat information from The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll and the Recording Industry Association of America's Songs of the Century. --FuriousFreddy 14:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Arbitary and pov. Rhollenton 16:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nom should explain the difference with List of songs in English labeled the worst ever, which recently was on AfD and was kept. -- JJay 18:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was not involved in that debate. If I were, I'd have voted a strong delete. --FuriousFreddy 03:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. -- JJay 04:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I cant see any really valid reason at this point to delete. -- JJay 18:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it is well-sourced, it is a biased list and could probably be merged into rock 'n' roll directly. The "worst ever" list at least covers several different genres. --Idont Havaname 20:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See the recently concluded discussion about lists of songs. Fairly extensive reasons and citations are given for each song to justify inclusion. This seems to meet the agreed criteria of verifiability, appropriate breadth, and significance. Smerdis of Tlön 04:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list essentially seeks to duplicate two other already existing Wikipedia lists. On top of that, song selection as it stands now is obviously POV. --FuriousFreddy 05:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-encyclopedic, prone to very quick degradation. Pavel Vozenilek 02:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep referenced, verifiable.  Grue  17:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bias POV list even with references.Gateman1997 23:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Rhollenton. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grue. Owen× ☎ 00:21, 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 KEEP. Owen× ☎ 00:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sorscher[edit]

Obscure personality. Google test lists 202 results for "Eric Sorscher". Article is orphan and was created in a single edit by an IP, which may indicate vanity Mecanismo | Talk 14:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand — his research work in cystic fibrosis seems important[26], at least as far as I can tell. — RJH 16:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:56, 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 NO CONSENSUS, not going to re-re-list. -Splashtalk 00:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazonia Conference[edit]

This articles subject matter seems to lack notability. A quick search of google will produce the actual article as the first result, since their are no other pages it seems which relate only to the conference. Rather the only results seem to be ones which mention the conference in fleeting.

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the page itself doesn't say it's up for deletion. Harvestdancer 22:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that was just some vandalism by an anon. Sorry for the interruption. Harvestdancer 22:52, 8 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} 14:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Research reveals a newspaper article, and independent confirmation by way of a listing published by the Institute of Education. I would prefer more than just the one article, but the article that we have appears not to be a simple re-publication of a press release and to be sourced independently of its subject. Perhaps there are more sources in Portuguese. Weak Keep. Uncle G 02:30, 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 NO CONSENSUS. I am unimpressed by the keepers. Thelb4 cites the expansion of the BBC one article: over the course 2.5 years! Yuckfoo manages to find the word "Monitoring" on Google and applies zero analysis to that finding rendering it meaningless (as Gazpacho points out, "please", whilst polite, isn't a useful addition to the debate). However, I don't think this debate can be read as producing a consensus to delete. In my capacity as editor-in-ordinary, I am going to mark this as a move to Wikt. -Splashtalk 00:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring[edit]

This is a meaningless stub not an article SqueakBox 17:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rewrite to make it more understandable. Just because it's a stub doesn't mean it won't eventually become a respectable article (e.g. BBC One is quite long, but it started as this!). Thelb4 17:37, 4 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} 14:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move this to Wiktionary, if it's not already there. Monitor can have an Wikipedia use, but the verb form of this doesn't really seem to be able to get much farther than a dictionary definition, and I know those get deleted. Mo0[talk] 20:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or maybe merge but please do not delete this Yuckfoo 01:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saying "please" isn't enough. Why shouldn't this be deleted?. Gazpacho
      • sorry google has 293,000,000 hits for this so it should not be deleted [27] Yuckfoo 04:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under speedy delete criteria. It's short and worded so vaguely as to omit the context. What "data"? What "development"? What "objectives"? Gazpacho 03:25, 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 respectfully deleted. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 22:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Off The Chart Radio[edit]

If it isn't ham, it's... JHMM13 (T | C) 18:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Sorry, I was going to do more to this page when i had the chance. I'm new to Wikipedia so i'm sorry if i've done something wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.246.110 (talk • contribs) 18:37, December 4, 2005
    No problem Ian13 18:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as spam. Ian13 18:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. i've updated the page to contain more than just a link to the website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.246.110 (talk • contribs) 19:08, December 4, 2005
Comment The major problem with your article is that you fail to say why Off the Chart Radio is notable in any way. You launch into a month by month history of a year old station but fail to tell us why we should care at all about it, the reader doesn't have any reason to keep reading unless they are pretty big fans of the station already (and they'd have to be big fans to want to deal with this kind of detail). Provided that the station is notable (verified through third parties, news articles, people outside of its broadcast area talking about it), you would need to clean up this article. I'd suggest a discussion of the format, the broadcast area, it's audience, then some of the shows. If you want to talk about the history, unless a lot of interesting things are happening (which it doesn't seem) it can be summed up in a few paragraphs (when it started and why, and then what it's up to today). DeathThoreau 17:20, 11 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} 14:52, 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. Clearly, the numerics are here to delete. However, the original article's lead was more-or-less incomprehensible advertspeak. The new lead sentence is at least legible, if not really notability-establishing. Since there are other lists very much like this within this topic, and I'm concerned that the incomprehensibility of the pre-rewrite version may have influenced things (given that two editors, nom included call it an ad) I'd prefer to see a new nomination before deletion.-Splashtalk 00:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take along Thomas & Friends[edit]

Advertisement. Originally I marked this for speedy as providing no context, but since that tag was removed, I'm putting this up for AFD. Delete. --DrTorstenHenning 14:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. Mo0[talk] 20:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep. While this list needs an introduction and a removal of the commercials, it appears to be consistent with the way the other Thomas merchandise has been handled (see the Thomas Merchandise section under Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends). It is not the way I would do it, but in the absence of someone re-working all those lists, I don't see the harm in one more. -- JLaTondre 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Okay, since I suggested it, I did a rewrite to match the other Thomas pages. -- JLaTondre 03:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The whole point of this article is advertising a specific product. I would not waste any time on rephrasing the text, it is still an advertisement. Wikipedia is not a replacement for corporate websites or printed catalogues. Listing of available products and packages are utterly unencyclopedic. We should remove this garbage, and this is a point to start. The fact that there are other spam pages on Wikipedia should not prevent us from deleting this one. --DrTorstenHenning 12:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Listing the existence of a product is not spam in itself. Thomas is a notable childern's story, television series, and toy. Stating what toys are available is hardly advertising them. There's a lot worse listcruft on Wikipedia. If you think all the Thomas merchandise articles should go, then list them all. But if you're only going to list the one, then I have to argue consistency over deletion. -- JLaTondre 22:49, 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× ☎ 00:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

H.B.O.S.P.[edit]

Non-notable internet forum, gets around 100 hits on Google. orioneight (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Original AfD nomination prompted no discussion whatsoever. Relisting in hopes of an actual consensus being attained. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 15:00, 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. -Splashtalk 00:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Myke Len[edit]

all these bands are unknown, at least to Wikipedia. Austrian 15:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable and non-WP:MUSIC. Mo0[talk] 20:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 22:31, 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. Owen× ☎ 00:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima Thule (rock band)[edit]

Yes, it's another non-notable band. Stifle 20:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; a Google search returns more than 100,000 for Ultima Thule. The notability must be put in the article, though. Thelb4 21:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thule, cites two bands using that name so I'm not sure that your google search is of much use. I'm sure someone who can read Estonian would be able to confirm their notability (or otherwise), but I was unable to. Leithp (talk) 22:07, 4 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} 15:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; I can make enough sense of Estonian to tell that they definitely seem to be notable. For example, Google turns up [28] saying that "in the late 1980s Ultima Thule was without doubt the number one Estonian rock band." (1980. aastate lõpul oli Ultima Thule vaieldamatult Eesti rokkbänd number 1.) It also says they've toured Canada, so they must have at least some international notability. Other sites I found use phrases like "one of Estonia's most legendary rock ensembles". I've added stub notices to the article in the hope that someone from Estonia can expand it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please and help change our systemic biases Yuckfoo 01:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ultima Thule (band), the Swedish "nationalist rock" group (and the controversies regarding their quasi racist funbase) is notable. Ultima Thule, the Estonian rock and blues band is notable in Estonia. --Ezeu 04:13, 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 (as non-notable and empty) --Nlu (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Boswell[edit]

Delete. Not noteable; Google has 13 hits for '"Nathaniel Boswell" film', all seem to be sourced from this stub. Colonel Tom 22:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD listing received no discussion whatsoever, and is being relisted in hopes of prompting some. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 15:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable. The complete lack of voting activity should tell us something. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally non-noteable, non-verifiable, one-sentence thing. JanesDaddy 15:27, 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. The redlinked user discounted as usual, (particularly since one supposes that checking their website would make them seem notable, and misunderstands the meaning of a WP:RS), the WP:CORP assertions do seem to have been effectively challenged. -Splashtalk 00:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton Consultants[edit]

Advert for non-notable consulting firm. | Klaw Talk 15:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this vanispamcruftisement. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This company does meet the guidelines for notability, in that this company "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Princeton Consultants has been featured twice in Consulting Magazine, and was also featured in the Careers section of U.S. News and World Report's 2002 Edition of Best Graduate Schools. - NSash 04:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. In my opinion, two mentions in a small, industry-specific publication do not meet those notability guidelines. Most companies would be notable if we used industry magazines to determine notability. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being "featured in the Careers section" of a report on graduate schools doesn't sound like an in-depth discussion of this consulting firm, and more like being listed in a directory of firms appended to the report. What did this feature entail, exactly? Uncle G 22:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I checked out this company's website and in my opinion they seem to be legit and notable. I also agree that they meet the formal guidelines for notability. Nothing is said in the guidelines about the publications needing to be non-industry specific. JayG 17:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user's second edit. Uncle G 22:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • True. But the WP:CORP criteria do address the point that the work be more than a mere glancing mention of the company in an article that deals with something else, or a simple business directory listing, or a routine business announcement. Uncle G 22:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I haven't found any evidence for this firm meeting the notability guidelines. --Spondoolicks 18:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this advertisement. Self-promotion does not add much to the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.166.180 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 17 December 2005
  • Comment exactly what in the article shows that this company meets citeria in WP:CORP? Vegaswikian 22:53, 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. Owen× ☎ 00:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again (Piracy)[edit]

Delete - as nominator. This would seem to fall under non-notables. Not to mention the lack of info in the article itself. D.valued 02:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable warez doodz. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete You have got to be kidding me - warez kiddies are now adding vanity pages to wikipedia? Speedy Delete without prejudice and then stab through its heart with a stake and twist. --Bachrach44 23:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete content is duplication of groups entry on List of warez groups.  ALKIVAR™ 05:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity The Fish 17:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Banned User:DickyRobert keeps adding commentary unrelated to this AFD, as such his contributions are being reverted by me... just thought I should notify whoever closes this afd.  ALKIVAR™ 16:50, 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. -Splashtalk 00:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crush Card Virus[edit]

This article is an uninformative, unencyclopædic load of spamish fancruft. The card in question is insignificant to say the least. I see no merit in keeping this non-notable lump of text. Setokaiba 17:45, 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. -Splashtalk 00:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keith garsee[edit]

Delete - it reads like a PR message. Non-notable; IMDB lists three things; a body double role and two uncredited (extra?) roles. D.valued 02:53, 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. Owen× ☎ 00:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Long Life Prayer for His Holiness the Dalai Lama[edit]

I believe this text is appropriate for Wikisource, and in fact already exists there [30]. I think this can be safely deleted, but I don't think transwiki is a speedy candidate. Nominator votes delete. Bikeable 22:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - its already been moved to Wikisource, where it should remain. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as A5: transwikied. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia would be the right place for an article about the prayer. Such an article might have information on who wrote it and when, scholarship about the prayer, information about its relationship to scripture and liturgy, when it was translated into other languages. The prayer itself should be on a Wikimedia project, and Wikisource seems to be the best place for it. Fg2 07:53, 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 ] 19:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Mahler[edit]

Delete - per nomination. Non-notable bio. Vanity bio placed (apparently) by son. (Look at history.) D.valued 03:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Article as it stands is possibly slightly POV, but otherwise asserts notoriety happily. She has been interviewed twice on major media (per refs), and is a senior executive on the US Social Security Administration. I see no reason why this should be deleted. Whilst I note that it was written by Dmahler, who may or may not be her son or otherwise related to her, I don't see why that has any relevance to the article. Also see her husband: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vincent_A._Mahler, who, for the record, I voted to delete. Others may disagree. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I took a closer look at the 'Google' hits. [31]. PJM 16:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know...I use 'Google' sometimes as a generic term, but AOL search is "powered by Google". PJM 00:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Seems to be important lady who deserves inclusion here. Submission by son is not relevant. -- JJay 18:31, 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 keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mccleskey v. Kemp[edit]

Delete - The article is a poor summary of a Supreme Court case. It's written in legalese rather than English, and does not include information on how this ruling actually affects the legal world. D.valued 03:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This ruling is massively important, as said in the original version of the article (note that I included some references to help people to check it out). This is a case that defined racism as applied to the death penalty. In effect, what this case meant is that it is okay to kill a black man, and that doing so isn't racist. It has major repercussions and is a heavily discussed case, with 748 unique google hits, out of a total of 17,100. Yes, it was written in legalese. But something written as X v Y is really only going to be useful for lawyers, so what is the problem? Can rewrite it to make it able to be understood by laymen if you'd prefer. Oh, and rename the article to McCleskey v Kemp since the capitalisation was wrong. There also shouldn't be a . after v. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with fixing the capitalisation, but there does need to be a period after the "v" - see 481 U.S. 279 ( the report of the case itself). This may vary in other countries, but U.S. cases always have it. BD2412 T 20:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Reading just Live from Death Row and Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. convinces me, without need for further research, that this is a case that warrants an encyclopaedia article. Keep. Uncle G 20:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - it sounds like this was a very important Supreme Court case. Maybe it needs some rewriting but it certainly doesn't need deletion. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Speedy keep - I will personally attend to this article once I finish my current work assignment - this case was notable for its rejection of statistical evidence showing that the death penalty is biased against blacks (with a shrug and a comment that it's up to the states to solve). Massively important case, bound to be found in any textbook on the death penalty. BD2412 T 20:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: vote changed to speedy keep, upon reading nomination - this article has been AfD'd for being a poor summary, written in legalese and lacking information, none of which is an appropriate reason for deletion. BD2412 T 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs a little cleanup but verifiable and notable court case. Capitalistroadster 22:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anytime the Supreme Court actually decides to hear a case its notable. This article needs major works. In its current state its gives a simplistic view of the case and its holding. Nolamgm 15:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does that mean that I should make an article for R v Trinh and McLean? Prior to R v Murdoch, that was the biggest case in Australia in the past 2 years, about 2 men that murdered 2 asian prostitutes, with the stated reasons being because they were forced to do so by the Hells Angels motorcycle club, who is the largest organised crime gang in the Northern Territory, Australia? Since the case got zero international attention I thought that it probably wasn't worth it. It was in the Supreme Court for about 3 months though, was quite a lengthy trial. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds like a different setup - U.S. Supreme Court cases generally don't have trials, as they are reviews of lower court decisions, with arguments taking no more than a few hours. However, if R v Trinh and McLean was a notable case (which is how it sounds), by all means include it! BD2412 T 14:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry. I should have been more specific. What I meant was that anytime the United States Supreme Court decides to hear a case it is notable. This is because they have control of what cases they will review and their decisions have the potential for far reaching consequences in the United States. To the best of my knowledge the equivalent in Australia would be the High Court of Australia. The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory appears to be a trial court, much like New York Supreme Court. I know the Peter Falconio case is getting a lot of attention in Commonwealth countries.I do not know anything about R v Trinh and McLean, therefore I cannot comment on its notability. Or in summary, what BD2412 just added while I typed this. Nolamgm 14:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. An important case by any measure and articles needing rewrite should be labelled with clean-up tag, not listed for deletion. Jtmichcock 19:07, 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 keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Alpha Tau[edit]

Delete - "My members" and the alleged raison d'etre of the fraternity, as well as phonetically spelling "FAT", make me question the verasity of this organization. D.valued 03:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - 68,400 isn't bad on the good old google test. It is clearly not a hoax as suggested by the nominator. It makes valid claims to notoriety above and beyond being a fraternity, in that it says that it is the oldest of a particular type of fraternity in USA. And here is your verification [32]. Mind you, I should add that of 68,400 google hits, there's only 21 uniques! [33], but even still it has done enough to prove its real. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 66,100 of those hits are from a single site. Counting google hits is not research. —Cryptic (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fraternity seems real enough according to the Student Greek-life Site at Emerson. The article is stubbish at best. DeathThoreau 17:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The fraternity has no real content on the web site for its national organization [34], and one web site about fraternities implies that it has only two chapters. [35] --Metropolitan90 02:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and clean up. PJM 02:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The fraternity is over 100 years old, and it's the first of its kind. In addition to the fact that it is an actual organization functioning at an accredited college, if you search the bios section on imdb.com [36] you'll see there honorary members include-- Frank Oz, John Williams, Jack Lemmon, Edward R. Murrow, Walter Kronkite, the list goes on... that's pretty impressive. RbnWllmsnDMBFall05
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 18:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saggi the Dark Clown[edit]

This article is an uninformative, unencyclopædic load of spamish fancruft. The card in question is insignificant to say the least. I see no merit in keeping this non-notable lump of text. Setokaiba 17:45, 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. -Splashtalk 00:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitterz Air-Cooled Club[edit]

Delete - per nomination. Non-notable organization. Reads like an advert or PR. D.valued 02:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whilst I personally see absolutely no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have articles like this, the reality is that the policies as they stand prohibit such articles. They only have 500 members of their web site, while they need 5,000 to be considered to be notable. Otherwise they make no other claims of notoriety. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:51, 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× ☎ 00:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tricycle Studios[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:38, 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent A. Mahler[edit]

Delete - per nomination. Non-notable bio. Vanity bio placed (apparently) by son. (Look at history.) D.valued 03:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable having written in notable political science journals, for the creation of text books and a book.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.46.145 (talk • contribs)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't believe that having some articles published is sufficient to assert notoriety, unless there is some particular reason why the articles were notable. Voters should also note Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mary_Mahler, although their votes won't necessarily be the same for both. I am voting delete on this, but keep on mary. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless more can be brought to the table. PJM 16:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Head of department at major University, author, etc. -- JJay 18:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course - Accomplished professor in major Political Science department, scholar, author, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.46.148 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 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. Mo0[talk] 20:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PurchasingandSupply[edit]

Redundant entry with Trade. Also violates page-naming standards. Klaw Talk 15:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedily deleted. -- ChrisO 15:57, 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 wasThe decision appears to be keep. with a total of 146 votes to keep.

After processing 293 total votes

Total Keep: 146

129 Keep
17 Keep/Merge

Total Delete: 46

40 delete
6 delete/merge

Total Merge: 124

101 merge
17 Keep/Merge
6 delete/merge

While this does not provide an overwhelming keep vs. merge consensus it does provide that this article should not be deleted.  ALKIVAR™ 02:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer)[edit]

Notability, Non-Encyclopedic, and do we really want to reward and encourage more activity like this by giving it additional notoriety. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 16:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

Delete[edit]

  • Delete This isn't important. Nobody cares. EliasAlucard|Talk 00:27, 15 Dec, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and Brian Chase (Wikipedia prankster). He has less than zero notability and anything here can be covered in John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy quite easily. Gamaliel 18:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per my comments in Talk:John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Brian_Chase. I think that a disambig link to the controversy can be made in the Brian Chase article. And to counter the transparency issues etc. It is transparent, theres a whole article about the controversy! - Hahnchen 16:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His name can be mentioned in the controversy article. Besides that, he's totally non-notable. Jacoplane 16:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete immediately. He is not notable. Just because he hoaxed Wikipedia does not make him notable. If we make an article about him, we have to make an article about every person who gets banned from Wikipedia. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The national media begs to differ with you. Keep for that reason, although I could tolerate merge and redirection. Pcb21 Pete 17:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which "national media"? The English? The Australian? The Canadian? Please, don't think that because USA papers are giving attention to this, it suddenly became a world topic. JoaoRicardo talk 18:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ridiculous. there are hoaxes every day. what makes this guy more noteworthy than any other wikipedia troll? is anyone going to care about him in a year? i thought not. this is an encylopedia, not a blog. Derex 19:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- Oh? And how would that look to the mainstream if Wikipedia shoves this issue under the rug. Removing it would look like we are denying this event ever happened, out of embarassment. This information must be available; it's just a matter of where. See below for my suggestion to merge. --CoderGnome 19:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- I don't think other Wikipedia trolls have had New York Times articles about them. *Dan T.* 19:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. The man tries to hold himself up as somoene who stepped forward when he learned of the damage he caused, but the truth is, he was traced by his IP address. DELETE.
  • Speedy delete, don't give this loser free ad space, or others will start to emulate him then come forward to say, "Hey, I was the one who vandalized place article title here. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Look at the big picture - in 2 days this will be gone from media attention. This is neither notable for Wikipedia as there have been numerous hoaxes that have gone on here, nor for Seigenthaler who has a lifetime of more notable experiences than this one. Were it not for his op-ed article for USA Today, this would not have been news, like if he had just edited out the hoax himself. 68.145.127.91 22:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Buns[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I don't think that pages describing edits should be allowed. Articles get reverted and edited all the time, just because this one got more press there needs to be an entire page about this guy? Sure there can be a snippet in the vandalized article that refutes the false claims, but there does not need to be an entire page that dwells on this edit alone. Leave the guy alone, there is no reason to ruin this person over an edit. Get over it people, you have a encyclopedia that anyone can edit, what did you expect? --Rain 22:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia, and these hoaxes happen all the time. This is not at all noteworthy. Let's delete this and work on more important articles. --GilHamilton 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No vandal should gain notability for his actions on wikipedia. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 23:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content & Delete. Having this article only encourages exactly the sort of behavior we don't want. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 03:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not an article that belongs in an Encyclopedia. Just because he made a fool of Wikipedia, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia should in effect try to make a fool of him, by having an article on him. Gosh! 12 Dec 2005 14:46 GMT
  • Delete. Cribcage 02:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Avoid self references. Rhollenton 03:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and no merge and I am very stongly about that. This story was interesting, but it has gone to far. Let it die. Do we really want this in a published book of Wikipedia if it ever happens? --^BuGs^ 08:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then I suppose we don't need the controversy article also, if your view is considered. But that page has already been voted to be kept and merging this into that would be the most appropriate thing to do. Jam2k
  • Reply That one is fine. This is page is just ridiculas. Also I think the controversy section on John Seigenthaler Sr. should be removed too.
  • Delete gives me no information at all. (plus no candy for vandals) Muzzle 09:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we were to keep this article, we might as well keep an article on every person mentioned in the news, regardless of how important or unimportant they are. This gentleman, before this incident, was non-notable and will be non-notable after the incident has faded from our memories. There is absolutely no need for an article, no matter how brief it is, to be written about him. --Vortex 16:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia anonymity is one of its greatest assets, this article publicizes an editors mistake and ridicules him. It also may fall under Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks --Prodego talk 17:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does the article begin to approach Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks? Hall Monitor 17:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks", the placement in an article makes this a very notable comment. Prodego talk 18:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as I know, everything within this article is well sourced and verifiable, not accusatory. The vandal has personally come forward and apologised for his actions. Please come forward if you are aware of something within this article which qualifies as a personal attack. Hall Monitor 18:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it does not contain anything that's not already in the controversy article. I don't think we need a second article to mirror aspects of the main article. --Bringa 18:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least Merge. He won't be remembered in 3 weeks, much less in 3 years. Carlossuarez46 23:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely non-notable and forgotten by everyone in several months. Wikipedia is encyclopedia of important things. Pavel Vozenilek 02:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. --Elian Talk 02:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY STRONG DELETE - committing an act of libel or slander does not make one notable, even if it is against a person of note. Some of the arguments for keep here are apalling. Keeping it because he deserves further soiling of his reputation? That's just as wrong a use of wikipedia as what Chase did is. Pacian 03:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tell me, how is he any more notable than the thousands of other IP vandals? We don't have mainspace articles on User:Michael or User:Willy on Wheels or [that random IP across the street] now, do we? – ugen64 03:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO in my opinion. Unless you buy into the tabloid press of course.Gateman1997 04:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --as many have said it is important not to reward a "hoaxer" so that such activity is not encrouaged. There has already been enough attention to the matter to encourage further vandalism. Why encourage more? 129.15.203.74 04:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, why should we be giving people who harm the Wikipedia community the credit they are seeking? To allow such action would be inviting other vandals in to get their 15 min of fame!. Tawker 05:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. ??????????????* (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 20:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is an article about a vandal and we don't need to give them encouragement to corrupt other articles for their personal 1 minute of fame.--Dakota t e 07:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The guy is an irrelevant jerk and only the story, which is plentifully documented in other Wikipedia articles, is notable (and that only because the victim happened to have front page access to the MSM). 62.96.220.142 08:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the good-faith contributors on Wikipedia who work to make it better are more notable than a vandal. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (merge, no redirect) a notable vandal, notable only locally inwikipedia. Merge the content into the main article. mikka (t) 19:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Willy on Wheels and friends don't get articles and they have caused more trouble than he has. QuaQue? 15:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete before this ends up like the GNAA votes. Swirlix 16:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't believe all the keep votes. This is a WikiNews item masquerading as an encyclopedia article. It looks like this is going to be kept, but a year from now, if there is another AFD, he'll have been well past his 15 minutes of fame and it will be a slam-dunk consensus to delete. BlankVerse 14:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the article is inappropriate and I agree with the original poster.BenPhil 21:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we already have an article for this Ashibaka tock 01:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His only notability is as a Wikipedia editor, and Wikipedia editors should not have articles on their Wikipedia edits. Chick Bowen 06:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need for a separate article. --Ezeu 07:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN - agree with most of the above --rogerd 17:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge[edit]

Merge[edit]

I've changed my vote to include Redirect.Jam2k 10:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - If every two-bit Wikipedia vandal got an article written about them, we'd have a whole lot of articles... - Mark 07:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. His life is not that interesting aside from this singular act. I vote to merge it with the John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy. jasker
  • Merge into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Punishing the vandal's reputation should not be a factor here, we should follow the same criteria as for any other article. It is pretty clear that this bio is non-notable apart from the controversy. Dforest 08:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: cost of peace of mind for John Seigenthaler: one man's job. Damage done to free speech by free speech advocate: incalculable. Putting the whole hazerai in one place, and granting Brian Chase the mercy of relative anonymity: priceless. - Nunh-huh 08:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy --Zpb52 08:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. — JIP | Talk 09:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect --Pamri • Talk 09:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. — ciphergoth 09:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. -- SGBailey 09:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Nunh-huh. David Sneek 13:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy - deserves coverage in the main article but no, IMO, his own article. CLW 14:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. I've never seen so many people vote on one issue. I'd hate to be the one counting the votes! Davidpdx 15:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Larsinio 15:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per CharonX. I feel it would set a dangerous precedent if this article were left in the main article space, as it is both self-referential and a positive reward for hoaxing. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the article on the controversy. This article is basically the last part of that one. - David Gerard 17:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect; cut down on the self-referencing. Ral315 (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, and agree with feeling sorry for him. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) (From talk: Due to the size of the page, I cannot now edit it to add my vote... Could somebody please add this on my behalf. So signed by User:SusanLarson on his behalf.)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the contraversy article, not notable outside event.D-Rock 17:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, move the drummer back, and add a disambiguation notice for John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Austin Hair ? ? 20:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. A Minor player in a second rate event (Think about the event as if it had happened 5 years ago) 5 years from now noone will care. The event is part of history, so keep the event. But not the 3rd dwarf from the right. 213.235.192.21 20:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy with the usual redirect. --Macrakis 00:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • shorten to one sentence and merge. There's nothing encyclopedic to say about this guy which would warrant more than mentioning him in the parent article. Zocky 05:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. By itself not notable. Just more Wikipedia clutter. -Wiccan Quagga 20:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the most useful chunks of information with the Seigenthaler Controversy or put them wherever you see fit and then redirect. Apart from Mr Chase's involvement in this particular case, he's just your average Joe, so I see no point in dedicating him an entire article, and a boring one at that. --Schwallex 20:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Subject of article is seemingly non-notable outside of Siegenthaler issue. Partial players in larger events do not presumptively merit their own individual article. If Mr. Chase continues to act in the public eye this may change, but for the moment he fits squarely into the Siegenthaler controversy article. It would be repetitive to multicast his involvement into a second article. Redirection may be appropriate. -- Adrian 21:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -G Clark 22:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge we should not make a scapegoat out of this guy, after all he admitted to his "deeds". Mieciu K 23:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wikipedia Biography contreversy, there is no point of having some computer vandal article on Wikipedia. Firstly, having an article for a Wikipedia vandal will probably incite more vandals to follow his antics. Also, aside from sparking of his little prank, he is pretty much unnotable (and considering the amount of Wikipedia vandals, he is not so relevant considering other actions such as date changing and spurious biographies are NOT foreign to Wikipedia). However, considering the long reaching effect of this dude, one needs to merge it with the already crazy Wikipedia controversy article. No need to keep this guy around and give him an article likes he's a trophy. ??????????????* (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 02:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to main controversy page. He has no useful importance outside of the controversy. This kind of thing was bound to happen sooner or later due to the public's and media's misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the nature of Wikipedia and he just happened to be the first one that garnered media attention. Nightwalker 04:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Seigenthalergate and redirect. Jasmol 04:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the other article (as it has been dubbed, "Seigenthalergate")and redirect. --N410 04:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, as this is relevant to the situation. Otherwise, Move to a less deragotory page title. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the article on the controversy. I pity the admin who ends up closing this. --Carnildo 08:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to controversy article. If additional data needs to be added about this person, a separate article can be created later. -- Ze miguel 09:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Except for the media coverage caused directly by a single USA Today op-ed, this guy is the Wikipedia equivalent of Slashdot's Signal 11. (Who? Exactly.) -- Mpt 10:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 11:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect the fucking thing already. It's going to happen however the votes go. There's almost zero info in this article that's not already at the WP controversy article anyway. -R. fiend 15:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. The thing to keep in mind is that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so for any given entry we ought to ask, "Would this subject/person/thing merit his/her/its own entry in a regular encyclopedia?" In Mr. Chase's case, the answer is unquestionably "no." There should certainly be an entry for Seigenthalergate on here if for no other reason than to not erase history, but Chase himself is merely a part of that. Aaron 17:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. If all Brian Chase ever did/does is be noted for the hoax, he should be included on the page about the hoax, not have his own page. --JohnDBuell 17:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. French Tourist 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. --ConradKilroy 23:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge absolutely not worthy of his own entry, but an indispensable part of the current controversy cori(talk) 01:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Siegenthaler controversy article and redirect to that article, as others suggested. Massysett 01:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge For future, facts of case the should be found in one place , Zache (comment by 130.234.200.110 02:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge to either John Seigenthaler Sr. or John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. --cesarb 03:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy.-- GoodDay 20:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merege to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy and redirect there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep[edit]

  • Keep or Merge - he is well known b/c of what he did --209.222.54.242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.54.242 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect there. It is important, but the information is slim right now and it probably doesn't (yet) warrent its own article. Dark Nexus
  • Merge or Keep. If the Seigenthalergate is notable enough to keep, then this information is at least notable enough to be included on that page. Zacronos 18:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First edit.
  • Merge or Keep. This incident was notable, and should be preserved. Plus, it shows that Wikipedia can admit to its failings, instead of hiding them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.230.36 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep or Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy and redirect. Rogue 9 02:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeeporMerge'--User:Smerk
  • Keep or Merge' with some of the mentioned articles --Chester br 04:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. The information needs to be available. I'm not sure if we should be giving this joker free advertising but at the same time, this is important to the events in question. Moonsword 15:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect This entry is essential to preserving the credibility of Wikipedia. This whole situation demonstrates that a self-correcting entity like Wikipedia can be a reliable source for information and that it does have all the necessary safety measures built in for policing its content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.110.78.109 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, but definitely not delete. If anything, the amount of reactions on this VfD should demonstrate some demonstration of notability. The Minister of War (Peace) 20:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, but fdont delete. This man is now part of Wikipedia's history, hence he deserves a mention. Omoo 21:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it made the news, which it did... then keep. Sethie 16:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • keep or Merge . A quite importaint part of history of Wikipedia. Every good idea has its downsides and flaws , which need to be viewed in perspective ,and not hidden away. What most attracted me to wikipedia in 1st place was the whole idea of freedom of (reasoned) discussion and varied points of view of all types of issues.So to me the John Seigenthaler episode needs to be documented here. --Ludek9 01:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Merge or Keep I don't have much to say here, I've only barely ever contributed anything to the Wikipeida. But I think this info should definitely stay in, in some form or another. As others have said, this is an important part of Wikipedia's history. Anyway, I suspect it's important enough that even if you totally delete it, it'll just come back in some form anyway. There's nothing to stop someone from recreating the entry from a locally cached copy of the page, is there? PragmaticallyWyrd 21:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. It happened. It was relatively important. It is our duty to document it....

Keep[edit]

  • Keep. Siegenthaler has said he wanted accountability, and this is evidence that Wikipedia has a certain level of transparency and accountability. Further, this story made national news and will be a notable event in the history of this project. Since this guy got "rewarded" with losing his job and apologizing in person to Siegenthaler innhopes of avoiding litigation, I don't believe this is going to encourage others. Jokestress 16:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His actions and his confession are newsworthy events, and likely to be of interest for some time. Chris the speller 16:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - He is a notable player in an event that we have already decided to keep. --RayaruB 16:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure being outed and having other people write about you in a public forum is a "reward" for internet trolls like this. If anything, this is punishment. As the article mentions, this was covered in national media and is not just a big deal in the wiki community, so I think it's important enough to keep it. Besides, it smacks of fair comment. Guppy313 16:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Does no one else think that his details belong to the John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy article? It's not like this guy is Nick Leeson or anything. - Hahnchen 16:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think some of us have a higher opinion of Wikipedia than others do. A search on Google news comes up with a grand total of 20 hits for '"Brian Chase" wikipedia'. The "national media" seem to be greeting this with total silence. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Google query you have linked to now returns 115 hits. I suspect this number will increase significantly over the next few days as coverage continues. Hall Monitor 17:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • BBC -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Peripatetic 16:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The story has been covered by national media, and the wikipedia webpage is linked to by many websites. Somehow this has become encyclopedic material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; he's been mentioned in major media now, so he's notable, and also an article on him is useful to help keep him from being confused with the musician of the same name who's already got an article. *Dan T.* 16:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and declare person a Dick and the enemy of wikipedia for waisting our, John Seigenthaler Sr, CNNs time. Also declare him a Terrorist or something. Just find an excuse to make his life miserable. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've read the deletion policy, and it doesn't fit into any of the categories. Not an acceptable candidate for deletion. Baltikatroika 16:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on the above vote. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples." and "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" specifically -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 17:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    How can the guy who caused the whole thing be considered a minor branch of the subject? Soo 17:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Because we have a pretty comprehensive article on the topic already and this is at the most a subsection of that. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 17:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's fifth edit.
  • Keep or Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect. —BenFrantzDale 17:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Concealing information to prevent people imitating it? That's definitely the Wikipedia way! Soo 17:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. This a part of Wikipedia history, although it does require editing this person has become rather famous. User:Taylortbb 17:46, 11 December 2005
  • Keep. It's not about rewarding the guy. 1. It's about having a complete objective chronicle of something affects the Wikipedia. 2. The degree of notariety pretty much requires it. 3. If the whole deal wasn't about the Wikipedia, probably no one would have a problem with inclusion. Marcopolo 17:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We don't ignore news just because it happens to us. --BRIAN0918 17:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't merge. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 18:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is enough of a contributor to the Seigenthaler issue that there is no sense deleting the article but keeping the rest of the Seigenthaler silliness. Neilc 18:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We're keeping the Seigenthalergate page, why not this? -- 66.159.216.215 17:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If it is newsworthy, then it should stay in Wikipedia. (Bjorn Tipling 18:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep for now. Later on, merging or not merging should be condidered. WAS 4.250 18:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- JJay 18:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- SeanO 18:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- This is just an event of history, therefore it should be saved from deletion. Cosmotron 18:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    15th edit, only one to an article.
  • Keep. -- Perhaps this may be one day noted as the beginning of the end of a truly useful Wikipedia, when out of fear of hoaxing, user anonymity is sacrificed instead of finding a better solution to problems like this. It's the onus of the Wikipedia system to ensure the information is "maintained" as correct as possible, and the solution should not be to expose users (even abusers) like Chase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.27.39 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahh, the true sign of a Slashdot user: indentify the "incorrect solution" without making any effort to suggest an alternate solution. --BRIAN0918 19:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- Part of a fairly notable hoax. Like it or not, he has a lot of notoriety. Cacophony 19:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this hoax became significant when national newspapers started reporting on it and the guy lost his job over it. Bryan 19:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this hoax is national news, and involves the wiki. --brokenfrog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.234.26 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the complaints was lack of accountability, This shows that W is able to admit its errors and not hide it. Naelphin 20:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if telling this story creates copy-cats, it is still a valid topic for Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 20:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a notable part of Wikipedia history. --Groucho 20:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a part of Wikipedia history, like it or not. Should be linked from other pages abou this whole situation. --Ahbanks 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
  • Keep. The Seigenthaler article should not become a place for discussion of this issue, but should mention it. Also, the fact that this person lost their job as a result of this should be kept around as a warning to others. --Jon Thompson 15:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.220.214 (talk • contribs) 21:10, December 11, 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge This is an important fact / story in the history of wikipedia, and will be around in the internet consciousness forever, so it should be documented, though this incident could be described in an article about vandalism / hoaxes on wikipedia in general. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 66.245.212.72 (talk • contribs) 21:16, December 11, 2005
  • Keep or Merge --156.34.70.132 21:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and don't merge. This vote took some time and thought.
    1. The story attracted significant attention from prestigious news sources.
    2. People can become notable for a single destructive act.
    3. He lost his job over the incident. That hardly encourages imitation.
    4. If Wikipedia were not involved in the story I suspect we would vote to keep.
    5. Since Wikipedia is involved in the story we have particular reason to keep. Visitors could construe a deletion, merge, or redirect as a less than forthcoming response. Durova 21:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 216.164.193.81 21:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.I thought it was funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.8.146 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. People will wonder whatever happened to the guy who was instrumental to the editorial by Siegenthaler in USA today. It does have encyclopaedic value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.156.85.241 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep as a quick reference. Merging with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy would mean having to go through a long article. <KF> 23:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its against NPOV to not list something simply becaused they did a bad thing. Also I find this notable as it triggered the anon can't create new pages anymore thing. (wouldn't mind to much if it were merge, but prefer keep) Bawolff 23:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this information. Whether it should exist under this title or the controversy article is an organizational issue best left to the editing process, so merging is fine. Demi T/C 00:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
This is the users sole edit. I think we should disregard it (even though he's voting the way I did). (Bjorn Tipling 02:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep and merge the information into Seigenthalergate (Seigenthalergate could be a useful short name for this scandal). Try to make an example out of the vandal and what happened to him so that they'll be discouraged from fucking up Wikipedia. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And it doesn't hurt that it pisses the guy off, he's an asshole.
This is an anonymous vote (and he's uncivil), I say disregard (even though again he voted the way I did. :( )(Bjorn Tipling 02:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. He is way above the bar we commonly set for notability. I'm not saying that the events are equivalent in importance, but we have an article for the driver who told Rosa Parks to give up her seat, because his action precipitated a notable event. Only merge and redirect if a new norm is being created, so I can make redirects out of the stubs of minor TV characters I keep running into. - BanyanTree 02:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's important on its own as part of Wikipedia's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.151.246.150 (talk • contribs) 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This story has generated more press than most of what passes AfD on Wikipedia. wikipediatrix 03:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created it as Brian Chase (Wikipedia prankster) last night because I thought he was encyclopedic (If Nick Leeson can get into Wikipedia for one screwup with major consequences, I think Chase belongs). It got turned into a redirect. Whatever. I also think this might deter non-vandalism–oriented jokes here by making sure this is what they get out of their 15 minutes. And, in that vein, I propose a new category: People who must never be allowed on Wikipedia again. (Just kidding). Daniel Case 03:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's not give this guy too much credit. Leeson, after a period of fraud and over $1bn in losses, caused the collapse of Barings Bank, rocked the financial markets and put 100s out of work. So far Chase is the only person to lose his job over this, and I doubt that Rogue Vandal is in the works with Robert Redford as Siegenthaler and Ewan McGregor as Chase. -- JJay 15:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • COMMENT Yeah, but it looks like he's just kicked off the largest, most active deletion vote in the history of Wikipedia (Does anyone keep these records? Has any deletion vote ever drawn this many users, even factoring out sock puppets?) That in itself confers notablility.
      • How about a compromise that would deter vandals alright ... Keep the article on Wikipedia; Delete the subject from reality (Joke! Joke! Joke!). Daniel Case 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. looking through the votes I think that User:Locke Cole nailed it; the story might not be finished playing out yet. If a few weeks go by and nothing new happens, it would be reasonable then to merge with the main controversy article. Antandrus (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If Osama Bin Laden can be noteworthy then this guy should also be noteworthy. 220.233.48.200 05:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've heard of so many wikiers bash on the mainstream media and encyclopedia writers by saying they cover up their own misdeeds and embarassments. Well, Brian Chase is an embarassment to the Wikipedia...and wouldn't you know, the citizen reference writers are trying to cover it up. "The more things change, the more they remain the same..." 24.2.49.140 05:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would say any and all factual statements belong in Wikipedia. If what was written about Brian Chase is true, and is presented from a neutral viewpoint, then it stays. User:Georgeccampbell
  • Keep - Newsworthy, and the name may go down in net history/parlance as a prominent example of a particular web phenomenon. Do delete the next 225 trolls who try to achieve notoriety in the same way. edgarde 05:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable, in my opinion. Plus his reputation needs to be punished. -- Natalinasmpf 06:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's the first big hoax for Wikipedia, and one of the 'turning points' for the Internet.
  • Keep. Wikipedia's reputation suffered because of the actions of Brian Chase.
    • So? Everytime a twelve year old puts a penis in George W. Bush makes Wikipedia's reputation suffer (provided someone sees it, of course).--Sean|Black 08:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be fair, the major difference in this case is that the vandalised article in question received worldwide press coverage, resulting in a major policy change on Wikipedia (only registered users may create new pages), the resignation of the vandal from their place of employment, and follow-up news coverage focused on the person personally responsible for the vandalism. If Willy on Wheels were to receive this type of coverage, he/she/they would warrant a Wikipedia article as well. Hall Monitor 17:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although it is unfortunate there are so many, erm, strange votes here. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --TheGrza 08:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable? Check. Enyclopedic? Check. Nothing else to be said. Johnleemk | Talk 08:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To not do so would be like never outing the author of Primary Colors.
    • Comment Non-sequitur. The Joe Klein article contains information that is otherwise notable. This article doesn't. Dforest 09:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A very important character in Seigenthaler saga. --Jannex 10:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't quite understand the arguments for merging, he is significant and, as such, merits an article. Themindset 10:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 10:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP maybe even photoshop his asss on a galow, or in front o a fireingsquad. - anyway this must be remebered as danger to a world of free speach - I hope this guy loses more than just his job, - i shure as hell wouldn't want him as my son.-- 11:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, newsworthy stuff. --Sindri 11:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep newsworthy ? UkPaolo/TALK? 12:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the nominator used a non-word. Kurt Weber 12:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it's good enough for the BBC [37] it's good enough for an article. Also, it's an important cautionary tale for all Wikipedians. Lee M 12:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Completely agree with previous comment - read about this man on BBC news and want to know who he is Mattmm 12:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Totally agree with the accountability argument Jbarfield 13:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just about notable, though I am uncomfortable about giving such "recognition" to vandals/dispensers of misinformation. Plus I have a strange feeling Seigenthaler wouldn't be too fond of an article on Brian Chase being merged into an article about him ;-) SoLando (Talk) 13:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I voted to delete the Seigenthaler controversy article, and now I think I was wrong about that. It seems to getting a lot more attention than I thought. I was worried about having an excessive focus on things that happen to us, a different standard of notability, or skewed perception...but now I'm pretty sure that article is worth having. So, when I look at this article on Brian Chase, my first reaction is to think it should be merged/redirected, and anything worth saying can go in that controversy article. But, I figure I ought to learn a lesson and err on the side of a keep vote, because if you're in doubt a keep vote is usually the way to go. I think on the article talk page it might be a good idea to discuss merging there, though, and let the editors who are interested in the subject make a decision about that. I think in an uncertain case it's a good idea to put down a vote for keeping it, but also urge interested editors on the talk page to look at it more deeply and make an eventual decision about whether to merge it or keep it independent. A keep vote doesn't necessarily have to contradict eventual merging; I would expect interested editors in the future to make a better decision than me. It just means "keep pending talk page review". Everyking 14:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a side note, I also want to say I feel really sorry for the guy. Vandalism and deliberate inaccuracy can't be tolerated, but it should be dealt with quietly here on Wikipedia, not through all this press coverage. He shouldn't have to suffer in his real life for this, just because Seigenthaler wanted to blow it up out of proportion to serve his idea that Wikipedia is dangerous, or whatever it is he thinks. But anyway. Everyking 14:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I happen to know Seigenthaler through professsional ties. He is an honorable man and I think his airing of this editing issue is valid. It is just as valid for us to publicize the person who dishonored him. Not for retribution, but for accuracy. Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke and other infamous journalists of the past, for example, should be remembered as the scoundrels they were just as accurately as we remember the heroes. Kazari 14:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chase ignited an international controversy and sparked some fairly important debate on the nature of Wikipedia by his ill-considered actions, which I think makes him notable enough to have his own entry.--Chuckhoffmann 15:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily meets and exceeds the bar of WP:BIO. Silensor 15:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To do anything else but keep this article would be the same as a cover-up!!! Some users should also be careful what they say about people outside of the article sites as well such as Rfiend who seems to libel people at the drop of a hat! Dwain 16:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP- very notable Astrotrain 16:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- He's now made so many newspapers that he hit the top of the news.google.com page. Even if he never does anything else newsworthy in his life, he's earned himself a spot in the encyclopedia. --Mareino 17:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Removing such a noteworthy event in Wikipedia's history would mar it's reputation, similar to a cover up. I would suggest this be kept as a learning experience to make this tool better.--Britsda 17:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and then discuss what to do with the content (merge or keep seperate) once the media publicity blitz dies down. Hall Monitor 17:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This man was just mentioned on a BBC Radio 4 news programme. If the BBC considers him notable, so do I. Dmn 17:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But he's only notable for this hoax. Most of the info already exists in or could be easily integrated into the controversy article. Unless he becomes notable for something additional, I don't see a compelling reason to have a separate article for him. MeekSaffron 17:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being "mentioned" in a news programme does not equal notability. I bet thousands of people are mentioned by the BBC in its news programmes. JoaoRicardo talk 06:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or if we must merge into the Siegenthaler subarticle.  ALKIVAR™ 18:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - up for deletion? What gives? Merge is also possible, as there's not much here just now, but the story's not over yet. And what would a deletion look like to the outside world? --Plumbago 18:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An important event that may shape Wikipedia policy for years to come. A man who has changed the way people look at Wikipedia in a major way. There are many other less important articles about more minor people. This could easily be something people care about 5 years from now.160.36.121.50 21:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Part of Wikipedia history. --Neverborn 21:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please erasing this does not make any sense Yuckfoo 04:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete this article, because this 'accident' was in the media so hard. --Johannes Buchner
  • Keep. Merge, modify, edit, whatever...but KEEP because this topic may (or then again it may not) help Wikipedia deter real vandals. Then there's its historic significance too.,,,,,Ariele 19:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not quite generic enough to be merged into the main article, and why get rid of part of the site's history? Imdwalrus 20:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP. It is notable, and guess what... being caught, losing your job, feeling the need to apologize doesn't exactly encourage one to vandalize Wikipedia. Misguided AFD. - RoyBoy 800 21:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is now (unfortunately) an historical event in the world of the internet. Wikipedia may be the biggest and best wiki, but it isn't the only one. As we progress in time and technology, wiki's will play a bigger part in people's lives. Documenting what is the first national furor over a wiki's vandalism is pertinent information for future generations. Jaileer 21:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. obviously. The fact that a gazillion people have voted here is testament to it's popularity. Anybody who wants to delete is denying their own reasons for coming to this page in the first place. There are better candidates for deletion out there that nobody cares about. "do we really want to reward and encourage more activity like this by giving it additional notoriety?" Huh? While we're at it, let's delete Hitler's entry, too. Malnova 22:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -This gained considerable coverage on various cable news channels, and a big controversy within Wikipedia --BrenDJ 22:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep JH 128.214.200.202 22:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable because he is part of what led to WP removing abilities from anon users. nae'blis (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least Merge and redirect if the article don't grow three kb --Marc Lacoste 22:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is illustrative information highly relevant to the discussion of the viability of the wikipedia concept proper. 84.167.142.65 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is now a part of Wiki history and shows the own honesty and power to document facts of interest in a neutral manner. See the german article of the Spiegel Kt66 23:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Wookieepedian 23:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 23:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Stbalbach 00:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.124.137.87 (talk • contribs) 01:02, December 13, 2005
  • Strong Keep - His existance and relevance are proven by his already being here, deleting him would be attempting to alter historical purity. laurens.whipple 02:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra Strong Keep - Exercising total and complete honesty is done by keeping things level, balanced and fair -- especially with things that might reflect negativly upon the place hosting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.67.59 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep. The libelous Siegenthaler edit is a big story, as shown by the national news coverage given to the identification of this hoaxster. I believe there will be interest in this controversy's two main participants as long as there's interest in Wikipedia. Rcade 04:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because he's notable enough to warrant his own page. The fact is, his identity and name have widely reported. As a result, he's not just another vandal, I'm surprised that some people don't appear to understand this. Whether or not it will encourage other vandals is irrelevant. We should not hide an article just because it may encourage vandalism. The widespread reporting is far more likely to encourage further vandals anyway. Merge with redirect is acceptable but not preferble. He's now notable enough for his own article... Nil Einne 04:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Ratclaw 04:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I only found this page thanks to Yahoo. I think that's notable and newsworthy enough to warrant it staying. --Beau99|talk 04:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mr. Brian Chase is an honourable and upstanding citizen of the United States. By deleting his entry Wikipedia risks damaging its reputations further for "covering-up". 129.97.252.63 04:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. "'I'm glad this aspect of it is over,' Seigenthaler, 78, said. But he expressed concern that 'every biography on Wikipedia is going to be hit by this stuff - think what they'd do to Tom DeLay and Hillary Clinton, to mention two. My fear is that we're going to get government regulation of the Internet as a result.'" (source: Yahoo! News -- "Author Apologizes for Fake Wikipedia Entry" http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051212/tc_usatoday/authorapologizesforfakewikipediabiography) Brian Chase is a key player in an event that could bring about consequences for all of us. For the simple fact that there's national debate about government regulation of the internet, it defies logic to say that Brian Chase is not noteworthy. He's part of the reason there's national debate to begin with, and while he may not be the person who has sparked said debate (Siegenthaler gets credit for that, with the article he wrote in USA Today), there wouldn't be any debate, had he not done what he did. Everyone knows what caused the World Wars, everyone knows what lead up to Roe v. Wade and to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, everyone knows about the draft during Vietnam, and everyone should know about what Brian Chase did. To play any kind of role in bringing about such debate that could lead to a landmark decision, especially one that deals with privacy laws, freedom of speech, and a whole slew of other issues, is definitely noteworthy. --Putainsdetoiles 04:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its important to our history....as is this....clean it and leave it. not all past is bright. learn, keep it, cleanit, and move on--Alex 05:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep there are tons and tons of random people listed in wikipedia, and this guy has made national news. i agree that wikipedia should not become a blog, but brian chase has shown a hole in the screening process of posts on wikipedia, he has significance in illustrating the great freedom of the internet. i suggest that wikipedia screens people's entries and notes whether or not an article has been verified.
  • Strong Keep Notable person in the realm of world wide web free speech. --DuKot 05:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Or at the very least Merge. Chase has now become news, and deleting him so rapidly makes us look like CBS killing the 60 Minutes tobacco story. Transparency is key here. Sleeper99999 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he had made himself notable enough abakharev 06:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's become part of wikipedia's history, international media reported on it, he is part of the historical event. dr who 07:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even german "der spiegel" is refering to that article [38] --Superbass 07:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vandal or not, he's now one of the top ten names associated with Wikipedia in the English language media. Vincent 09:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is important for people to know that vandalism will not be tollerated or go unnoticed--SethG 09:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there will be more of them and a category of wiki spam, defacers and hoaxers. Just wait till april 1 comes round. we'd better be ready and ahve responses for the public.
  • Keep interesting thing in the histoy of wiki 13.00, 13 December 2005
  • Keep a good example of how anti-Wikipedia trolls may ruin your career.  Grue  14:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. He's a major figure in Wikipedia history, and he will serve as a precendent for inevitable future controversy. Avengerx 14:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If someone want to know about the issue, they go to the issue article. If they want to know about the involved people, they go to the involved people's article. (unsigned comment by Algumacoisaqq 18:02 13 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep Don't rewrite history just because you don't like it. --Geverend 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. (Or, at the very least, merge.) Most vandals don't make headline news — this one has. jareha 19:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The media attention this has gotten make this person noteable, although most wikipedia vandals are not. DES (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like it or not, this whole affair is a genuine news event. CarbonCopy 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Notable enough to have hits on Yahoo News coming up when a search for Wikipedia is done. Cobra22:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP this is seen on major news sites now, and should be kept, even google turns up these results (unsigned comment by Broodwars20850 22:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)) (dated by poster as "12.13.2005 17:48 EST")[reply]
  • Strong Keep. If someone is famous enough to be all over the newspapers and on the media then he is by definition notable and worthy of an article. The fact WP deems it necessary to vote on whether someone in the media for an infamous scam on a major internet site is notable just highlights the weaknesses and lack of logic that is bedevilling WP. IMHO keeping this article is a "no brainer". Deleting it would be unencylopćdic and just make WP look as though it was deleting it to cover up the scandal. I can hardly think of a more stupid tactic in terms of news management. As they say in the media business, you'd only give the story "more legs". FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! this is a vital piece of wiki history! (unigned comment by 131.212.42.164 01:29, 14 December 2005
  • Strong Keep. If he is noteworthy enough to appear in newsmedia worldwide, he is noteworthy enough for an entry. The huge amount of traffic to this VfD page shows how much interest it is generating. To delete this guy's story as "punishment" is incredibly POV, and is tantamount to a whitewashed rewrite of Wikipedia's history. TheDewi 01:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a part of our history. Paul, in Saudi 15:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep simply put, it is not a vanity page. CastAStone 03:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This whole story has been made important by other media. 10, 20, 50 years from now, what happens with wiki, blogs, and other Internet media, we have no way to predict, but like it or not, this story may become important to the history of the wiki.MutantJedi 05:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this a lesson that somebody somewhere could learn from. Sweetfreek 08:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with as much information as possible about what happens to this guy because of what he did. And he should be banned from editing for life. Let this serve as an example to vandals: This is what kind of damage you can do to someone else, and this (loss of job, loss of privileges, loss of credibility; and you can be tracked down!) is what can happen to you! Jersey_Jim 12:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- this is an "encyclopedia" article. BCorr|Брайен 15:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This guy gave himself up, it was in newspapers... Wikipedia stands only to gain by showing the consequences of vandalizing articles. --Howrealisreal 15:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting it may be perceived as trying to sweep the matter under the rug. Under no circumstances can we give that impression. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and delist from AFD immediately. You'll have to excuse my sweetheart, she's a terrible, terrible judge of character. —RaD Man (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
users 8138th edit.
  • Keep: --ST ○ 04:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Though Brian Chase made a joke out of Wikipedia's expense, he has certainly passed the notability test(though more in terms of notority). In addition, since many news articles talk about the incidient, it is verifiable. Thus, no matter what our opinion is of him, the article should be kept. --Hurricane111 05:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. With this incident cause for some people to call for the boycotting of Wikipedia, and as widely covered in the news as it was, I believe that this article is certainly noteworthy. However, consider renaming. Not only is the qualifier "(Wikipedia hoaxer)" bulky and unwieldy, it also states in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people): "Several general and specific guidelines further specify that article names preferably... 3. are not insulting..." --Mark Yen 06:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Participant in a notable incident. --DrTorstenHenning 10:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is critical that this information be kept, especially now while so many people are looking for information about this issue. This is important accountability on the part of Wikipedia and demonstrates critical fairness that Wikipedia is able to not only post information about others, but willing to discuss/address the shortcomings of its platform and user base. Removing this post will only further undermine Wikipedia's credibility and I urge you to not do it. In a compendium of tens or hundreds of thousands of topics, leaving this one additional page surely won't hurt anything and can only help. --Fhoenix Fan 15:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. 199.46.198.237 16:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now. Perhaps, bring it up for AFD at a later time when the controversy has cooled off. ---Aude 17:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps merge later when things die down.--Aleron235 20:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of the wrongness of what he did his actions have had a huge impact, making wikipedia high profile for the 1st time ever, and thus he is entirely nottable enough to be here, SqueakBox 00:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other[edit]

  • Keep for now to see where this story goes, but if this article isn't expandable beyond the hoax info, Merge. —Locke Cole 19:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • TATTOO TO JIMBO WALES' FOREHEAD. Why? Why not. Really, the arguments here are quite amusing, not unlike those squeaky toys you get out of a vending machine, but like such toys, you quickly realize there's hundreds of them, they're pretty much the same, and they're all worth about a quarter. By the way, this is a keep or merge. --Jscott 19:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy freaking cow, that's a lot of RfD responses! I think I'll just pass... :) — RJH 15:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge the information into Seigenthalergate. I want to see the day that wikipedia is so exhaustive in scope that it contains every man, woman, and child. Also pets. JeffWaxman 04:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely no idea where to vote... this thing is crazy. Wikipedia is not self-referential, and this doesn't pass notability standards. Delete forever. Mention his name in the other article, but none of this is really worth having. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Undecided There are many good arguments on both sides of this debate, and it will be weeks or months before the dust settles and cooler heads can make an informed decision on the merits. Meanwhile, the article should be kept right where it is so that the many people following the many external links to it will know exactly where to find it. //NetEsq 20:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hehe. While I've given my vote above, I'm not violently opposed to the alternatives. Especially the tattoo option. However, I don't understand why merge & redirect is bad for those opposed to it, since currently 99% of the information in Brian Chase is contained in the other article as well, as I mentioned on this Afd's discussion page. --MeekSaffron (Jaffa,Tree!) 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I feel sorry for the poor sap who has to count the votes on this thing.
  • Try to start a national controversy about this vote page so that a Wikipedia Votes for Deletion for Brian Chase (hoaxer) controversy article is necessary. But seriously, I find myself profoundly unable to care about this matter. Once we're at the point of having a passionately contested, in-depth, 30-page debate about a three-paragraph stub, it's clear that Wikipedia loses either way. The process has eaten the encyclopedia. There's plenty of reason to delete this article (it's redundant to other articles and the figure probably won't be noteworthy enough for an article once we've given the events some perspective), and then there's reason to keep it (might as well leave up an article until there's more space between the present and the events, since it's easier to delete an article later than to recreate it later after it's been deleted, and lets people work to improve the article in question in the meantime), and somehow I don't see how it makes the slightest difference to the future of mankind either way. Yeesh. -Silence 09:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unsigned and anonymous votes (a small selection of the total)
  • Keep A vote for keeping it. :)
  • Keep Keep it, it shows honesty and the ability to learn for wikipedia. TimmBauten 12.12.2005, 18:50 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.75.98.242 (talk • contribs) 17:48, December 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep it for the people who'll read wikipedia in 500 years!
  • KEEP Keep it, as a warning for all in the future, that even a hoax can be damageable and disrespectfull. This also shows the flaws of Wikipedia and should be remembered as one of the firsts (if so.) Monday, 12.12.2005 17:32
  • Keep Keep this article as a self-corrective to Wikipedia and warning to future hoaxers. Wikipedia cannot claim to be a reliable source of information unless it opens itself up to self-scrutiny. Kemet 12 Dec 2005
  • Keep. It is significant enough to reference in John Seigenthaler's biography. Should that reference be deleted as well?
    Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mark as a hoax, or preferably put into a hoax Wiki entry. This has become a part of Wikipedia History and needs to be preserved in a way that acknowledges that fact.
    Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I went here to look up info on the guy as soon as I saw the report. This has historical context for the wiki project.
    Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He messed with Wikipedia, he deserves his infamy. "Revenge is a dish best served cold".
    Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's interesting to read.
    Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Diet Coke. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diet Coke flavors[edit]

Everything here is in Diet Coke, and it's been on requests for expansion for a few months now. Delete. More info can be put into the subsection on flavors at the main article. karmafist 16:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems like a valid topic and main article is too long, I think, to expand info on flavours. Furthermore, as the article was created only five weeks ago, I don't see how it has been on requests for expansion for a few months. A quick google check shows that there is a ton of info that could be added to this-- JJay 19:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Excuse me, month, not months. My mistake. It's been on there since November 3rd. karmafist 04:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem. -- JJay 04:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Diet Coke. The main article has not reached critical size yet, and seems far from it to me. JoaoRicardo 20:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Diet Coke. If there is enough content to justify separate articles, create them then. Daniel Case 03:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Just a note, it's already been merged into Diet Coke for all intents and purposes, there's nothing at Diet Coke that isn't also at this article. karmafist 03:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge completed? Duplicate article? It's REDIRECT TIME! - Saberwyn - 08:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect as per karmafist and Saberwyn. D-Rock 17:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect is in place. Closing AfD. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:23, 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. DES (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shmekel[edit]

Nonesense Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:16, 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 Speedy deleted as nonsense/attack page - Lucky 6.9 17:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Randy agadi[edit]

Nonesense Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which means it's a speedy. Bye, Randy. - Lucky 6.9 17:19, 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 12:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HTML codes (&gt; and &lt;)[edit]

The two pages &gt; and &lt; can't be linked to - typing [[&gt;]] renders as [[>]] with no link - and they don't turn up in a search either. The information in the articles is in the XML article, and these pages are therefore unneeded on their own, and won't serve as redirects either. sjorford (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep disambigs are cheap, and I came across the page, so it's reasonable to think that others might too -- that's why I created them. I don't see any reason to delete them. --Quasipalm 17:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But from what I can tell the only way you can get to those pages (and the way you created them) is by directly typing in the URLs. Normally I would have turned a page like this into a redirect, but having unlinkable titles like this is a Bad Thing, because it makes them unmaintainable. sjorford (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's unmaintainable about them? --Quasipalm 21:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notice on the articles is erroneous. These are not disambiguation articles. Uncle G 19:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if nothing else. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Already sufficiently described on List_of_XML_and_HTML_character_entity_references ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but the point is that if someone didn't understand what the code means to beging with, they would look it up. They wouldn't know to go to that list. How does a user get from this code to that page without finding a first link on the chain, so to speak? --Quasipalm 23:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As a matter of fact, they can be linked to like this: [[&gt;]], [[&lt;]]. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect each to List_of_XML_and_HTML_character_entity_references. These articles are the equivalent of dicdefs. -- JLaTondre 03:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; having pages with invalid titles like this can break various database maintenance tools — in short, in this case, maintaining these marginal titles, even as redirects, is not "cheap." --Russ Blau (talk) 13:55, 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. Owen× ☎ 00:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative views on Arabic numerals[edit]

POV fork Bachrach44 17:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree; even though I created the original page (which has been replaced with the wrong content by the user who keeps adding the content I had here back into Arabic numerals.) I moved the information to this article because it did not belong in the other article (which is only about the numeral system) and was looking for a way to help resolve the dispute. Go ahead and delete though. Please. Peyna 17:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I already speedied it once, right after Peyna created it, and offered to undelete it and list it on AfD if he thought it necessary. He didn't, but the users involved in the edit war used the red link to put the version of the article they dislike under the "alternative" name. Zocky 20:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all forks (but not fork) -- Cyrius|✎ 23:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. Could possibly by speedied (deletion requested by author, recreation of deleted content), but I guess it does not harm to let the AfD take its course. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This dispute can be resolved without cutlery. NatusRoma 18:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The editor who created the article had removed the VfD banner. I just put it back. deeptrivia (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Gurubrahma 09:44, 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 keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity (Marvel Comics)[edit]

Nonsense, probably original research, orphan article Mecanismo | Talk 18:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is a real character, and is mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia (eg. in Eternity (comics) and Galactus). It is only orphaned for lack of wikilinks. However, it does seem, on my superficial search, that this character is only mentioned in the comics en passant and does not really appear anywhere. If such is the case, it should be merged into Eternity (comics). But this should be determined by someone more knowledgeable. JoaoRicardo 20:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a good stub, it looks like there's just not enough canon information on the character yet to expand it beyond a stub. (I've improved it a bit.) -- stillnotelf has a talk page 21:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as he is a real Marvel character. Carioca 00:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Noms, please check before nominating. -- JJay 22:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • JJay, please do some research before you cast your vote. In this case, I direct your attention to the article's version before my submittion. --Mecanismo | Talk 23:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may have acted in good faith. But I think you could have confirmed it yourself. The link to Marvel Comics was there. -- JJay 23:23, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 18:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The history of Nintendo[edit]

This is already covered in Nintendo -- LogicX 18:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)<br\> And apparently this was just taken care of through a speedy redirect request I submitted -- and was turned into a redirect. -- LogicX 18:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This seems a good faith article. I made it into a redirect to Nintendo but the original author reverted me. Georgia guy then made the redirect to History of Nintendo. I have left a message for the original author to edit Nintendo or, if he thinks it should be splitted, do it the proper way. Maybe we should wait a little. JoaoRicardo 20:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the topic is covered in great detail within Nintendo. Eddie.willers 21:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So what now? Is this nomination "inherited" by the moved page? It doesn't have an AfD tag now. JoaoRicardo 14:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added it and made a redirect to this AfD page. Delete for being completely redundant. --Apostrophe 02:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the reasons stated above, since the author has not answered my messages. JoaoRicardo talk 06:32, 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. -Splashtalk 00:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meneguar[edit]

Band isn't listed in allmusic guide, article is less than a stub and orphan, band's site is hosted in angelfire. It all screams of non-notoriety and vanity. Mecanismo | Talk 18:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable and non-WP:MUSIC. Google gets plenty of hits, but a lot of it seems to be them going from site to site drumming up buzz for their single. Mo0[talk] 20:47, 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. Owen× ☎ 00:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Itsez.org[edit]

Article for a political blog. No claim to notability, no Alexa ranking, itsez.org gets 1 Google hit, itsez gets about 2700 Google hits, but most seem to refer to other things. No mention in Google news of either. JoaoRicardo 18:36, 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× ☎ 00:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin on fanfiction.net[edit]

A looooong (100kb long to be more precise) list of fanfiction comic strips featuring Calvin and Hobbes on a specific website. I'm not sure if it can be speedied, so I'm listing it here. JoaoRicardo 19:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userify ?? Clearly not notable, so if not, delete? ++Lar 19:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What the hell is this anyway? --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or possibly speedy delete, as someone having fun with their copy-paste button. Mo0[talk] 20:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedily if possible. If someone wanted to know what Calvin and Hobbes fan fiction is available on fanfiction.net, they would look on fanfiction.net, not on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 02:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh. Delete and salt the earth. A misuse of Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cruftier than a crufty thing. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This entire page could be replaced by adding the sentence "Fanfiction.net has derivative works about Calvin & Hobbes" to the C&H main page. --Mareino 23:13, 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; merging and deleting impractical due to legal and practical considerations. Johnleemk | Talk 18:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The SportSCentre[edit]

No serious claims of notability ("the best sports column this side of the Pecos" is a little POV, shall we say?). Image:SportscentrePic.jpg suggests that this may be a vanity article. Delete CLW 19:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because the stench of POV can be smelt all the way up here in Canada. Croat Canuck 02:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. -- JJay 22:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with what? CLW 22:49, 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 as previously deleted material. Mo0[talk] 20:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonabyte[edit]

What is this term?? Is it a real word?? Come on! It's only 2005 and no Internet site reveals "nona" is an official SI prefix. Georgia guy 19:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. SI prefix shows this is a proposed extension, which has not been aproved yet - and may never be. If and when this becomes official, it should be included in the appropriate table at SI prefix. Right now it does not deserve an article. For what it's worth, it gets 2,000 Google hits, while yottabyte, for the sake of comparison, gets 35,000. JoaoRicardo 19:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notice too that the article on SI prefixes does not say who exactly proposed it. It could be a formal proposal in a queue for consideration somewhere, or it could be some random person suggesting it in a blog...
  • Speedied as re-creation of material previously voted for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC). Now I have to see whether doggabyte has been re-created, too. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't at the moment find the VfD discussion, but the deletion log shows:
13:11, 13 Mar 2004 Tannin deleted "Talk:Doggabyte" (per VFD)
13:10, 13 Mar 2004 Tannin deleted "Talk:Nonabyte"
13:10, 13 Mar 2004 Tannin deleted "Doggabyte" (per VFD)
13:10, 13 Mar 2004 Tannin deleted "Nonabyte" (per VFD)
The VfD discussions to the best of my recollection centered not around the specific content of the article but around the fact that the words themselves were not verifiable as being in real use or as having been defined by any authority. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:13, 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 TRANSWIKI to Wikisource and DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark angel (poem)[edit]

Nothing more than a text-dump of the poem itself. No history, no analysis, nothing. I'm sure that a decent article could possibly be written by someone who's interested, and will happily withdraw this nomination if that happens. Saberwyn - 19:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. If this article is suitable for a transwiki to Wikisource, I will also support that. Saberwyn - 19:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Would the poem possibly be copywrited? Saberwyn -19:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No: the author, Lionel Johnson, died in 1902. Tearlach 20:17, 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. -Splashtalk 00:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1888store.com[edit]

Clearly a non-notable website. I removed some grandiose, POV, and false/unverifiable claims, which you can see in the history. Superm401 | Talk 19:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I added the verify tag about a week ago because the article claimed (without a source) the company had inspired Google's Froogle [39]. That version also said the company had been praised by Forbes Magazine. Have you disproved any of those claims? Just wondering, and thought the existance of that version should be pointed out here. --W.marsh 20:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete love the stub :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:17, 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. Owen× ☎ 00:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Midura[edit]

His claim to notability seems to be his "#1 Rated Website" about shark attacks in New Jersey. But alas, Alexa has not heard of it yet, and Google has only 400 hits. No Google news either. JoaoRicardo 19:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — RJH 15:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • SAVE!!!
What? Whois marking this article (about) 'Matty Midura' for deletion above?? I am Matty Midura actually - and I have 'no problem' with it, as presented by anonymous user as it appears, and from another 'identical post' from Candice666 found via 'User Talk' or something. I found 'both' accidentally, while researching my name (i.e. Matty Midura) within this upstart publication.

Moreover! Just who-n-f#ck is this 'spic' (JoaoRetardo) anyway?? He/she, is going to question "how my sites are listed" in search engines??? The same goes for the 'dork' (RJH) below the Ist. asshole! I will provide a 'link/photo' of how one of my sites (i.e. New Jersey Shark Attacks) was/are ranked by Google (previously #1) and by Yahoo below here - if it's permissible. I am a 'new user' here, not yet up to speed with the format and rules of this publication! The same sentiments apply to the 'dork' below the Ist. asshole!

Lastingly! I must admit, I am flattered that someone posted an article about me in Wikipedia. I originally thought that the publication 'searched the web' or, by other means (i.e. Public Records etc.) for info posted. Obviously, it was 'other means' but, that of the public at large! I'm into that, as long as the info is not intrusive or defamatory! In my '8 years' on the Web, I've seen it all. But I am 'curious' as to how the poster (i.e. Candice666), or anyone for that matter, could possibly discern or otherwise: "that I did not graduate from LaSalle U, and not return to complete the exams!" The university would never divulge that kind of information - about the exams specifically, and/or whether I choose to re-test or decline to do so on record!..
IMAGES ABOUT #1 RATED SHARK ATTACK SITE
Google

File:Top-Ranked-Shark-Site.gif
Top Ranked Google

Yahoo

File:Number-1-rated-shark-site-61205.jpg
Top Ranked Yahoo
Above added by Mattymidura (talk · contribs). JoaoRicardo 18:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is not being discussed wether Matty Midura exists, or wether he approves of the article, or wether the article was created by himself or some admirer. What is being discussed is Matty Midura's notability. If you think Midura has done something that makes him worth of being on Wikipedia, please show it here. Ranking 1st on a Google search is not convincing evidence, since any site can show 1st on Google if the search is worded with that intention in mind. And please do not remove votes from this message. This accomplishes nothing and will most likely get you blocked for violating Wikipedia policies. Thank you. JoaoRicardo 18:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable.--Dakota t e 16:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN-bio. Only 76 unique Google hits for "Matty Midura". That his homepage is on Geocities doesn't help matters. Not only that, but he's a jerk (not that that's a criteria for deletion, but I'm not going to do him any favors). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - NN possibly vanity. Breaches of WP:NPA or WP:-( don't help matters at all. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 19:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --pgk(talk) 19:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, incomprehensible nonnotable bio. And since I'm such a nice guy, I'm just putting this thing here to get insulted. Baah! Nobody insults me! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:54, 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 redirect to Infinity (album). Please note that once you merged it, you could have just redirected it yourself. There was no need to bring this to AfD. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel In The Sky[edit]

Merge into Infinity (album) completed. Article does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria for song articles. Klaw ¡digame! 20:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. B.Wind 02:29, 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 speedy delete as per consensus. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Catholic Rebels[edit]

This page is patent nonsense. If I had to guess, I'd say it was joke written by someone from Scotland. Please delete. If it needs to be said, there was no, "Earl Patrick Flanagan" or "Irish Catholic Rebels" or even a Belfast quay in 1641. Complete garbage. Jdorney 14:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, vanity/not verifiable Demiurge 18:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • this article is not complete rubbish. i liv ein the west of scotland and have witnessed first hand the atrocities carried out by the ICR. It is an insult to the memories of the victims of these atrocities. J Dorney disgusts me. D McFadden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.219.135 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC) (copied from talk page. it's this IP's first edit. --Perfecto)[reply]
    • Wait! If the ICR did the atrocities (the ICR harmed people), then how can the ICR article (or it being valid or its deletion) be an insult to the memories of these victims? That makes no sense! -- Perfecto 19:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have warned User:Picr to provide sources two days ago. Picr paid no attention. Delete this vandalism. -- Perfecto 18:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • An IRA splinter in 1642? Damn prescient of them. Delete unless someone surprises me with sources. Shimgray | talk | 19:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • An apparent comment by an anon on the nomination's talk page (I did not write this): this article is not complete rubbish. i liv ein the west of scotland and have witnessed first hand the atrocities carried out by the ICR. It is an insult to the memories of the victims of these atrocities. J Dorney disgusts me. D McFadden

    Again, I did not write that, it was an anon's comment on the talk page of the nomination. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, for what its worth I can vouch that there is indeed a gang going by the name of the Irish Catholic Rebels in Glasgow at the moment. I watched a news report on the subject last week. Can't back up the historical claims though :S, because I know them to exist, I believe they should be included in Wiki and so have put links to them in other articles-- before you play down the article you should come down to Glasgow and see the ICR graffiti all over the place!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.193.204 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete - obvious nonsense, references to a 17th Century IRA a dead give-away. If there is a gang called the Irish Catholic Rebels in Glasgow, this article doesn't have much to say about them. --Ryano 21:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without question - This is just a vandalism page.SCVirus 22:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Looking on google, I found only one mention of the original ICR - here. This section could be included in an Irish history article. As for the so-called "new" ICR, an encyclopedia is no place for highlighting every idiot gang that comes along - this only serves as a magnet for the type of brain-donor who made the first post on the article's talk page. Incidentally, I live in the east end of Glasgow, and I haven't seen any ICR grafitti. Camillustalk|contribs 22:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete reads like a uncyclopedia entry. Djegan 23:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete made-up pile of POV crap. This is the sort of makey-up rubbish that damages Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopædia. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete on the basis that its completely fake. --Kiand 00:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously just a wind up by someone in Scotland, who's too into the whole celtic-rangers thing. But for the record, once again, the1641 rebellion is a very important event in Irish history, there were indeed massacres of protestants by catholics, and vice versa. However, there was no Earl Patrick Flanagan, no battle at Belfast and no group called "Irish Catholic rebels". The fact that it is supposed to linked to a street gang in modern glasgow led by a 17 year old is just hilarious. Thanks for trying anyway mate! Can we just delete this and forget about it now? Banning this IP adress wouldn't be a bad idea either

  • Speedy delete It is pure rubbish and seems to be someone having a windup.--Padraig3uk 02:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jdorney

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

The result of the debate was Delete The Land 12:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WBMX/Temp[edit]

Old temporary page back when the WBMX article was a copyvio. There is nothing of worth here, as all of the info is now duplicated in the WBMX article. (I almost considered tagging this for speedy deletion, but decided to bring it here instead.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 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× ☎ 00:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Haddad[edit]

I originally tagged this as db-bio, but that tag was quickly removed and numerous contributions were made to the article by several other accounts and IP addresses (though both IPs and registered accounts have only contributed to this article on one article related to it). I still fail to see how this article fits WP:BIO; the musical release cited appears to have been self-published (no entries on Amazon or AllMusic.com). Winning a spelling bee doesn't quite cut it either. Jasmol 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Why Does God Bring People into Our Lives" is an important body of music, even though it is comprised of cover songs. It is well known thoughout various musical communities I participate in. The album is commonly described as a brilliant compilation that is clearly genre defying and highly creative. Furthermore, the "Democratic Fascist" website is often cited in political discussion and is the cause for great debate on both sides of the political spectrum. Michael Haddad is undenaibly a highly progressive thinker whose talents span and push the boundaries of music, politics and popular culture. Removing this article would go against the very principal of Wikipedia and serves absoltuely no purpose. Detractors would be much better off spending their time contributing to society and culture the way Mr. Haddad has opposed to wasting energy on this battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.175.11 (talk • contribs)
  • I have definitely heard of the album from multiple unrelated people. Same with the website about Hannity. First saw it on Fox News Channel.
    • Please sign your comments. Besides, you created the article, so can you plesae explain exactly why he is notable? --Spring Rubber 21:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO, and it loses more credibility since the author removed the Afd template. --Spring Rubber 21:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he's important because of the album and controversial website. --Thesham69 21:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page that the album title links to contains the heading "the pulitzer prize winning musical masterwork." Do tell. Jasmol 21:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly the album is satirical. I mean, it's a cover album. But I've heard about it from multiple unrelated people. Including people at a Simon concert. --Thesham69 21:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. Some of you need to get a life! Why don't you bitch about the Sean Mann bio instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.215.229 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-11 21:18:05 UTC
  • Also, the number of hits Fascist website has gotten does not fail WP:BIO stipulation below. Same for album.

    Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more --Thesham69 21:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • The unverifiable '10,000 website hits' does not help the WP:BIO criteria. You'll want to refer to WP:WEB for that. The website doesn't even register on Alexa. Also, insulting people here does not help your case. Jasmol 21:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The insulting comment was made by another user. That was not me. AS for the Alexa thing, I'll look into it. Both sites have over 10,000 hits. --Thesham69 21:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Democratic Fascist used to be hosted on a different server with its own domain name. It was also most popular around 2001. This probably explains its Alexa ranking. --Thesham69 21:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, it really is a nn-bio (nothing personal). - Bobet 22:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is an nn-bio? --Thesham69 22:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nevermind. I see. Non-notable. I just totally disagree based on the success of the album and the fascist website. --Thesham69 22:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. DeathThoreau 22:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet any of the relevant criteria for inclusion. Capitalistroadster 23:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael Haddad's article should certainly remain part of the Wikipedia database in light of the cult notoriety of his music. The album "Why Does God Bring People into Our Lives" was often referenced by Prof. Daniel Eldridge in the class [Computers in Music] at [Virginia Commonwealth University] for its innovative and groundbreaking use of MIDI technology.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.152.41 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment As someone who's been using MIDI for musical composition since 1988, I feel comfortable saying that there is absolutely nothing groundbreaking or innovative about the album's use of MIDI. Competent, perhaps, but not groundbreaking. Jasmol 21:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a non-notable biography in a world which clearly functions according to the law of cause and effect must be rejected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.126.241 (talk • contribs)

In support of including Mr. Haddad's biography on Wikipeida, I should note that his Hannity website is referenced in Amherest College's class Pop Culture and the Blogosphere--undeniable proof of his intellectual excellence. Kathryn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.157.6 (talk • contribs)


All of you naysayers fail to recognize what it is really at work with this Michael Haddad. What we are dealing with is the birth of a Renaissance Man. Just like those before him, who were ridiculed for thier thought-provoking ideas that pushed the boundries of the human intellect, Mr. Haddad's work will probably not be truly appreciated until he is dead.

Also, I strongly agree with the assertion above as to the nature of this debate on the grounds of cause and effect. Did Hume teach us nothing? The whole notion of causality is made upon metaphysicaly grounds that are shakey at best. Unless you want to get into the dualistic metaphysics of Kant (well leave the epistemic or ontological debate alone), you simply cannot make such a claim. -johnny j. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.115.97 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment The point of Wikipedia is not to find the next "Renaissance Man." All of these (mostly) unsigned arguments on the entry's behalf fail to adequately address the criteria outlined in WP:BIO "I've heard multiple people talking about him/his album" is not a verifiable claim to notability. Many of these anon supporters have his website as a reason for inclusion. The website reffered to has a low (2/10) Google page rank and doesn't register on Alexa, thus failing WP:WEB. Regarding the two points about the website being mentioned in a college class; I've taught classes at a large public university, and I certainly don't think that anything I've mentioned in a class automatically becomes "culturally important." Most importantly, Wikipedia is not intended to be a promotional tool for "up-and-coming" people, bands, or websites. Jasmol 16:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So how will this be decided? Some sort of straw poll? Looks like there a lot of opinions on both sides of the issue. It's going to be close! --Thesham69 22:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The decision for an afd without an obvious consensus should be handled by an administrator. Total number of votes is not the only consideration. In this case, nearly all of the 'keep' votes have been written by anonymous users who have not contributed to any other Wikipedia articles or discussions; draw your own conclusions from that. (References: Wikipedia:Deletion_process and Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. Jasmol 23:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what conclusion to draw. All of the up votes are coming from different IP addresses. If we don't count their votes as much as others, aren't we implicitly saying that some people are more equal than others? Is this really the kind of message we at Wikipedia want to be sending? --Thesham69 23:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment When a bunch of anonymous users come out of the woodwork to participate in an AFD debate, my first suspicion is that support has been solicited via email or a web forum. Wikipedia calls this meatpuppetry. Jasmol 23:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-bio. Wow, my eyes, my ears.... I can't mention how "interesting" this research was. If I had to guess, this is simply a hoax article being played on an unsuspecting math teacher. The mere cognitive dissonance of a math teacher at a Ceasar Chavez school, blended with a call for a Fascist voting and moral system worshipping Sean Hannity (yeah, because that's very Chavez, no? Maybe it's part of that "right wing" Teach_for_America?)... uhm, yeah. And then set all of that cognitive dissonance to a soundtrack of MIDI "covers" using bad GM (Casio, even) sounds to cover Simon and Garfunkel... wow. Just wow. Ronabop 07:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While it's sort of unclear, I guess this should be taken as a keep vote? --Thesham69 11:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently, you haven't read Wikipedia's policy on meatpuppetry yet. Jasmol 21:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Michael Haddad is an enduring and relentless inspiration to us all. Although I knew not of his amazing album and website, I have heard of Michael Haddad through the American Teachers Organization, and believe it would be a great dishonor to delete this page from the annals of Wikipedia. Personally, as a person who can never remember whether or not the word "pants" begins with a silent "k", I applaud Mr. Haddad's spelling of the word "circus". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.91.254.254 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment This IP is registerd to the District of Columbia Public Schools. What an amazing coincidence that the subject of the article teaches there! Jasmol 21:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The subject of the article teaches at Cesar Chavez Public Policy Charter School. Although the DC Public School and Charter School Systems are apparently not worth Jasmol's time or energy, they are distinct. If the IP address is registered to a DC Public School, it does not come from Chavez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariamoser (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Regardless, it's still rather obvious that the only comments supporting this article are coming from meatpuppets. Your brief contribution history fits that pattern. Jasmol 22:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how or why anyone feels the need to make ad hominem attacks in the course of this dialogue? Whether one teaches at a public school or at a public charter school, one is in fact a teacher, not a meatpuppet. There is no need for this to get ugly now. --Thesham69 22:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. I also disagree with advertising this discussion in the body of the article itself. I think the policy of avoiding self-references should be brought into count here. -- Francs2000 14:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Demiurge 16:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or, failing that, corral somewheres. Mackensen (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability not established.--Sean|Black 20:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must take issue with Wikipedia's rejection of the democratic ideal. There will be no vote? What sort of message does this send our troops currently in the midst of a bloody fight for freedom in Iraq? If Wikipedia ultimately "elects" to muzzle this debate on the advice of an unelected few, I will be forced to take my article to a competing open source encyclopedia that values such abstruse concepts as majority rule. Have we forgotten the fate of Marie Antoinette in her rejection of progressive reform? --Thesham69 02:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wikipedia has never been based on a democratic ideal. It is closer to a meritocracy, where the value of somebody's contributions often determines their amount of impact in a given discussion. Admins are given a higher level of authority as determined by their value (as percieved other project members). As far as Iraq goes, you might find it interesting to note that this is not an american encyclopedia, it is an english speaker's encyclopedia, so we likely have some Sunni/Baathist editors who are currently fighting in a bloody fight for freedom *against* the americans in Iraq. Ronabop 05:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As Wikipedia has been officially declared as reliable as Brittanica by CNN today, and because Mr. Haddad is, in fact, found in the Encyclopedia of Brittanica, wouldn't Wikipedia be, say, less than, for not including him?----Yourmomma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.91.254.254 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I'd love to see a scan of the page in E of Brittanica with Mr. Haddad's entry, mom. Jasmol 20:07, 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 redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 18:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Console Subsystem Interface, Subscriber Data Peripheral Interface, Fixed Station Interface, Telephone Interconnect Interface, Common Air Interface, Network Management Interface, Inter RF Subsystem Interface, Data Network Interface[edit]

I've merged all articles to P25. making these existent article as redirects doesn't seem very useful Melaen 20:45, 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 The Land 12:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Power-laundering[edit]

Delete; dicdef of spanking-new neologism - 274 Google hits, most are blogs referring to a single use by a British official referring to Saddam Hussein (and other hits unrelated, many are a pun on politics in the electric power industry). MCB 21:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Catamorphism 00:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete, just remembered Wiktionary doesn't generally take these neologisms either. Stifle 12:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yep. neologism. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand. We live at a time when paradigms are fast movin, and the lack of adequate terms to communicate complex topics is a barrier to popular understanding. People understand money-laundering, and they could understand other forms of slight-of-hand better by comparing them to money laundering. It's an excellent term. (which I didn't coin) But did create the article. Benjamin Gatti 23:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It may be an excellent term (although I doubt it, since it seems to lack a clear and obvious meaning), but it's not one in wide use, which means it should not be in Wikipedia. If indeed "paradigms are fast moving" and this catches on, it can always be added later. MCB 22:59, 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. The Land 12:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin (video game character)[edit]

The page is referring to the Assassin in the Soul Calibur series, who is covered adequatedly at List_of_Soul_Calibur_characters#Assassin. Delete or redirect? You decide! Given the number of video games with generic characters named Assassin, I'm reluctant to redirect it to only one game...but if we leave it redlinked, someone is likely to come along and just make another version for a minor character who doesn't need their own page. I say go ahead and delete it. stillnotelf has a talk page 21:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. DeathThoreau 22:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And then go into all the pages that link to it and delete those redlinks. =P Marblespire 23:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, well, that solves that problem: nothing is linked to it! ~Mbsp
I found it looking through the lonely/orhpaned pages lists :) -- stillnotelf has a talk page 23:37, 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× ☎ 00:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qazar[edit]

unfortunately I don't have access to the letters from US Special Forces Soldier to their friends which document this feral beast.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. --Edcolins 21:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a google search turns up nothing relevant; the article as written is unverifiable as per nominator. Sliggy 23:36, 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 NO CONSENSUS. That's one editor each way! -Splashtalk 00:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Astral music[edit]

Article about a music genre. The only artist listed as an example of it (its creator) is not on AMG, nor is this genre itself listed on AMG (which lists such obscure genres as Sludge Metal, Sadcore and the aptly named Obscuro. While there are a few things called Astral Music, such as a music company and a cruise ship line, attempts to narrow it down to this particular instance of Astral Music yield practically nothing [40]. Possible redirect to Space music, though I've never heard it called that. W.marsh 21:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I see no problem with it. Its in relatively widespread use. Its a genre of music used by people who are interested in astral travel. In some ways this is similar to such things as pagan rock, but since astral travel doesn't necessarily follow 1 particular religion, then it is different. Effectively, it is talking about meditation through music. Very relevant. Go to a yoga session and see what kind of music they play. It'll be this type. Oh, and 44,500 passes the google test too, quite easily. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But is what you described actually called Astral music by anyone? I think it's called Space music or more likely New Age music. As I mentioned in the nom, not many of the Google results are actually related to what's discussed in the article... so the raw number is rather irrelevent. Please cite a source for the claim that the term is in "relatively widespread use". --W.marsh 04:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's what I've always called it, for the past 15 years or so. I thought that google verified that. I guess there is a case to suggest that it means the same thing as new-age music. It depends on who you ask. Its the same deal with a lot of these music categories. Since 1990 or so, every band in existence wants to have their own unique sound. It started with alternative music, and then just kept going. Faith No More was one of the bands that really stuffed things up by insisting that they followed 10 categories at once. This is why we have these billions of sub categories. But again, this is a legitimate sub category. Its just a matter of how legitimate. 44,500 to me says very legitimate, but if you disagree, then that's your opinion. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't get how this is a genuine genre of music... other than the article and you, no one seems to be saying that. I'm all for articles on obscure genres that really exist, but like I said, that 44,500 number has no results I can find that actually deal with this as a genre of music [41], so it doesn't verify anything. And as a longtime trance/electronica fan, I've never heard of this as a genre. Astral Projection is a famous Goa group, maybe that's what you're thinking of?
I just don't get keeping it on the theory that it might be a genre, despite no evidence. Rewrite it to be about the distrubtion company and that might change things, but unverifiable articles need to go. --W.marsh 16:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to New Age music. FWIW, I've been hosting an ambient and atmospheric music radio show for the last ten years, and I have heard the term, but always as referring to a minor sub-genre of new age music. It is, however, also the name of a well known music distribution company [42], which explains much of the high google count (as does the Turkish tourist yacht company which also uses this name). Grutness...wha? 06:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But is the distribution company based on the type of music? They seem to be. From what I can gather, Astral Music is a type of trance music, similar to techno but with a new age feel. I for one have never heard of space music. But if the distribution group is well known, and use this name, then perhaps they deserve their own article too? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:30, 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. Owen× ☎ 00:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Burton and Danny Elfman[edit]

While I appreciate that Danny Elfman has composed the soundtracks for a number of Tim Burton films (and I acknowledge that their collaboration may go somewhat deeper than that), I don't believe that they are really appropriately thought of as a pair, nor that this article makes a lot of sense. I will also go ahead and appeal to a slippery slope argument; how many hundreds of thousands of occasional collaborations will deserve their own pages now? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, plus lack of unique content in this article. | Klaw ¡digame! 21:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but add a mention of the collaboration to both their pages. (Edit: Which I have now done.) But I must admit that they are thought of as a pair. Especially for the case of Williams and Spielberg. Nationalparks 21:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; The argument that MANY other pairs will "deserve" recognition is unfounded, as not NEARLY as many Director/Soundtrack pairs have had as long lasting and successful a relationship as Burton and Elfman have. After Spielberg and Williams, of course. But beyond that, they are the really famous and deserve a relationship article on their jobs together. Otherwise we'd have to go into each of their individual profile articles and add sub-headers about their relationship. This is way easier, and better; I think. --Teenwriter 22:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just Director/Composer pairs I'm worried about, but Director/Actor, Actor/Actor, Writer/Director, etc... and that's only in the movies. In general, people in every field of human endeavor sometimes form partnerships with the same people a few times but are still more known as individuals. There are exceptions where the pair is more famous than either individually (Laurel and Hardy, say}, but Tim Burton and Danny Elfman are not such a pair. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed my mind after reading all of your comments. I think we should DELETE this article...BUT use this article instead as the "home base" (so to speak) where little "sub articles" can be written about these Producer/Composer combinations. Is that a happy medium? --Teenwriter 16:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't need the sub-articles. Mention the collaborations on the pages for the director and the composer, and list the films in question on the composer's page. This shouldn't even be this difficult to figure out. --FuriousFreddy 18:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no Astaire & Rogers although that's a lot more noteworthy. Jtmichcock 01:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 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. The Land 12:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Game Of Lands[edit]

Unverifiable; non-noteable; no substantial edit for one month, despite calls for context and importance Schutz 21:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. DeathThoreau 23:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I put up the original calls for context and importance. This reads like a vanity page; somebody invented a game. Good for them, but it doesn't deserve a wikipedia page just because it exists. Uucp 01:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:20, 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× ☎ 00:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promode channel[edit]

A list of users who inhabit a certain QuakeNet channel. I do not believe this has the potential to be a useful encyclopedia article. It is wholly unverified, and consists largely of quick and POV character descriptions. Recommend delete. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Difficult to understand, but even if it could be made into an encyclopedia-like article, it wouldn't be notable enough to merit one. delldot | talk 21:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This channel has a lot of potential. There is a lot of people adding nonsense at this point but it's a project in the making. Even though this is a niche article there are many similar pages to be considered to be uncomprehendable for people who have nothing to do with this specific subject.Dehanseon 22:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a matter of fact this will be usefull when we sort things out, so dont delete it plz.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Budzone (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 December 2005
  • NOTICE: This wiki will be a part of the forthcoming "about PROMODE community" wich will be created shortly, so no need to delete since this will be a part of it, and of importance for those who enter the promode community — Preceding unsigned comment added by Budzone (talk • contribs) 16:53, 11 December 2005
  • Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.36.48 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 11 December 2005
  • Delete, 200 edits and no encyclopedic content, please read WP:NOT and note that wikipedia isn't a free webhost or an indiscriminate collection of information. If there's something that makes the channel notable in a wider context than beyond it's own community, please list it on the article. - Bobet 22:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for the reasons given in bold above. Wikipedia is not a webhost.--Ezeu 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't keep articles based on potential and Wikipedia is not for advertising web sites. Gazpacho 23:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia in not a free web hosting service. --TantalumTelluride 23:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a list of the members of a particular IRC channel, with comments, being constructed collaboratively by some Wikipedia editors. It is unverifiable, because no such list has been published outside of Wikipedia. Given that the article is being constructed from direct observation, it is also primary source material, which is forbidden here. Then there's the fact that the article's authors have explained in this very discussion that this is an attempt to host an "about us" page for the channel here at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a free wiki host for arbitrary collaborative research or documentation projects. It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. The place for this is on the authors' own web site(s), not Wikipedia. Delete. Uncle G 23:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable, crystal ball. 132.162.213.109 01:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In agreement with User:Uncle G.--Dakota t e 01:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • WHAT THE DON'T DELETE THIS. It's ownage, who cares if wikipedia is not serious 100% of the time.** p.s. lsv rox u -- unsigned comment by 70.30.67.25 -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:23, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 18:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Jacobs[edit]

Poorly written article, looks like a copy-and-paste from a site. Article is orphan and uncategorized. Mecanismo | Talk 21:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep and cleanup. Seems to refer to this man. An academician who has won an award of questionable notability. However, his diversity could qualify him as notable, and "Tied American record 70 yd. dash (7.0), 1956," almost makes him a notable athlete. --Ezeu 23:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable for the photography. I'm assuming the other achievements are verifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 01:23, 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. Owen× ☎ 00:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Yan[edit]

Underground band members - no notability asserted. Previously tag for db-bio but removed by author. 0 all musics hit. Hurricane111 21:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you mean by notability? His impact on music was tangible. BryceL— Preceding unsigned comment added by BryceL (talk • contribs) 21:47, 11 December 2005
  • Delete. Article can be resubmitted when it is much more developed and it better asserts the subject's importance. --Alex 21:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject is Eric, it's biographical! He is a respected guitar player from a tight-knit community and this offers general information on his short career. BryceL— Preceding unsigned comment added by BryceL (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 December 2005
  • Delete No verification of notability of either band or person. Fails to meet criteria for BIO. DeathThoreau 23:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article provides no evidence that the subject satisfies our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. It also cites no sources of biographical information, or indeed any information, on this person. I can find no such sources, either. So the fact that the subject is non-notable, per the article, is moot. The article is simply unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 03:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like self promotion. No sustantive material. Delete unless the editors can assert Eric's importance not just claim that it exists. Wikipedia could be filled with musicians whose impact on music was tanglible by forming local bands. --Walter Görlitz 21:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, non-notable. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:59, 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. Owen× ☎ 00:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Machosexual[edit]

Dicdef of neologism. The last time a page on this subject was created, earlier this year, it was deleted (debate); assuming this isn't speedyable as a repost (not being an admin, I can't check), the same arguments still apply: the word never gained much currency (Google now has 100 unique results rather than 22 as before), and WP:NOT a dictionary - though Wiktionary is, of course. — Haeleth Talk 21:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Wikipedia:Complete bollocks Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN neologism, nothing that doesn't belong in the Urban Dictionary. However, wikipedia is not that website. DeathThoreau 23:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've checked. The prior article was different. It stated that a machosexual is a homosexual male who behaves in a certain manner. This article states that a machosexual is a heterosexual male who behaves in a certain manner. That such mutually contradictory definitions, of what machosexuals are, have been added here indicates that both are concepts that have failed to actually gain any traction in the world at large. This article, unlike the previous one, cites a source, namely an article in The Observer by Robert Young Pelton. However, searching, I cannot find any evidence that the concept has been acknowledged by anyone else other than that person. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 23:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for reasons mentioned above. PJM 00:53, 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. Owen× ☎ 00:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ATK - Achievo ToolKit[edit]

The article, which is about a proprietary software package, reads a lot like spam. The article's authors, which are unlisted, added all that spam content in a couple of edits and left. Mecanismo | Talk 21:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, at the moment it's a lenghty ad about the program's supposed features with no encyclopedic information. And based on looking it up on google, it's not notable (80 google hits for Achievo Toolkit [43]). - Bobet 21:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just an ad, the following part pretty much says it all: "It is our belief that Achievo ATK will revolutionize the way business applications are built." Bergsten 23:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree, it is spam. --Pianohacker (Talk) 15:58, 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 attack page. David | Talk 23:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vagina Gibson[edit]

Unreferenced, I find nothing that back this up. Hoax? Punkmorten 22:03, 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 speedy deleted by DavidWBrooks as "vandalism / nonsense". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darth pyre[edit]

Delete non-notable fan-created Star Wars character, as the claim of credit by the author at the bottom of the article indicates. Postdlf 22:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Apparent vanity - Darth Pyre is the username of a user on [44], balance of the article is unverifiable, claimed films "have not yet been filmed nor the scripts completed" etc. In other words, nonsense, but not patent nonsense. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all credit for this vote goes to me - orioneight (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC) PS. DEREK!!![reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ] 19:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adamantine[edit]

Vanity page of a local band. Orphan and, until recently, uncategorized. Mecanismo | Talk 22:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this version, the original nominated version. I have no problems with the new version. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 01:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep its still stubby but have a look at it now ive tried to fix it. BL kiss the lizard 06:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in current form, although improvements along thi vein will be happily accepted. Saberwyn - 08:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check the content at adamant—it already covers uses of the "adamantine" form of the word. There's no sense in having two separate articles. This should simply be merged and redirected there. Postdlf 18:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • it mentions the fictional uses of the word but not the real mineral adamantine which deserves its own article if someone can expand it more than i just did. BL kiss the lizard 00:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after rewrite. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, deserves its own article.Mhaesen 10:38, 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. -Splashtalk 00:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4am[edit]

Band vanity. Google of "jon adamson" 4am returns five relevant results, which are self-promotion by the band members. FreplySpang (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page was added so other band members could help add the history for the band. The band is no longer so it's more of a history for interested fans as recounted by band members and fans. jager 02:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a personal home page is the appropriate place for such things. Gazpacho 03:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fine to delete the article but I think you would have to go back and look at all the other bands with articles. jager 13:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We look at them and evaluate them under WP:MUSIC guidelines. Gazpacho 21:31, 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 00:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human Impact on Wildlife[edit]

Original research as indicated in author's edit summary. - orioneight (talk) 22:23, 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; author confirmed article is original research. Johnleemk | Talk 18:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aiheuism[edit]

Original research. Google test lists 16 results and webster dictionary doesn't list that term Mecanismo | Talk 23:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per this link, it seems that this term refers to a religion in a work of fiction. Delete. ESkog | Talk 01:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was unfortunate that I chose to mention those ideas in a work of fiction by name. Aiheuism is not a religion, though it was a religion in those stories. Christmas and its customs did not originate in Charles Dickens' CHRISTMAS CAROL either, but it was mentioned in a work of fiction... With that being said, Aiheuism is a widespread belief but simply not evangelical. There are no real books on it, just a couple of papers, and certainly no entry in Webster's. No need has been seen and no attempt been made. Perhaps I will write "the book" on Aiheuism someday because it is an interesting reflection on how some ecologists see the world, but certainly not just to substantiate an article in Wikipedia, absolutely no offense intended. My main strength is in editing animal welfare and zoological articles, and I'll pretty much stick to that from now on where there is no chance of offending the Internet Gods. That being said, and no I am neither angry nor hurt, but your method of accepting articles absolutely ensures you'll never see anything worthwhile in WikiMedia FIRST....as a scientist I find that prospect just a little chilling....just a thought. Happy Holidays, and do whatever you see fit with the article. John H. Burkitt 00:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: No, you won't see anything in Wikipedia first. As an encyclopedia, we are by design a secondary source - we require verifiable references before something belongs here. Good luck working on your information in other places, and thank you for your contributions elsewhere in Wikipedia. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article text will still be in the history. (accessable to administrators) Banana04131 02:31, 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 ] 19:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Graham[edit]

No vote - orphaned nomination by an anon. It's still stayed in the article through the last several editors' revisions, so I'll go ahead and open it up for discussion. Supposedly, Mr. Graham himself wants the article deleted, but he's been a talk show host for several relatively major stations, and his firing from WMAL is particularly controversial. --Idont Havaname 23:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It appears that information currently contained on the page is well-documented, and has sufficient corroborating links. Some previous versions that contained information beneficial to Graham failed to include corroboration, and often relied on statements made by Graham himself. While there have been some instances of vandalism, these have been quickly removed or resolved by persons regularly reviewing this page. I see no reason for this article to be deleted., however, I do believe that the article written by Graham in the Charleston Citipaper [45] is self-serving, and contains no information that could serve to provide a better understanding of this biography. Thus, I believe it should be relocated from the main page, and posted on the discussion section. 68.50.149.220 01:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known radio talk-show host. -- Mwalcoff 02:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an attack page and delete Daniel Brandt too while you're there. This is just getting ridiculous. What are we, a smear campaign? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - How is it an attack page? Everything appears to be quite well sourced. Controversy is often negative. Such is the nature of the beast. FCYTravis 10:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep, notwithstanding his attempts to jump on the bandwagon of that guy who's name I can't spell. --Last Malthusian 16:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Firing was given national exposure. Newsworthy. 151.200.189.62 16:54, 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 nomination moved to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion#December 11. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Famous People at Yeshiva University[edit]

This is a redirect page that really isn't needed anymore. Bachrach44 23:35, 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 18:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex wrekk[edit]

Vanity/non-notable Drdisque 23:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity. read [this entry http://www.livejournal.com/users/alanlastufka/29817.html]

Her last book sold almost 3,000 copies. Whether she thought it would be cool to have a page or not, her work is worth noting. -Alan

  • I agree with Dr. Disque, to clarify that: delete. I know people who sold more pamphlets than that, but they're not notable outside a narrow and geographical group. 00:09, 11 December 2005 Iinag

Delete per nom. PJM 02:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The zine and DIY communities are a lot more vital and important than you seem to realize, linag. Wrekk's contributions to these are quite far-reaching both through her own projects and through her involvement with Microcosm Publishing. Any DIY book as popular as Stolen Sharpie Revolution is a force to be reckoned with. Jim 07:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mm, I am a big fan of the independent media, Jim; but, we don't even have articles for everyone in the mainstream media: what sort of road would we be going down, as an encyclopædia, to just list everyone who has blogged and had some 'influence.' Under such a thing, you would have a page, as would I; although it might sound nice, it would be rather absurd, since it does not take that much to get a circle. The concensus here seems to be that unless someone is noted in their field, or has had their work catapulted into public conciousness, or their work linked notably to a major event, they don't cut the mustard, so to speak. 18:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Iinag



  • so like we can totally get away with [46][Aaron Cometbus' Page] but Alex cant even get away with like a paragraph without some dudes who dont know shit about zines jumping down our throats? Sounds busted to me. I donno but girl selling out of 3 press runs of her zine sounds pretty fucking influential in these days of 'blogs' and 'e-zines' A girl who put a lot of herself into such awesome, well known, and vital projects such as Portland Zine Symposium and Independent Publishing Resource Center, and one of like 5 people in the world who can call zines a paid career. This isn't just some random kid with a 100 press run zine that people are into for 5 minutes. Pollyvomit 23:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And what did your confrontational commentary achieve? PJM 18:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, i have cleaned up and wikified the article, but i vote delete, as per everyone else. If Stolen Sharpie Revolution is so significant and popular, then why is it a red link? In fact, the only subject specific blue link is Microcosm Publishing, which is a bad, jumbled article that i am not sure is encyclopaedic itself. Furthermore, Alex wrekk (which should be moved to Alex Wrekk) is an orphan page, which doesn't convince me of its importance. Merge to Microcosm Publishing if anyone else deems any of this info notable, i guess. Jdcooper 14:09, 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 delete. – Robert 00:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teams in Tecmo Bowl[edit]

proposed delete: all the information could be merged without any trouble into the main Tecmo Bowl article. Not to mention that, on a fancruft scale of 1-10, this rates in at about 9 billion. And I like video games. Marblespire 23:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'd say merge with Tecmo Bowl, but it appears to have just about all the information already. 132.162.213.109 01:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic material, just boils down to a list of teams and someone's speculation/original research as to why they were chosen. ESkog | Talk 01:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, superfluous. PJM 02:51, 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 00:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Felder[edit]

nnbio Reid A. 23:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, however, adopting 3 Melasian (sic) babies could be a notable feat.--Ezeu 00:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, If he's notable at all it's for being the editor for two years of the Stanford Lampoon. However, it's the Stanford Lampoon not the Harvard Lampoon. 00:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caerwine (talk • contribs)
  • I know him, i read about him in people magazine- the article forgets to mention that the place where he got his babies housed children with aids. he donated 1,000,000 dollars to the aids foundation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.13.26 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 12 December 2005
  • Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria. I found only 156 Google hits. Samw 04:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. chocolateboy 06:34, 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 00:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This clawed[edit]

Non-notable band, hasn't released an album, nominated as speedy delete; does not meet CSD bcause "they are known for pioneering the genre Nu-Love Metalcore which has redifined music as a whole". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - NN, POV, crystal ball. Google search didn't turn up anything. 132.162.213.109 01:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NMG. Unfortunately, bands aren't eligible for speedy deletion under current policy. PJM 02:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- SGBailey 23:36, 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 by User:Jni. Jamie 08:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Rentner[edit]

rescuing this orphaned nom, despite the risk of being annihilated by lightning. Speedy delete nonsense. Marblespire 23:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete but I rephrain from calling it nonsense – just in case. --Ezeu 00:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete non-notable biography.--Alhutch 01:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shoot with lightning and send straight to hell per nom. 132.162.213.109 01:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, no meaningful content. PJM 02:42, 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 article now in English; kept by default. First listed article redirected to second. Johnleemk | Talk 16:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Youth Federation of Iraq[edit]

From WP:PNT, been there since November 12. Discussion from that page follows: Jamie 23:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic. It only has one edit in its history (4 months ago). --Idont Havaname 04:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion is that this article is identical to WP:PNT#Iraqi_Democratic_Youth_Federation (see below under 01 Dec). Text is looking the same, and besides, both were posted on the same date 09 Sept 2005 and from the same IP. The organization is on the World Federation of Democratic Youth list.- Introvert talk 03:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Democratic Youth Federation[edit]

is an exact duplicate, so its AfD page links here too. Both pages should share the same fate: Either delete both, or keep one and redirect the other. Iraqi Democratic Youth Federation is also from WP:PNT since December 1. Here are the comments....

Probably Arabian, and I'd be surprised if it isn't about the same thing as Democratic Youth Federation of Iraq. Solver 14:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article seems identical to WP:PNT#Democratic Youth Federation of Iraq above, listed under 12 Nov. (so.. both with one stone :) - Introvert talk 03:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  • Democratic Youth Federation of Iraq has been AfD'ed. This one should get AfD'ed once it's two weeks old. Jamie
    Why would this be necessary? What would justify them, being identical, going through the AfD voting separately? This artilce is an exact copy of the other one, posted from the same IP and on the same date -- just under a different article title. Apparently, the anon author decided on a better title which would match exactly the title on the list of the Democratic Youth organizations, but could not move the first page he had created. The mere reason there are two entries here on this page is that they happened to get caught at different times... If one of them would have been fortunate to receive a translation, the other one would simply become a redirect page.
    I think that once you've AfD-ed the first one, you want to just go ahead and AfD the second one as well, and link the AfD entry from the second to the first. See for example how the "rotary club" twins are done: "rotary rj ilha do governador" and Rotary rj ilha do governador. Regards - Introvert talk 07:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyhow, delete unless these can get translated soon. Jamie 11:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment make Democratic Youth Federation of Iraq a redirect to Iraqi Democratic Youth Federation (the correct translation from Arabic). Secondly, there's no need to delete the article. Just change the contents. --Soman 15:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The article needs to be in English. Can you provide the translation please? If so then it may be kept, but as is, even with your helpful translation of the very definition and with the link to the page in arabic -- I still don't think it makes an article yet. - Introvert talk 09:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both if not translated; hopefully, may be kept (with a redirect for the twin) if translation becomes possible - Introvert talk 09:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, the arabic text inserted is non-encyclopediatic material. Its appears to be a press release about the national congress of IDYF held in Baghdad this year 25 June. --Soman 09:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks! - well, then translation is not an option, looks like. - Introvert talk 09:01, 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_11&oldid=1081091798"