Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 14 December 16 >

Purge server cache

December 15[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. Mindmatrix 00:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russel Winterfield[edit]

I cannot find any proof of this man's existence. If someone else can, please prove me wrong and I'll change my vote, but until then, my gut says this is a hoax. (As does the fact that he supposedly plays for 3 teams at once, and can "change his race"). אריאל יהודה 00:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it's a cleverly weird hoax. Too bad it isn't fit for BJAODN... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, while I still believe this should leave the article namespace, perhaps it should be placed on BJAODN... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just a hoax. --Metropolitan90 02:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KHM03 02:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have heard of Russel Winterfield. Do not dlete things just because you have never heard of them. I actually met him once. LSEditor 04:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. that doesn't suffice. Airumel 04:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, can't find proof that this person ever drafted by the NBA. (Also, now seems to be vandalized.) — TheKMantalk 06:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax per above information. Movementarian 06:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Thesquire 09:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though is quite funny. --Sachabrunel 16:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sounds like a comics character with a superpower. — JIP | Talk 18:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't be in NBA, as he can't dunk while white. Billbrock 03:29, 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 delete. Okay, this one was a toughie. Once one discounts the obviously silly bits ("Noah Feldmen lent his name!", "why should it be encyclopaedic?", and my favourite "keep if it's not a hoax, I know it's unverified"), and the anon who signed as a logged-in user but wasn't, there's not much left but arguments for deletion. Good arguments, like "it's not even on IMDb" and "there's no independent verification", the sort of arguments we like to see on AfD (as opposed to an unqualified "non-notable", which is the more common fare). So, delete. I am equipped with a talkpage if anyone wants to hurl rotten tomatoes at me later. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Zeitgeist[edit]

Non-notable (and unreleased) film. "American Zeitgeist" "Rob McGann" (Rob McGann is the creator) gets 10 google hits. Thue | talk 00:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There isn't even an imdb article about it! 9cds 03:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - connects many other articles - like a disambig page, but about a nexus of other articles rather than their distinction. Airumel 04:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I fail to see how this acts as a disambig page. This is an article about a non-notable indie documentary that has yet to be released. Movementarian 06:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Thesquire 09:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per absence from IMDb. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:46, Dec. 15, 2005
  • Delete: With this capitalization, it couldn't disambiguate articles on a particular American zeitgeist: it can only refer to a particular film that has not been released and is not appropriate content. Geogre 18:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: all info has been submitted to IMDB, they take 2-4 weeks to process; film has already shown at one festival, will show at many more over next six months; the caliber of film's interviewees should demonstrate that AZ is a serious work, not a non-notable indie. Suchman 4:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • So you say. When IMDB has it, we can verify it. Until the film is 1) released, 2) reviewed, 3) has an impact, 4) discussed by someone not involved with it, it cannot have an article. Geogre 18:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Noah Feldman, prof at NYU law, wouldn't lend his name to bad project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.219.138.254 (talk • contribs)
The issue is not whether this documentary is good or bad, the issue is whether this documentary is notable enough for an article. Aecis praatpaal 22:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball about notability. mikka (t) 22:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is NOT current wikipedia policy.

jcuk

    • So? Verifiability is. Furthermore, advertising is. Furthermore, "encyclopedic content" is. Geogre 18:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Obviously a serious documentary from the impressive list of interviewees (assuming this is not a hoax--if not in IMDb, how to verify?). But also smells like self-promotion. Billbrock 03:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it can't be verified, it can't be verified. Deletion policy is that unverifiable artworks, regardless of anything else, should be deleted. Geogre 18:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is verified that a sneak preview of the film screened at the Ohio Independent Film festival in November. This is a potentially important film that is just beginning to be shown domestically. User:Cinophile 04:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC
    • And now we have the citing sources policy in play. Where did you get this information? Oh, yes, delete per anyone who also voted delete. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 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. Mindmatrix 00:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Wood[edit]

Does not seem to be notable. Thue | talk 00:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 00:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete --Spangineeres (háblame) 00:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as self-published author. Interestingly, there was an American college footballer called "Barry Wood" who was captain of Harvard and appeared on the cover of Time in November 1931 see [1] What links here came up with a cricketer called Barry Wood who played for England and Lancashire. [2]. The cricket Barry Wood is notable enough and the American footballer may be but not this guy. A quick Google for "Barry Wood" Nova Scotia comes up with 453 hits but with nothing establishing notability see [3] Capitalistroadster 02:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious vanity page Spookfish 04:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. — TheKMantalk 06:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have created an article called Barry Wood (cricketer). If this article is deleted, it should be moved to this space as most of the internal links are for the cricketer. Capitalistroadster 09:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity - one does not gain notariety by self-publishing magnetic recordings of science fiction stories. Authors generally get notability by means involving paper. B.Wind 01:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. Notability is irrelevant as it is not official wikipedia policy.

Jcuk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia TriStar Home Video slogans[edit]

For the most part this seems to be unverified slogancruft (which is a form of listcruft). We do not need an orphaned list of slogans that doesn't tell indicate where the info for the slogans came from (that last part is more important after recent circumstances with Wikipedia). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 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. Mindmatrix 00:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bu-Cheng-Shi[edit]

This looks like a hoax - no google hits. Thue | talk 00:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not-too-funny hoax. It seems the user has created other hoax articles as well. Kusma (討論) 00:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Surprisingly uninteresting for a hoax. Snurks T C 00:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KHM03 02:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rather lame hoax Spookfish 04:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "lame" is right. EdwinHJ | Talk 05:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. — TheKMantalk 06:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. So, the Spanish colony of the Phillipines had a colony? Movementarian 06:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax, and a bad one at that. --Wingsandsword 00:39, 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 00:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oakleaf[edit]

There is too much nonsense in this article. Probably a non-notable person. Thue | talk 00:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 00:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense, should have ben speedied once I added the nn-bio header. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN, vanity, nonsense. — TheKMantalk 06:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read this and thought it was hilarious. It´s all true, the "Oakleaf Hype" is becoming a mainstream cultural phenomena in all of Scandinavia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petter-e (talk • contribs) 00:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. NN, vanity, not very creative for an artist. Billbrock 03:37, 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 00:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bold textThe magazine was established as print in 1995 locally, and Carol A Mann has appeared on local talk show "Think About It". The magazine Women of Color has only entered the online realm since August of 2005.

Carol A Mann[edit]

Carol A Mann has written articles on non-profit organizations about all the good that they do, has interviewed prominent newcasters, written short story "Candi Sweet" publishes her own magazine, written articles on "Tina Turner, Donna Summer", and Khani Cole, inside of the magazine Women of Color, No Doubt, Keith Sweat, Blackstreet to name a few. Advertising clients were Iman Cosmetics, Samaritan Health Services Phoenix Suns. The woman is phenomenal her newest venture is www.goodtimesports.com, and www.carolamann.com. I vote to KEEP !!! Was tagged as {{nn-bio}} by User:Spearhead. Asserts notability, so moving it here for a vote. Jamie 00:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was the 2007th person to visit the website of her magazine established in 1995. Given this, I suspect it doesn't have a big circulation. However, I would vote to keep if notability could be established against WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 02:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The magazine has a very popular phrase as its title, and yet the site does not seem to be flourishing. The print version of the magazine was not found in the university libraries online that I searched. The article looks like a tear sheet or CV for the author, and Wikipedia is not Monster.com. I wish her luck and success, as I'm sure we all do, but she is not yet an appropriate target for an encyclopedia biography, based on the material presented here. Geogre 18:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; reads more like a CV. Jasmol 20:40, 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. Mindmatrix 00:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Niru enterprise[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable company. Thue | talk 00:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 00:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as proposed. Gazpacho 02:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated above. (note: "Niru enterprise" lists 16 unique hits) — TheKMantalk 06:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not to scold, but let's refer to the deletion policy, when we can. In this case, the article is an ad. I didn't do the nowiki, but delete for advertising. Geogre 18:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds like an advert Computerjoe 20:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertisement, not notable otherwise. --Wingsandsword 00:36, 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 00:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Orenstein[edit]

Was tagged {{nn-bio}} by User:Spearhead. Not CSD, so moving here for a vote. Jamie 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete writing one NN book doesn't make an author worthy of an article Edrigu 18:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: She is a working writer, and that's laudable. It isn't encyclopedic, however, and the article is pretty much an ad. Geogre 18:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: She's done some things I admire - see her bio at [4] - but none of it quite seems to clear our bar. FreplySpang (talk) 22:36, 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, non-redunant content Merged karmafist 22:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeCal[edit]

Orginization within a university; doesn't seem very notable nor important enough to have its own entry. Delete --Spring Rubber 00:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge with Univ page. -- JJay 00:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 03:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above Airumel 04:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's not even noteworthy enough to merit merging with the main university page. Thesquire 09:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, individual student organisations aren't notable, or can I create an article about TKO-Äly or Limes? — JIP | Talk 18:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no evidence offered that this organization has had an effect on the community beyond Cal's gates, and therefore it is a Berkeley topic rather than an encyclopedic one. It could be mentioned in the University of California at Berkeley#Student life spot, but I do not recommend a merge and redirect. Geogre 18:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with university page. Jasmol 20:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. AucamanTalk 22:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 04:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, campuscruft. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:34, Dec. 25, 2005
  • Delete per nom --Jaranda wat's sup 21:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Followship[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thue | talk 00:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 00:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete automatically. Pavel Vozenilek 04:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and should be speedable Airumel 04:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Should be on the Wikitionary. � TheKMantalk 06:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not transwiki, this is one of those made-up protologisms. MCB 06:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Creator admits it's not in dictionaries. So it's clearly a neologo/protologism. - Mgm|(talk) 11:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to followership. rodii 21:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete admitted nonexistant word. BL kiss the lizard 10:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete "this is not a real word found in any dictionary" = neologism. siafu 17:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appears to be protologism. Scottkeir 22:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - admitted protologism -GTBacchus(talk) 10:30, 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 delete. Mindmatrix 00:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What Is Joppa?[edit]

Non-notable website. 117 google hits. Thue | talk 00:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. KHM03 02:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this promotion of an insignificant site. Hu 03:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete garbage web site Spookfish 04:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertisement of NN site. — TheKMantalk 08:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. 65.114.23.4 13:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and the article doesn't even link to the site! Also rollback the changes at Joppa. — JIP | Talk 18:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The show cannot be found, so verification is a problem. Secondly, the show does not appear to be discussed by anyone except itself, so that means that the article requires Wikipedia to be a secondary source of information. In fact, Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information: we write about things other people have written about only. Geogre 18:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to AIM-7 Sparrow. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Selenia Aspide[edit]

From WP:PNT, been there since December 1st. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie 00:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what language this is in. Seano1 06:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's Italian. Muriel R 14:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Missile A-A Air to Air (air air) employed from the F 104 S then modernizes you subsequently to standard ASA and then ASAM. Characterized from a guidance system of the type typical seed-assets of similar systems which Sky Flash and Sparrow (of which the viper it turns out to be a produced copy) can come employed is like missile air air that like missile earth air. In fact the Viper is the base of the system missile of national aerial defense."
  • redirect to "AIM-7 Sparrow". The Selenia Aspide is an upgrade of this missile "Improved versions of the AIM-7 were developed in the 1970s in an attempt to address the weapon's limitations. The AIM-7F, which entered service in 1976, had a dual-stage rocket motor for longer range, solid-state electronics for greatly improved reliability, and a larger warhead. Even this version had room for improvement, leading British Aerospace and the Italian firm Selenia to develop advanced versions of Sparrow with better performance and improved electronics as the Skyflash and SELENIA ASPIDE (caps mine), respectively"

Jcuk

  • Delete: It's a discussion of something at a wholly illogical title, and the article appears to be a discussion of an upgrade to missiles. I'm not sure how many of our readers actually have A-A missiles that they need to upgrade, but I hope they'll be able to get the information some other way. Geogre 18:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Jcuk. Redirects are cheap... Jamie 04:26, 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 by Harro5 as a copyright violation. [5]— FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:50, Dec. 15, 2005

Verso Technologies[edit]

This is pure advertisement Stefán Ingi 01:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beatriz.pedrosa (talk · contribs) has been spamming several articles with this firm. Stefán Ingi 01:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it seems this is a copyvio from [6], that page asserts copyright and the posting user makes no claim he is allowed to do this. Of course, this is probably someone from within the company who wanted to post this but that is pure guesswork on my behalf. Somebody more knowledgeable please come and explain whether this can be speedy deleted as a copyvio. Stefán Ingi 01:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A8 as a copy vio of the url referenced above created within the last 48 hours. Movementarian 08:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Virtual Air Traffic Flight Simulation Network. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VATBRZ[edit]

From WP:PNT since December 1st. Discussion from WP:PNT follows Jamie 01:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portugese. Something about flight simulation or pilot training, or air traffic controller training. Solver 14:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like an advertisement. It is not worth keeping it. Carioca 05:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can defend myself in Portuguese....an online virtual pilot simulation? I would delete...--Orgullomoore 07:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the Brazilian branch of the Virtual Air Traffic Flight Simulation Network. Not worth keeping as a separate article, should be redirected, possibly merged. JoaoRicardo 07:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is about the Brazilian version of Virtual Air Traffic Flight Simulation Network. Other than the fact that it is in Portuguese, it has similar content to the VATSIM article. It states that it is the Brazilian version of VATSIM, and then gives a small description of VATSIM. It isn't worth keeping as a separate article, but it could be useful as a redirect page. — TheKMantalk 07:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Virtual Air Traffic Flight Simulation Network per TheKMan. Movementarian 09:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Movementarian. - Mgm|(talk) 11:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't Anglophone users (who would thus be at .en) use "VATSIM" as the acronymn they type in, rather than "VATBRZ?" Further, isn't the BRZ in "VATBRZ" an indication of "Brazil?" I.e. isn't this going to be an entirely unused redirect? I don't see the point in it, myself. Redirects are cheap, but they're not free. Geogre 18:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Non-native speakers of English frequently use en Wikipedia. They may look for articles using thier native acronymn and upon not finding it, recreate the article. Redirects keep such things from happening. Movementarian 03:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm aware that non-native speakers use the project, and I'm not saying "English-only," but I think we're looking at too fine a subset of a subset (Brazilians who would look for this game in their own langauge and then recreate when not finding by acronymn). I think it's an empty Venn diagram, myself, and I don't see why we need to preserve the content in history. I won't cry if it gets redirected, but we're not doing anyone favors by doing so. Geogre 18:16, 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 per VfD. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All Things accordion[edit]

Advertising for a music shop

  • Delete Gazpacho 01:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But the nomination reason is wrong: advertising may be neutered by a non-lazy wikipedian. The real reason is that it is nonnotable. mikka (t) 01:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is advertising, which makes it suitable for an AfD. Also, non-notable. — TheKMantalk 06:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Advertising is one of the criteria in the deletion policy, while, as the Schoolwatch people will repeat ad nauseam, "notability is not." It's always great when industrious AfD readers rescue articles by neutering the advertising, but an ad is a deletion candidate, and no one's going to be industrious with a minor shop's ad. Geogre 19:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your last sentence is exactly my point: advertising alone is not a reason for deletion. Also, schoolwatch position is not "notability is not", but "all schools are notable". mikka (t) 21:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • copyvio --Rob 20:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd rather guess it is not a copyvio, but a self-promotion. Who else would want to vio this copy? mikka (t) 21:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you're partly right, the text probably came from somebody with the company, but that's meaningless. A typical promotional photo is released to the public to promote a person, yet we can only use it with fair use, and could never use it as GFDL. Releasing something for promotion doesn't mean its usable by Wikipedia (often explicit permission to use on Wikipedia, isn't even good enough). Now, if the copyright holder is a private individual, and that specific individual copyied the text, then that would not be a copyvio (as the upload would constitute licensing under GFDL). But we can't guesse if the uploader is the legal copyright holder (their employee/agent might not be authorized to donate corporate property). --Rob 04:41, 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. Well, duh. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sudo Nerd[edit]

Neologism; zero Google hits. choster 01:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 01:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Spookfish 04:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — TheKMantalk 06:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Movementarian 09:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is non-existant, it is a neologism, and it isn't even remotely funny. Also, I don't think jokes are wikiworthy. Somehow. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 11:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. It's also wrong. Sudo is short for "superuser do", and thus is pronounced SOO-doo. -- Plutor 16:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax or non-notable neologism. Everyone knows that sudo is the comment to become root. — JIP | Talk 18:22, 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 Speedied by User:RHaworth as nonsense. Jamie 06:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish hell[edit]

Delete: I can't find any references to the playright Fredorof (delete) or either play (see also The Constant Telgram, delete). I may not be looking hard enough, or it may be incredibly obscure, or it may be non-notable, or the whole thing may be winding us up. Hu 01:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. KHM03 02:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense/vandalism. I did a bit of digging: the article creator's username shows nothing before yesterday. Only contributions were to create unverifiable articles nominated for deletion and the following contribution to hell:
"Matthew Kershaw wrote about his own personal account of hell in 1966's Northern Crusade. The account is of him being forced northwards, by a weird being and his relatives. Cats play a large part in the book, (little of this was incorporated in the film and play versions) with the most deeply sorrowful tall of a deceased cat that accompinied Matthew on his journey. The tale is perhaps an allegory for hell and heaven, his own appreciation of his life in the south being the stories final chapter."
This is all WP:Complete Bollocks. Amazon.com lists no author named Matthew Kershaw. The IMDB has no film titled Northern Crusade. The active Wikilink is to the historical Northern Crusade. I suspect that this is a sock puppet of User:Chris04, a username also minted yesterday, who created the related Scottish hell article and Core-based trees. I nominated the latter for a speedy as nonsense/vandalism because the article has nothing to do with the actual computing term core-based trees.
This also leads to unregistered user Special:Contributions/194.80.204.67, another contributor who has been a busy vandal. I'm undoing his/her damage atm and hope an administrator looks into the situation. Durova 02:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The user User:Kingofengland, Contributions, who made the junk edit to hell referenced above, removed two "Call for Speedy Delete" from the related Fredorof page (calls by Pavel Vozenilek and Looper5920). Hu 03:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. An 18th-century poet writing about telegrams. Sounds like a hoax to me and user Durova has outlined her research into the same which has failed to verify the evidence. Capitalistroadster 02:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete', Pavel Vozenilek 04:20, 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 Speedied by User:RHaworth as nonsense. Jamie 06:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fredorof[edit]

Delete: I can't find any references to the playright Fredorof or either play (see also The Constant Telgram, delete and Scottish hell, delete). I may not be looking hard enough, or it may be incredibly obscure, or it may be non-notable, or the whole thing may be winding us up. Hu 01:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:RHaworth as nonsense. Jamie 06:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Constant Telgram[edit]

Delete: I can't find any references to the playright Fredorof (delete) or either play (see also Scottish hell, delete). I may not be looking hard enough, or it may be incredibly obscure, or it may be non-notable, or the whole thing may be winding us up. Hu 01:33, 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. Kudos to Jonathan de Boyne Pollard for yet another great rewrite. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Core-based trees[edit]

Delete yet more nonsense from User:Chris04 (see Scottish hell). Hu 02:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (see retraction below).[reply]

Note: The article has been entirely rewritten; this was the state of the article at the time of nomination.

  • Delete I'd still prefer to speedy this. It's part of a pattern of complete bollocks. Durova 03:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Keep per rewrite. Thanks for the fine work. Durova 09:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I'll reverse my vote if someone who knows the subject turns this into an actual stub. Thanks to Uncle G the user talk page has enough links for reference and citations. Durova 05:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I posted my research on the talk page to this article. Durova 03:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formally, this article is original research, and possibly hoax vandalism. Informally, this article is, as it stands, complete and utter tripe. The formula that purports to show the probability of "rejection" of computer viruses based upon Planck's constant, and the idea of dismantling a computer virus "for the sap it provides", are both total rubbish. Durova has identified what core-based trees actually are. For sources that verify this, see the references at Talk:Core-based trees. I suggest that Durova, or anyone else willing, perform a quick rewrite, based upon the sources given on the talk page, and turn this into a {{compu-network-stub}}. Uncle G 04:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complete Rewrite. If not rewritten, delete. The way the article is now is drivel. The few things it asserts coherently are ridiculous and wrong. Reyk 06:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sure this bit of jargon is worthy of a stand-alone article — even the alleged real definition seems unintelligible to non-specialists. At any rate, this present gibberish will not help anyone write a valid article. Smerdis of Tlön 15:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep rewritten version. I still wonder whether we need notability and intelligibility guidelines for math and computing topics, but we have plenty of similar articles. Smerdis of Tlön 12:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since the article is complete and utter junk, it is not worth rewriting. Any writer would have to start from scratch. It is better to scrap it entirely until an able and willing writer arrives to write a proper article. Until then Wikipedia can manage just fine without it since the only link to it is a disambiguation page for the three letter acronym CBT. Hu 18:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite by Jonathan de Boyne Pollard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewritten article. Day for night. R. S. Shaw 04:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retracting due to rewrite: The rewrite from scratch is a good beginning and we should now Keep the article. Hu 19:11, 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 keep. Jaranda wat's sup 04:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Azlea Antistia[edit]

Having attempted to research this subject, I've come to the conclusion that this article will just relist information found on both IAFD and IMDB. Azlea Antistia hasn't done anything notable, and is presently out of the industry. Therefore, I don't see any reason why Wikipedia should have an article on this subject. (And, as always, if something changes, we can always go in and readd the article.) Thus, delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, real porn actress. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, according to Excalibur Films, she's performed in over 200 videos. IMDB seems to be missing most of them, though. -- Kjkolb 03:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Pavel Vozenilek 04:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Zoe. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but remove time sensitive characteristics, I'm afraid porn actresses can be notable and there's some bad reasoning in the nomination:
  1. I've come to the conclusion that this article will just relist information found on both IAFD and IMDB. Wikipedia needs to restate info from other sources. Otherwise the article would not be verifiable.
  2. and is presently out of the industry. Being dead or no longer working is no reason to remove an entry. People may still want to look it up. - Mgm|(talk) 11:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Today's Azlea Antistia is tomorrow's 1970 Penthouse centerfold. Unless she has some reason for a biography other than her pornographic films or unless she is one of the few porn queens discussed in other media, we're talking about preserving a stage name, not a real name. I wish 200 porn films was a large number, but, with the video production of the porn industry now, it could represent two months of work in 15 shoots that have been recut and repackaged a number of ways. It is not sufficient to be "real" nor "verifiable": there must be something to discuss about the person. Geogre 19:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Zoe, actors with reasonably wide audiences and a large production are notable. Porn actors as well sadly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with Mgm's very salient points. Disagree with Geogre, information is valuable in its own right - even when dicussion has ended. User:Paragon1976 00:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Who said she's out of the business anyway? Her own website states: "She got her start in the business to have some fun and has stayed because she loves it." wikipediatrix 21:21, 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 redirect to Chess, with no apparent support for preserving/merging the content, thus delete, then redirect. Concerns regarding its usefulness should be handled by RFD. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:42, Dec. 25, 2005

Rank and file (chess)[edit]

  • Delete; provides no additional meaning beyond what is already covered in the main Chess article. choster 01:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If that is true, you could have just redirected it to chess without much trouble. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why, so somebody else could re-list it under RFD? - choster 03:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, because it helps keep the AFD page smaller and it makes it less likely that the article will be recreated. Pburka 03:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We already had a separate article for File (chess) and I just created Rank (chess) both redirecting to Chess terminology. I really don't see the use for this title. - Mgm|(talk) 11:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can hardly imagine people will read "Rank and File" somewhere and wonder what game it is about. So a redirect would be rather pointless. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 11:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mgm, and also change the disambiguation on the main rank and file article, which points to this. I am moved to curiosity as to how ranks and files on a chessboard relate to the stock expression "rank and file", though. Smerdis of Tlön 15:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chess, no need to merge, because the contents are already covered. — JIP | Talk 18:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chess and add a disambiguation page for the military term rank and file and the union term rank and file membership in addition to the chess usage. B.Wind 01:34, 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 JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Thermodynamic evolution[edit]

Original research, self promotion of pet theory/book JPotter 01:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Thermodynamic+evolution%22&btnG=Google+Search. 585 hits in google, most nothing to do with the article. --JPotter 02:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I'm going to hold off on voting for the time being. -- JJay 02:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments from Flying Jazz and Gazpacho. -- JJay 20:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for major rewrite. This is a domain-standard term, but not for what the article describes. It appears to mean the development of a system under thermodynamic laws. Gazpacho 02:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment then perhaps it should be a delete, because rewriting something which is a misuse of the title involves more or less blanking then writing a new article anway - the article can be created anew if someone has sources and information for the correct useage. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not entirely sure that the term isn't used as the page claims, or I would vote to delete. Gazpacho
        • Just see how many of the uses of thermodynamic evolution you can replace with evolution of a thermodynamic state. Of the top google hits, we're the only ones I see who are using the term in the Darwinian evolution sense rather than the time evolution of an equation sense. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I see links and references; They appear to mostly go where they say and be about the subject. This looks to me like a content dispute related to evolution. Tom Harrison (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bizarrely written, appears to be POVish diatribe loosely related to the evolution debate and entropy. Might be rewritten as a very different article per Gazpacho, but current content is not useful. Bikeable 05:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of this article reads like pseudo-scientific garbage. Best to delete, because a good rewrite would have to start from scratch anyway. --Pierremenard
  • Delete. Better packaged than most nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless. Durova 09:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While much of the information is accurate and the perspectives outlined are expressed fairly well, this still qualifies as original research as the term "thermodynamic evolution" isn't used by any of the sources cited nor is it a concept that is commonly referenced in literature. Rather this is a clever amalgamation of sources who talk about "evolution" in the context of thermodynamics. Most of the material is covered in some form on other pages in Wikipedia including Second law of thermodynamics, chemical evolution, etc. --ScienceApologist 15:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, ScienceApologist et al. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, Wavesmikey, but it's a mess. Jheald 17:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics 2 might be of interest. Fg2 01:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. --DrTorstenHenning 14:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We Need Something: While I agree that if this is based totally on original research it should be deleted, I agree with Gazpacho that this is an interesting topic and should be rewritten. Many anomolies exist between evolution and the 2nd law and this should perhaps be the focus? User:Lagrangian
Suggestion: go help User:Sholto Maud write reasonable articles about ecology, and in particular, concepts like emergy and etc. that deal with these types of topics. However, the goal is to write articles on existing, notable topics, and not write lessons/essays or perform original research.linas 21:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as original research. linas 21:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR. Karol 00:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research Brimba 04:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep and merge. Some of this article appears to be OR, some of it appears to be non-OR. There appears a problem in the conveyance of information about the history of physical biology, and physical ecology. Such a topic seems to attract those from physics who are not familiar with the basic works. Likewise it attracts those from ecology and biology who may not have a foundation in mathematical physics, and so cannot formulate proofs in the language of mathematical logic. As for the debate about the title, I'd like to draw your attention to the maximum power theorem entry because it has vertually no references at all (except for the one I put there, is it not therefore OR?), and yet seems to have been unchallenged, even though the use of the term 'theorem' in the title is in conflict with the definition of the word 'theorem' given in the theorem article. As I understand it, the maximum power "theorem" is defined as the "law" of thermodynamic evolution - so what is a thermodynamic law, and what is a electronic theorem? (Note also that Clausius identified the entropy "law" as a theorem).
  • Some historical context - The systems ecologist H.T.Odum tried to use the ideas of both Boltzmann and Lotka (referred to in the article) in his approach to ecological systems. Odum referred to a concept of biological "thrust" - such as the "thrust" of a tree as it grows and raises mass up from the soil, into the air against the force of gravity, and transforms it into an apple which then could drop due to the force of gravity and hit Newton on the head. Is this "energy-transformative thrust" analysable in terms of thermodynamics, and can we expand this beyond the consideration of the life cycle of just one plant (for instance), and extend it to the succesive genearational adjustments over the 'evolution' of a species of plant? Does evolution attempt to optimize biological and ecological thrust?
  • In the context of thermodynamics there is a massive issue, and it is with the notion of "neg entropy". This concept, was discussed by Schrodinger in the context of the physical definition of "life", seems to be equivalent to the concept of "exergy", and appears to be in contradiction with the first law of the conservation of energy, I.e. exergy algorithms are, in some instances, non-conservative. Consider a pregnant woman. S.E.Jorgensen in 2000 suggested that a preganant mother living in a big isolated room with sufficient food until she gives birth to her child will increase in exergy because the growing child has more exergy than the food she consumes.
  • How do we get around this issue, or introduce it here in WIkipedia?
  • My suggestion is that we consider merging the thermodynamic evolution article with the article on maximum power. However this does not resolve the issue of whether maximum power might be simultaneously considered both the 4th law of thermodyanmics and the thermodynamic law of evolution.
  • My conditions are that such an article be uncompromisingly rigorous, with deletion of any original reserach - lets stick to the history of the development.
  • but that those who object to this article commit to doing research in the area so that they can help keep the treatment rigorous, and so that they can contribute to the formal expression of these matters in terms of mathematical logic. Sholto Maud 10:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for diambig and major rewrite. Many use system boundaries in conceptual ways when discussing thermodynamics, but slamming the big bang and the biome together just aint right. "Thermodynamic evolution" should lead to a disamb because the term is ambiguous and doesn't answer the question "evolution of what?" Most of this article should be titled "thermodynamics of biological evolution" and have a major rewrite to add specificity. The last bit should be titled "thermodynamics of the evolution of the universe" and would ideally be fleshed out more completely. These topics are mentioned elsewhere, but individual articles dedicated to them would be a good place for more detailed information for the thermodynamically inclined. Flying Jazz 16:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ScienceApologist. The common usage of this term is to describe the evolution of a thermodynamic state, not the thermodynamics of evolution. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:51, Dec. 25, 2005

Dryrise[edit]

Vanity/unverifiable/unencyclopedic. KHM03 02:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity page

  • Delete. Somehow i feel that their "shows" page is empty for a reason. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 11:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Looks like a hoax. The various puffs they mention are real (the channel, the show, the magazine, the producer), but there doesn't appear to be any verifiable act that matches those things. Therefore, delete for being unverifiable. Geogre 19:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure how 1380 hits on Google counts as unverifiable....??? Jcuk
    • I couldn't verify the things stated in the article. I could verify that their name is on the web, but that doesn't verify the claims. It would really help if they were a signed, distributed band. Geogre 18:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wiki policy states a musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, dj etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
  • Has been prominently featured in any major music media.
  • Does their appearance on Skuzz count?

Jcuk

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quasistatic equilibrium[edit]

original research JPotter 02:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; Looks like it has citations and links, fairly standard terminology. Am I missing something? Tom Harrison (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I see it goes with Thermodynamic evolution, listed above. I can't address the technical merits of the article; the theory may be kooky, but it's linked and cited. It doesn't look like original research to me. Tom Harrison (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; not notable kooky theory (as opposed to notable kooky theories). --Pierremenard.
  • Delete. Indeed, it has citations and links, fairly standard terminology. The problem is, these are mixed together is a clearcut example of original research. --DrTorstenHenning 14:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I removed the wacky citations; it now seems to be a reasonable first cut at defining a term that is widely used. linas 18:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per fix by User:Linas. --ScienceApologist 19:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since fixed. GangofOne 04:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDILY REDIRECT. I can't understand why, after moving this to its new title, User:Go for it! then duplicated it. Anyway, a redirect is clearly in order, and that doesn't need an AfD. -Splashtalk 02:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of library and information science topics[edit]

Exact duplicate of List of basic library and information science topics GUllman 02:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moshzilla[edit]

Originally deleted back in July, this was reversed on DRV with all those seeking undeletion recommending it be relisted here citing concerns over the interpretation of the original debate. The original nomination read "Non-notable, could be merged into Internet phenomenon. Merge and delete". -Splashtalk 02:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I started the deletion debate on the last one, I'll vote delete again. Delete. WikiFanatic 02:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, put a line in Internet phenomenon if warrented. Tom Harrison (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete flash-in-the-pan internet phenomena. Pburka 03:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. If kept, don't merge. -- Kjkolb 03:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. No phenomenon. Blip. mikka (t) 04:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pburka said it. Reyk 07:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unflattering photo of some kid. Fun to giggle at for a few seconds? Sure. Encyclopedic? No. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ugh. Eusebeus 14:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Mozilla. Internet phenomena have to be spectacularly popular to deserve Wikipedia articles (such as "All your base are belong to us"), and this certainly isn't. — JIP | Talk 18:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both links are dead. If this ever was an internet phenomenon, it isn't anymore. --אריאל יהודה 18:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable, non-phenomenon, and nowhere near significant enough to warrant an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingsandsword (talk • contribs) --WikiFanatic 22:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Culturally insignificant, even to Internet culture that loves to write about itself on Wikipedia. silsor 22:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Insignificant and uninteresting. FCYTravis 07:56, 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 as podcruft. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:07, Dec. 25, 2005

Bibb and Yaz[edit]

advertising, not-notable podcast Dalbury(Talk) 02:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete ad, nn  J\/\/estbrook       02:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, very few podcasts are notable. I added the "importance" tag earlier, which the editor removed. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are always usually different types of example of what podcasts are, I don't think they are giving the defination of podcasts, they are defining themselves. Just as there may be an insert for The Tonight Show and it's history. I think there should be a section on the different genres of podcasts and the history of the hosts. - Perhaps in the defination of podcasts it could go into the different types that are out there. and allow podcasters to post about themselves and their show. We are going to miss a great history not with just Bibb and Yazz, but with all the shows that started it all. What was the very first podcast? Who did the first couple cast? Who did the first podcast over 2 hours. If someone did want to right a paper or article on podcasts the defination is all about feeds and internet jargin. We all know podcasts are about the people. 12.226.99.247 03:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Kelli~ (first edit by this anon user)[reply]
  • so it is a question of importance??? and who is the judge of that??? yaz
    • The world at large is. Furthermore: The best way that we here at Wikipedia can tell that the world at large has adjudged something to be notable is the fact that multiple people in the world at large, who are independent of the subject, have deemed it notable enough that they have expended the time and effort to create and to publish non-trivial works of their own about it. So if you wish to demonstrate that your podcast is notable, point to where it has been reviewed in magazines, where it has been reported in newspapers, where it has had books written about it, where it has had a third party independently write a history of it, and so forth. Uncle G 20:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would need external references to independent sources discussing the significance of Bibb and Yaz to be convinced that this podcast is notable; if those references are added to the article, I'll reconsider my vote. To User:12.226.99.247: I agree that it would be worthwhile to research the origins of podcasting, but if you have verifiable information about that, you should discuss it at Talk:Podcasting, not under Bibb and Yaz. At this point, I can't tell whether Bibb and Yaz is a landmark in the history of podcasting or just another podcast, but I'm leaning toward the latter unless I find out otherwise. --Metropolitan90 07:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Zoe - nn podcast. Eusebeus 08:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't think any podcasts are notable. — JIP | Talk 18:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then don't go deleting stuff because you dislike it. I think all emo and hiphop and pop music is "not notable", but I'm not going to go deleting any page about/referring to it. Podcasting is becoming popular, and Wikipedia is going to have to start accepting podcasts into its databases. Plus Bibb and Yaz kick ass.--ElNacho 23:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does that mean?--ElNacho 14:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The closing admin may discount any recommendation made by a user account that appears to have been created for the purpose of influencing the discussion. Editors participating in a nomination for deletion discussion are urged to mark such comments as an aid to the closing admin. -- Dalbury(Talk) 16:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Podcasting, like other DIY media (incl. blogs), is very difficult to assess, but number of weekly downloads might be some indication. However, it isn't a case of "is it popular" that, it seems to me, we need to address. There is one simple rule that will help us separate wheat and chaff: are other media discussing it? (And I mean other than, in this case, websites. In the case of magazines, I would ask for radio/tv or web discussion. In the case of a forum, I'd ask for magazines, radio/tv.) Are there newspapers, tv shows, magazines on paper, or radio programs discussing this podcast? If not, Wikipedia is not a secondary source of information. Geogre 18:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: From what I have seen, the Bibb and Yaz podcast has been in existence for over a year (or close to it from what i have found). Many podcasts that I have seen in the past have no staying power as compared to this one. I see no need for public justification outside of the podcasting community if this is one of them who has been around since close to the begining.(61.26.193.182 13:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter nash and the all-star schnapps convention[edit]

lacks notability Hirudo 02:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 04:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. FWIW, this is about a band. Smerdis of Tlön 15:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this collective vanity, brilliant and offensive as it might be. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:52, Dec. 15, 2005
  • Delete: A mass Geogre's Law failure (any article with a miniscule surname is already in trouble), and the contents confirm it. Bandity. Geogre 19:09, 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 move to HEGA. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hega[edit]

Advertising. According to an email on the Help Desk mailing list, only the linked company is involved in this technology, making this an ad for their product. I don't know anything personally about this subject, so if this is not a valid AfD, then I apologize in advance. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Move to HEGA. The term does seem to be in use. The article needs a lot of work. I'd like to say it should be redirected or merged, but I don't know with what. Tom Harrison (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, Move to HEGA. Pburka 03:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the term appears to have little web use outside Austin air conditioner advertisements (excluding it it gets 13 unique Google results), but at least one somewhat credible website, intelihealth.com, supports the article's story. Global Security.org mentions it, but doesn't confirm any claims in the article other than what HEGA stands for. -- Kjkolb 04:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: HEGA is a valid topic and the definition would seem to be correct. However, the last sentence is not supportable with only Austin Air using the technology and should be considered for deletion. The external link goes to a sales site with little information on this topic so should be deleted. zaytran 07:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to HEGA. I replaced the link selling air purifiers with the InteliHealth link, which has the information in the article. I didn't even see it on the page that was linked. -- Kjkolb 08:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 Hairy Thumbs Up[edit]

Not notable, no worthwhile history etc. Eeee 02:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Two non-hairy thumbs down from me. No Guru 04:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am familiar with this program, and I know that it is not a worthy Wikipedia article. It is also POV, and if this person thinks that Baby Geniuses is a good movie, well...you are a rare find, my friend. Croat Canuck 05:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even less notable than The WB's Aftertoons Show. B.Wind 01:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and expand section in the YTV parent article (or merge with...)Jcuk 09:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Meaningless television show on a network most haven't even heard of, and a ripoff of the famous Sikel % Ebert (later Ebert and Roeper) trademark. Roman Soldier 20:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment I would beg to differ, maybe "most" haven't heard of it because its Canadian. Croat Canuck 01:49, 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:09, Dec. 25, 2005

Business Agility[edit]

"This article is work in progress by the participants of the IEEE International Workshop on Business Transformation". An inappropriate use of Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, commentary by author and IP contributors nonwithstanding. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:14, Dec. 25, 2005

Troop 34, moved to Troop 34 (Detroit Area Council)[edit]

non-notable, unverifiable, can't even tell which Troop 32 out the hundreds that must exist. (BTW, I've been a Webelos Cub Scout, Star Boy Scout, Sea Scout, Cubmaster, Pack Committee Chairman, Assistant Scoutmaster, Troop Committee Chairman, and District Training Chairman, and I don't think any Boy Scout Troop deserves its own article.) Dalbury(Talk) 03:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Pburka 03:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as proposed. Gazpacho 04:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Although the troop is adequately identified, no Boy Scout troop deserves its own Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 06:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't go that far. There are some pretty spectacular troops out there that could deserve a Wikiarticle. This isn't one of them. Saberwyn - 21:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, scout troop vanity. — JIP | Talk 18:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not exactly scout troop vanity, but not exactly notable  J\/\/estbrook       02:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Every scout troop deserves their own wikipedia article! This one is actually very spectacular. (BTW Eagle Scout)

[[Abduncan4 02:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)]] 02:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep I think this is a remarkable page, and this troop as most troops deserve a wikipedia article. 204.39.56.130 19:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]



    • Comment someone please explain a valid reason why this needs to be deleted? It is a quality article about a good troop. Although it currently lacks information, that is what wikipedia is for, so other users knowledgable about Troop 34, can update it. It is not irrelevant becuase other troops have wiki articles and it is good information, there is no reason why it should be deleted. Abduncan4 18:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted because this article says nothing more than "We are a Scout troop from Detroit. We do Scout-type stuff. Cool!". There is absolutely nothing provided in the article that demonstrates the importance or significance of this troop. I will admit that your troop has significance to its members and the local community, as does mine, but we're talking a state-wide or national-wide impact outside the scouting community here.

Had this come in a few days later, it would have fallen under the new expansion to the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, section A-7, which is what I have based my reasoning above on.

I should also refer you to the WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider section of the What Wikipedia is NOT policy. The material here would best be suited to a website, which you can set up for free with numerous providers. Wikipedia is not for your troop's personal homepage.

On the above, I believe that this article is a suitable candidate for deletion, and do not change the vote I provided above. If my Rover Crew suddenly received an article, I'd have it deleted, for the exact same reasons. Don't take this personally. You're probably a good troop, just not a suitable one for Wikipedia.

Good Scouting, Saberwyn - 19:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh how I disagree. Every scout troop is deservable of a wikipedia article. Also, the troop has a very rich tradition and history that is over 50 years old, however that information has not been organized yet, so it cannot be posted.

  • Comment: As of 2003, there were 43,984 troops in the USA alone [7], and Scouting exists in over 100 countries. --Metropolitan90 07:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is nothing notable about 50 years of history; my son earned his Eagle rank in a troop founded in 1914, and it doesn't have an article. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment = this is so notable, every signle of the 43,984 troops deserves a wikipedia article, also maybe you or your son should write an article about that troop.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Lynx.[edit]

Looks like it blatantly fails WP:MUSIC. Delete --Spring Rubber 03:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have to agree...looks to be promo--MONGO 04:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These all look so similar, it's chilling. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:54, Dec. 15, 2005
  • Delete per nom. Computerjoe 18:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kick Off 2 competition version[edit]

This page is just a list of features (and a wishlist of features) for a game which doesn't exist yet. WP is NOT a free web hosting service, a crystal ball, or a promotional service. Pburka 03:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This game is the only UFFICIAL version adopted by the international Kick Off Organization (1400 members) and is actually used on all the major international tournaments. Kick Off 2 competition version was firstly used on july 2005 with the national UK championship and then it was used on the kick off World cup this year, 12-13 november in Cologne (Germany) with 63 players from 11 nations. So request of deletion is simply ridicolous, get updated yourself going to the ufficial forums and websites of the Kick Off Association, many thanks. filippodb 19 December 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. – Robert 20:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GEN@[edit]

someone's personal Neo-logism. All buzzwords and no content novacatz 03:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neologism. Pburka 04:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Movementarian 09:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. — JIP | Talk 18:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a source can be cited showing that this neologism is actually a term in widespread use. --Stormie 14:28, 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. If it appears again, I'll protect it as {{deleted}}, mark my words. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:19, Dec. 25, 2005

Xavier N Parkes[edit]

A bio about a small-time actor from the UK. I speedy deleted the content once under CSD A7, but it's back, so I thought I'd let the author get it a hearing. Google has nothing but links about a character from The OC. Harro5 03:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as Hoax. -- JJay 04:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete just yet- although I know nothing about Xavier Parkes, the film 'Hungarian Surf Trip' does exist: I watched it get an award at a film festival held in Cornwall this year, and it was very well received by the audience. The bio on the actor might be a kind of hoax, possibly to try to raise publicity for the film. W. Beamon. 15 Dec — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.44.1.200 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete and padlock - article about nn British article was already spedily deleted. It's probably not a hoax, but still is a long way from deserving a Wikipedia article on its own. B.Wind 01:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have anything showing that it's not a hoax? I can't find the film or the actor. -- JJay 01:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both the film and the actor exist and are moderately well known outside of the commercial film-making arena. Hungarian Surf Trip is currently available to buy on very limited release from either the director, Desmundo Profundo, or the production company. Parkes is no longer registered with Equity but is believed to be working on location in Slovenia on the prequel to Trip. --Timduffy 09:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Probably keep, albeit with reference to his correct/alternative name - I recognise the description and knew 'Parkes' in the 1990s when he called himself Spencer Stephens (come to think of it, perhaps that was a pseudonym too). I met him during my time on the Eastern European theatre circuit. He was a rather abrasive character who was often drunk, but not a bad actor - although it surprises me not one bit that Hollywood has not yet 'discovered' him.... He seems to have adopted the name of a character he played in Etchison and Kelley's Boy@nt - the Internet Movie Database verifies this: [8] I've never heard of Hungarian Surf Trip though - although this doesn't mean it doesn't exist of course! Dominique[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Place Montréal Trust[edit]

There are a few shopping malls that are notable. This one's not. Delete. Fang Aili 03:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: actually this is once of the nicer malls in that part of Monteal. The article is useless though.
  • Delete nn shopping mall. Eusebeus 20:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Notability is irrelvant, its not Wiki policy, added to which the article is eminently verifiable as it has a link to the places official website. Having said that, for it to be worth keeping it needs to be completely rewritten.Jcuk 09:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Just merge the two sentences to Underground city, Montreal, keep the redirect, and its done. Jkelly 00:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --- Major downtown mall. 209.202.119.248 14:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Jaranda wat's sup 06:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If and when some guy sprays crowds in this mall with a machine gun, screaming "I need to see the pussy", we can revisit this at WP:DRV (Bill Hicks reference contained herein). Delete meanwhile. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:16, Dec. 26, 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:22, Dec. 25, 2005

Mark McConnellogue[edit]

Non-notable schoolteacher - plus general unverifiability and original research. In what reputable published source can we find verification that "Mark’s students describe him as ‘sound’ – a term of approval used sparingly among the pupils of this large, urban school. The students respect his calm yet firm management while colleagues view him as an excellent role model for students ... As a school counsellor many pupils have found guidance, strength and wisdom from talking to him"? Tearlach 04:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if he won the National award. -- JJay 04:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he didn't. The national Guardian Award for Teacher of the Year in a Secondary School in 2004 was won by Philip Beadle, Eastlea Community School Technology College, London (see [9]). Mark McConnellogue won one of the 146 runner-up category awards, Teacher Training Agency Award for Outstanding New Teacher, Northern Ireland ([10]). Tearlach 04:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outstanding new teacher. That's not bad...we probably need an article on Beadle as well. -- JJay 06:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd say the award for the most Outstanding New Teacher in his counrty is sufficent. N mcdermott 04:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - it appears that nothing verifiable is going to be able to be written on this article other than "he won 1 of 146 regional awards." The rest is more or less vanity, probably by one of his students. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ESKog, can't see this ever being a substantial verifiable article, nor one anyone is likely to lookup --pgk(talk) 08:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Sorry but i must correct you. saying "he won 1 of 146 regional awards." is a gross misrepresentation. It is the equivalent of saying X won only one out of Y gold medals at the olympics. There are only two awards for secondary school teaching in Northern Ireland. (1) "The Guardian Award for Teacher of the Year in a Secondary School " and (2) "The Teacher Training Agency Award for Outstanding New Teacher ". McConnellogue won the later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.143.42 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two secondary school categories out of 10 Teaching Awards and 14 more for special commendees, within NI, out of the 146 nationally. Tearlach 12:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Possible material in breach of copywright has been removed and he has won a national award. Notable.--Johnfullerton 15:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: High school teacher, no matter how many kudos. Let's say he won the sole award for secondary teaching for all of the United Kingdom. Ok. That would make him last year's winner and would put him in a set of yearly winners. Within the ranks of Who's Who in Education, it would get him an entry. However, for an encyclopedia, we need a life that is discussed, and not an accomplishment that is a single event. What can one say about this person that makes him remarkable among persons? He does his job well, and we all appreciate that, but that does not make him a force above and beyond his students and the professional context. (Salesman of the year for America wouldn't be appropriate encyclopedic content, either.) Geogre 11:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ouch. 82.26.164.168 15:41, 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 JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Armed Dragon, Dark Scorpion Gang, Destiny Heroes, Elemental Hero series, Gate Guardian (Yu-Gi-Oh!), Gaia The Fierce Knight, Gilford the Lightning, Harpie Lady, Ojama Trio, Panther Warrior, Time Wizard, Toon Series, Toon monsters, VWXYZ series, Vehicroid series[edit]

Listcruft, unnotable, precedent for deleting card articles, possible copyvio by copying card text word for word. I'm tackling the card lists first, then moving on to the single cards, and left alone the ones that seem important in the TV shows. If you feel that one article doesn't fit here, I'll give it its own AfD. --Apostrophe 03:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given the current deletion reform proposal, I propose this get put off until that proposal gets moved on. Hackwrench 20:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it is kind of rude of you making this proposal without making note of it on the main Yu-Gi-Oh! Talk page, so I did so. Hackwrench 21:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! has a show as well as the cards, so to some extent there are a number of different issues involved. There are people who haven't seen the real-life cards but seen the show and wondering what the relationship of certain cards are to others, for one. Hackwrench 20:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the individual card articles per the Power Nine precedent. I'm undecided on the series articles thanks to the same precedent; it depends on if they're actually notable and/or valuable enough. -- Grev 05:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - per established precedent. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 08:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't they be merged somewhere? - Mgm|(talk) 11:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Shoot down this Yu-Gi-Cruft, even if you must reload twice. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:56, Dec. 15, 2005
I think Freakofnurture's vote shouldn't count due to his apparent hatred of Yu-Gi-Oh! in general.Hackwrench 20:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- lists of no worth doktorb 22:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These cards list the various series of cards made and their relation to the show itself.
  • Delete - Many of these cards are too minor to truly be worth taking attention. However, some of these, such as the Elemental Hero series, the Destiny Heroes series, and the VWXYZ series actually have great weight on the show. I would defintely remove all of the single card articles that are short and extraneous though Sephiroth BCR 23:15:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - So are the Ojama Trio, Vehicloid series, & Harpy Lady. The Dark Scorpion Gang were also an important part of the series do to their leader being one of the main villians.
      • Because characters use them rather often doesn't mean they warrant an article. Especially in the case of Harpy Lady, whose user only plays in few episodes. I can see reason to keep the God card articles, as they're important plot devices in the series, but cards like Harpy Lady only warrant few sentences in their user articles saying "(Person) often uses (Card), which is a (Type) card, that can (explanation of user's strategy or card's effect)." Maybe an iamge if you really feel the need. What those cards certainly don't deserve are articles, with potential copyvio problems, no less. --Apostrophe 17:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Truth but if a card evolves into series of cards that revolve on that one original card, it should be acceptable.
          • I don't think so. To me, that's tantamount to saying that people who produce offspring and a family lineage are automatically notable. Series of cards still need to be notable to warrant inclusion. --Apostrophe 19:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Most of the cards mentioned are notable due to being used on the show. They are not as major like the Gods, Dragons, & Demons, they still played a big part in the storyline.
              • Harpy Lady certainly wasn't a big enough part of the storyline if all we have for notability is that "Mai uses it!" Same goes for Toon cards, VWXYZ series, and clearly others. --Apostrophe 04:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Mai is one of the major characters of the plot and the V-to-Z series is used by two duelists in the anime.
                  • You're missing the point. Because they use them does not establish notability for those cards. --Apostrophe 17:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a single article, the phenomenon itself is notable (although notability itself is not cause for deletion on Wiki), and verifiable.Jcuk 09:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That'd be quite the large article. --Apostrophe 17:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just because they were used in the show, that does not warrant making an entire page dedicated to them. You have to ask yourself, "In 100 years, will anyone care?"--JackGeneric 00:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No you don't, because 100 years is more than sufficient time to delete them if they lose notability, but if the reverse is true, then it will be a pain to add them back in plus new supporting material. Hackwrench 20:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim for notability.  Grue  18:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge them, at least some of them are regular (Harpy Lady, Gaia the Fierce Knight) or important features in the TV series and I should be able to look them up. Kappa 02:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't aware you had a right to look up whatever information you wish on Wikipedia. --Apostrophe 02:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need for having articles on trading cards. --Jaranda wat's sup 05:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you say that? This goes for everyone else here that has little interest in the Yu-Gi-Oh! scene. Hackwrench 20:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, All Harpy cards on one page with redirects on each of the card names. Gilford, Gearfried, and Gaia all on one page because people are going to get them confused and there should be one page to explain things out ASAP. I watch the series and have around 200 cards despite never playing in a duel using anything near the official rules. Hackwrench 20:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • They should start having communities for groups of articles. Only those interested in Yu-Gi-Oh! should be able to vote for deletions for Yu-Gi-Oh!. Same for Magic: the Gathering, Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, and I can think of other areas. Anybody would still be able to edit any of the pages though. I just don't see how improperly informed votes are going to help Wikipedia be a good source for information. I don't know where to go to propose this community thing, but I'm bringing it up here because this is a place where Wikipedia's usefulness can get totally thrashed without it. Hackwrench 20:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advaita Vedanta Ajativada[edit]

Delete. Original research. —Preost talk contribs 04:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as original research. Mo0[talk] 04:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above. Snurks T C 04:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We already have Advaita Vedanta. utcursch | talk 08:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just comments, no vote: We already have Advaita Vedanta. I am not sure of the context of the present article. If possible, I will come back with more comments. --Bhadani 15:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENTSThis article's subject matter is not recent, or orginal but hoary with age;( Some thousands of years at least). It is the most complicated but simple example of Vedantic Philosphy, and so deserves explanation in the same terms....--Aoclery 17:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Tony O'Clery[reply]
  • Keep. I have re-written the article. Please reconsider keeping this article on a concept in Hindu philosophy. — goethean ॐ 21:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The re-write is great stub! If this is how it will be, then I'll adjust my vote to keep.—Preost talk contribs 21:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent.Now I understand how Wikipedia works. I was treating it as a magazine of some kinds. Sometimes it takes me some time to get to planet earth, as 'believer' in Ajativada....--Aoclery 00:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Tony[reply]

Hopefully my further editings are now within the guidelines..--Aoclery 17:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Tony[reply]

Actually, they are not. What you added here is vague, ungrammatical, unencyclopedic, lacks context, and could be a copyright violation, which is a very serious matter. and this: "............Sri Swami Atmananda." is just sort of meaningless and inappropriate. Is this a quotation from Sri Swami Atmananda? If so, what page of what book, article, or interview is it from? You lower the value of the entire Wikipedia project when you carelessly insert text like this. I appreciate that you understand Ajativada in a deeper way than I do, but you really need to be more careful and to read the Wikipedia guidelines if you want your contributions to be respected and retained. Your edits will have to be severely cleaned up. Everything in Wikipedia must be attributed to a source. — goethean ॐ 17:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice and editing.........--Aoclery 17:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Tony[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 05:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blunted affect[edit]

Looks like original research. P0per 04:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as original research. Mo0[talk] 04:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, but it still needs a healthy does of Cleanup. Mo0[talk] 03:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - original research. Thesquire 09:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and cleanup. This is real; or at least, I've heard of it before. The symptom of blunted affect is fairly significant in psychiatry, where "affect" is used as jargon for non-verbal communication and emotional reactivity. The poster apparently made the mistake of leading off with his signature. This doesn't make it original research; it even has references. It needs to be made encyclopedic; don't bite the newbie. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I appreciate Smerdis' point. Also, our own Affect article describes "blunted affect" briefly. However, the text here is not specifically about "blunted affect". In fact the title given at the top of the article text is "Affect and how to describe it." It's written from the author's very specific point of view. I would rather see this article start from scratch. FreplySpang (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to keep and cleanup - thanks for the expansion, Naif! FreplySpang (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. A couple users have taken to blanking the Affect page, on the grounds that it does not belong here because it contains "dictionary definitions." (What a perverse load of. . .) I have restored it with minor edits, and suggested that they raise it here. Smerdis of Tlön 00:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and cleanup. Wikipedia has a systematic bias against moods/feelings, which lie just outside the normal bounds of logic, but are no less worthy of encyclopedia entries. - Naif 05:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've expanded and cleaned up the article. Please reconsider all votes. - Naif 17:24, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel of Thomas according to Advaita Vedanta[edit]

Delete. Original research. —Preost talk contribs 04:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Here is a academic opinion on these purports by the venerable professor..V Krishnamurthy............ "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk@y...> wrote: Namaste, Tony-ji > > I just browsed through your site on the Gospel of Thomas. It is > wonderful. I shall keep reading it more and more in detail. In the > meantime I recommend it to all the members of this list for their > reading. Your purports are illuminating and refreshing from an > advaitin's point of view. Thanks for bringing it to my notice. > > PraNAms to all seekersd of Truth. > profvk....posted by --Aoclery 20:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Tony[reply]

    • Comment: It may well be that your research is good and sound, but it's still original research and therefore excluded by Wikipedia policy. —Preost talk contribs 20:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got it.I'm getting the message now, Wikipedia isn't a magazine..--Aoclery 00:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Tony[reply]

  • Delete original research. --Fire Star 05:50, 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, but leaning toward a possible merge. Be WP:BOLD and WP:DIY. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:32, Dec. 25, 2005

Foetodon, Ligocristus, Vastatosaurus Rex[edit]

Not notable fictional dinosaurs from King Kong (2005 film). --Apostrophe 04:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Merge into an article on Skull Island inhabitants. thatcrazycommie
  • Delete per nom. The names aren't even used in the movie. Kusma (討論) 06:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete' Borisblue 22:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's mentioned to be fictional and there are already other fictional creatures on wikipedia. -- Crevaner 09:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep, unless we're going to delete articles such as Bilbo Baggins or Desperate Dan along with any other fictional character/person/animal.Jcuk 09:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability, anyone? Bilbo Baggins is a vital character in Lord of the Rings. Those are short articles about random Dinosaurs in King Kong. --Apostrophe 17:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
  • Keep or merge, articles just need to be fleshed out with perhaps a capture from the film and a source link. Seinfreak37 20:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just how are they to be "fleshed out"? They're fictional dinosaurs appearing a single movie! All they serve is to be things for the characters to run away from and for Kong to kill. --Apostrophe 20:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN dinosaur species featured in a single film. Not much more than a device to advance the plot/action. --Madchester 07:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.The V.Rex and others are interesting aspects of a movie that creates creatures distinct from anything else. They are featured and described in a field guide to skull island, and are more than simple plot-devices. These creatures were created by artists who wanted to schulpt something new and interesting, something with real backgrounds and interesting qualities that would capture the imagination of true fans, and so far, Wikipedia has beent he pnly place to get easy access to any of this information. If deleted, many will truly miss out for the disinterest of a few. Indeed, I agree that the articles should be enhanced with more substantial background information and images.
    • User has only a few edits, all on those articles. --Apostrophe 00:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When was it that Wikipedia became a sci-fi fansite? I didn't get that memo. -R. fiend 19:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep, of interest to fans of the movie and of fiction dinosaurs in general. Kappa 02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It being interesting to a specific group of people doesn't mean we should keep it. I'm sure some people are interested in not-notable bands and hoax articles; however, I'm not seeing you voting keep on those articles out of possible interest to some people. --Apostrophe 02:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The groups of people interested in this topic are large and identifiable. If you are destroying information that I and a large number of others would find valuable, how can you at the same time promise me the sum of human knowledge? Kappa 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Large and identifiable"? --Apostrophe 03:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • People who saw the movie + people interested in dinosaurs = large and identifiable. Kappa 03:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • But are they interested in those Dinosaurs? --Apostrophe 03:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this stub with no expandability. Even merging all these into a list, as is normal for minor character articles, doesn't seem reasonable considering the overwhelming triviality.—jiy (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Deletions should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. ¿What if someone feels that some of the articles are garbage while others are gold? I have seen VfDs of multiple articles which have exactly that problem. Multiple articles should not be listed together. — Ŭalabio‽ 15:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — Despite my previous comment, the solution is merge for all, but not the same article. Foetodon should go into the section Crocodilians in fiction in Crocodilians. Ligocristus should go into the section Ceratopsians in Fiction in the article Ceratopsians. Vastatosaurus Rex should go into the section Tyrannosourids in Fiction in the article Tyrannosaurids. — Ŭalabio‽ 15:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose Walabio's suggested merge targets. These articles do not have sections on dinosaurs in fiction yet, and should be kept as clean real paleobiology articles. If the articles absolutely have to be merged instead of deletd outright, make a new article out of them and King Kong (2005 movie)#Bestiary. Kusma (討論) 15:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge or make a new article, Yeah, and I doubt you could find out too much info about V-Rexes or these other creatures unless you take from other articles about dinosaurs or state the obvious from the film so either just delete this article or make up a new one about "creatures from king kong". Perhaps you could simply include this stuff on the besitary on the movie article page. --Predator 18:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although Kusma says the names are not used in the movie, they are definitely found on the official website (which could mean that when the DVD is released a few extra scenes might even name a couple of the animals). Besides..why do these fictional animals have to have a name? The flying steeds of the Nazgul never had any official names (although the got the name "Fell Beasts" for the movie) and they have a page.
  • Delete, it can't be expanded. Maybe put all the information on the King Kong (2005 film) article? The names weren't even used in the film.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Zzzzz 20:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all those characters barely, if any had a role in the movie. I see no need for a article. --Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge I found myself at the articles when I wanted to learn the differences between the fictional dinosaurs and their real counterparts. I'd at least like for all of the information to be kept - whether or not is merged makes little difference to me so long as I can find it easily. MagicBez 03:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I remember skimming this information recently in a book, I think it is from the new book, The World of Kong : A Natural History of Skull Island by Weta Workshop which gives more movie details about the animals of Skull Island. Should be kept because this would be good information for anyone interested in the subject. --Evmore 17:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 04:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factually accurate. --Oldak Quill 10:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this childish, crufty garbage. If kept, at least merge these with the film. u p p l a n d 10:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete Send it to some form of bestiary article for King Kong or delete it outright, this is merely a faux dinosaur that serves solely as a plot device. Comradeash 13:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite Porrly written, but keep if rewritten ComputerJoe 14:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep and or merge' under a comprehensive article for additional information for the movie. 67.188.156.38 06:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jaranda wat's sup 04:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the BBC[edit]

Unfinished page that the original author hasn't touched for months. Also seems to be at least moderately POV. Unless expanded and NPOV-ized during the AfD, delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete looks like a POV fork to me. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems interesting. -- JJay 04:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has potential and maybe this AFD might spur some activity. Perhaps someone might consider moving this to a temp page? 23skidoo 04:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. We have a number of organisations that have criticisms including Wikipedia and there is certainly enough verifiable material dating back to the 1920's to justify a page. Capitalistroadster 06:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup. utcursch | talk 09:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no reason to delete. Dan100 (Talk) 09:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is pretty poor and is misnamed (it contains criticisms of TV news in general, and BBC news in specific, has very little BBC specific content to do with the licence fee and suchforth.) Morwen - Talk 09:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into BBC controversies or into BBC. - Mgm|(talk) 11:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster Tom Harrison (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Criticism(s) of X" pages are inherent violations of our neutral point of view policy, since they deliberately present debates in a one-sided way. See Talk:Criticism of Christianity#Rendering_this_article_neutral and Talk:Criticisms of communism#NPOV. Sidelining all criticisms of a subject into separate articles is not implementing the NPOV. It is the creation of POV forks, plain and simple. MacGyverMagic has exactly the correct idea. The subject should be covered in articles which are neutral in their scope. Uncle G 14:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capit.R. and expand. Youngamerican 16:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as of now. First, most of the "good" information is already present in some form in BBC_controversies. Second, as it is now, this is not a worthwhile article and relies on contemporary critiques by bloggers for a significant portion of its content. I agree that there is room for criticism articles, but simply because one could exist (or one exists in a NPOV) doesn't mean that we should keep it. Unless someone is willing to undertake a significant rewrite, it doesn't seem worthwhile to keep. mmmbeerT / C / ? 18:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Remove all criticism that is by the article author and not by a cited source. Verified criticism of notable organisations is encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 18:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Just out of curiosity, if votes are "keep" and "cleanup", how does that work. What if there isn't a cleanup? Even a cursory examination of this article suggests "clean up" would be a massive undertaking. What's more, a good clean up would seem to require significant duplication of the material that exists already within BBC and BBC controversies. If this isn't what's meant by "cleanup", then it seems to otherwise be a collection of uotes about the "badness" of the BBC. Quotes standing alone aren't very encyclopedic. mmmbeerT / C / ? 19:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: I would figure that the article would be tagged for clean-up for a month or two, and if it was not cleaned up in that time, it would be AfD'd again. — JIP | Talk 19:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is that really how it works? Or is that just a hope for how it works? Has this ever happened successfully this way? If so, I'd be willing to change my vote. It seems, however, that permitting "cleanup" to complicate a vote is really a form of conditional voting. Seems hardly productive. mmmbeerT / C / ? 20:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • For me, my vote is keep, while the cleanup is just a suggestion to the closing admin to tag it. Youngamerican 16:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Essetial delete POV fork. There is next to no chance that if we allow articles of this sort of they will achieve neutrality. Rhollenton 00:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no consensus that "Criticism of X" articles are automatically POV forks, as some editors here have alleged. They of course can be, but it is no more inherently POV to write about criticisms of a particular person, place or thing than it is to write about any other aspect of that person, place or thing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presenting a discussion of a subject in such a way as to only include the negative views of it is non-neutral. The NPOV policy requires that Wikipedia not present debates in ways that implicitly advocate specific sides. Articles should be neutral in scope. The fact that almost all of our "Criticism of X" articles have sported chronic neutrality disputes should be evidence enough of the fact that that isn't the case for articles that are formulated with "this article contains only negative views" scopes. Ironically, in this particular case, we already have proper neutral-scope articles, pre-dating this article by the larger part of a year. Uncle G 08:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Presenting a discussion of a subject in such a way as to only include the negative views of it is non-neutral." Well, then, there's no problem, because that is not in any way, shape or form inherent in an article titled "Criticism of X". It is certainly possible to cover the subject of "Criticism of X" one-sidedly, but then that is also possible for the subject "X" to begin with. How many times does it have to be said? If an article covers a subject from only one point of view, that is the problem, not the fact that the subject is "Criticism of X". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Feldspar, your analysis is clearly wrong. "Criticism" does suggest only one side of the issue. Nothing about that asks for the opposite, let's just call them "glowing reviews". By having a criticisms, especially in this case, you're asking for only those things that criticise the BBC's overage. I can't even imagine how that would constitute NPOV as it totally avoids the other side. Besides, is there a single topic that doesn't have its critics? On the other hand, "BBC controversies" sort of asks for the controvery to be explained; it BEGS for both sides. In addition, most of the legal topics I could do could also have an entire article devoted to legal criticisms, but I don't think that anyone would advocate such a thing. That's not to say, of course, that there isn't room for them, but rather there's no point and needlessly POV and lopsided. mmmbeerT / C / ? 16:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or merge with main BBC article. Unbehagen 00:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid reason for deletion has been put forward. POV is a reason to put a tag on the article asking for help in cleaning it up, not a reason to delete. Turnstep 01:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have plenty of "criticism of ..." articles (which to me are justified as a way to keep articles shorter more than anything else), and there's plenty on the BBC from all ends of the political spectrum. If "The original author hasn't touched it for months," I submit that the appropriate remedy for that is leaving a message on his/her Talk page, or (God forbid) working on it yourself, rather than a deletion vote. Daniel Case 16:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum and suggestion: The "criticism" article should be about general themes in BBC criticism (like the license fee), whereas the BBC controversies article should be redone as a list to encourage the creation of separate articles about the individual incidents where warranted. Daniel Case 16:52, 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 JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


United States Political Issues[edit]

Unfinished, at least mildly POV, and unnecessary. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unmaintainable, inherently POV. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A better idea would be to create a US political issues category (if there isn't already one). The articles should be used instead for the specifics. — TheKMantalk 08:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would we need such a cat? Aren't political issues pretty much the same across the world? - Mgm|(talk) 11:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per TheKMan Tom Harrison (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essentially a list of the creator's own personal views, some of which aren't even within the realm of political discourse: Birth control should be made illegal. Durova 15:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 19:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Abortion_debate and so forth have got this covered. Metarhyme 02:19, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 05:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory[edit]

Note: previously survived a then-VfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postcodes: New South Wales on 25/09/2004.

I consider a list of postcodes to be of very dubious value on wikipedia given it is derived directly from freely available data from the Australia Post website. Unlike some other lists, this one adds nothing that isn't already available elsewhere in basically the same format. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I was just bouncing around the ZIP code listing in wikip looking up some info (so having here is kinda useful) and if US postal codes are kept, I don't see why Aussie ones should not be. novacatz 04:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These lists are very common and reliably pass AfD. This one has been recently formatted, looks good and is up to date. It is not harming wikipedia by being here. --Martyman-(talk) 04:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
nitpicking perhaps, but it was not up to date at the time of your vote, I have updated it--A Y Arktos 21:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful list for ACT residents. This page has not yet been listed on the AfD but it will be now. Capitalistroadster 04:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at the very least reformat into a very short article with a link to the current Australia Post web site. I appreciate a lot of work has one into this but I question the value of maintaining such a list; the only current list is maintained by Australia Post. It is not a particularly static list and if someone wants authoratative information we should be pointing them in the right direction, not offering something that might not be up to date. My comments apply to all lists of postcodes in Australia. They do not imply that the current lists are not up to date, but we cannot guarantee they will be completely right in 6 months time. Took me years to cotton on that ANU had its own weird postcode (0200 not 2600) - not sure when it changed but I believe well before I dropped the habit of addressing letters to the institution under 2600.--A Y Arktos 04:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We are not just setting a precedent here for australian postcodes, this would also apply to all the lists of US zip codes etc. PS. I think the ANU has been 0200 for as long as I can remember (at least 10 years) these things do not chnage on a weekly basis. --Martyman-(talk) 04:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. These lists have survived AfD overwhelmingly before, are fairly static (making the reliability objection bunk), and I'm currently in the process of cleaning them up so they're less ugly. Ambi 04:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. A nonsense nomination, unless the nominator intends to nominate the hundreds of such lists on Wikipedia.--cj | talk 06:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is no less encyclopaedic than any other "List of ..." article on Wikipedia. I'm interested to hear the nominator's opinion on the rumoured similar lists for states in the USA, too ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm aware of heaps of these lists and I'm not about to target all of them as there would never be a consensus, however for this State as a start, I see no problem with testing the waters again. Having survived afd previously is a fairly weak substantiation for keeping them. Perhaps I should create a list of all the numbers between 1 and 100 because I'm sure people use those all the time. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike numbers between 1 and 100, however, people are likely to need to consult a resource to find out postcodes. I and others do so on Wikipedia first. Ambi 08:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably sarcasm, but please don't create list for 1-100 -- remember WP:POINT novacatz 14:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not sarcasm; just a light hearted jest. Garglebutt / (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And let's not forget Lists of postal codes which lists postal codes outside the US for a substantial amount of countries. - Mgm|(talk) 12:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep While I do agree it's a fairly mundane list, it's useful. And if this were deleted, then why not all the other Lists of postcodes? Chanlord 12:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's good to have these lists with links to articles, there's plenty of precedent, and it is inappropriate to nominate this list and not all the others. JPD (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as I have already voted delete above. (Some of us graduated from ANU more than ten years ago :-)!) You would be surprised how quickly these lists do get out of date and what an issue it might be to maintain them, for example to cover new suburbs. In my (real world) work, most documents of importance (or not just importance but reference), for example policies and procedures, are tagged as being not an authorised copy and that the only authorised copy is the electronic version from a specified location on our intranet. I think at the very least any and all lists of postcodes should be similarly tagged with a qualification and pointer to where the official list should be found. Due to the success of Wikipedia, googling list of postcodes means our pages will rise to the top. At the moment googling postcodes and canberra gives Wikipedia third, after the WA government and the white pages. We are followed by Aged Care and the ACTU before Australia Post comes up, and even then it is not a post code page but a page for Express Post. Obviously, one can format the search better, I am trying to think how the "punter" might approach the issue.
When one navigates to Australia Post's post code page, you can download the database. It comes with a disclaimer, firstly about copyright - and there have of course been copyright coases on telephone listings and the like but I am sure that lists of postcodes are not copyright so long as they are not generated by a cut and past. The second is the qualification about accuracy and a caveat about not relying on the list - to my mind something akin to buying a child for a toddler, marked clearly for two year olds with a warning not to be used by a child under three - if you can't rely on a list from Australia Post?!?
I have not searched the database for wrong codes, but have found missing ones (2914 for Harrison,Bonner and Forde ; according to the Harrison article, building in Harrison has commenced and thus people are quite possibly already there.) If we cannot and are not maintaing the list (and I did fix it), should we have it and similar lists? The ACT is small - I bet NSW and Vic have even more ommissions. I can't speak about overseas. In conclusion, at the very least such lists should be tagged as potentially not complete.--A Y Arktos 21:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in this article was correct. Postcodes for already existing suburbs don't change. Making sure we add new suburbs when they are created (heck, Bonner and Forde don't even exist yet, but have been recently given postcodes anyway) is something we'll have to keep an eye out for, sure. However, that is easily enough done, and even with an omission or two in these very new cases, the list is still a reliable and useful resource for at least the vast majority of cases. Ambi 22:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Accept the previous result. Rhollenton 00:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sarah Ewart 02:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - though I personally would delete all articles on postcodes, telephone area codes and road numbers as more suitable for an almanac than an encyclopaedia. But if people want to keep ZIP codes and UK postcodes then theres no reason to delete the Australian version - or the postcodes of Mongolia if someone chooses to put them up. A list is just about OK - the problem is people then start creating linked pages entitled "Area Code 123" or some such. Jameswilson 04:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepJcuk 09:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as perfectly useful information that has already survived an AfD. Almost seems bordering on WP:POINT if the nominator's intention was to "test the waters". Raise this on the Village Pump or elsewhere if you just want a discussion about removing all postal code information from Wikipedia. Turnstep 01:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was not the nominator, however, in response to Turnstep's comments: The last debate was over a year ago and was not conclusive by the concensus standards that have now evolved. The previous debate's results were :The result of the debate was KEEP. (6 delete, 9 keep, 1 ambiguous) - a 60% keep vote, ignoring the ambiguouos vote.--A Y Arktos 01:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Suburbs are noteable. Ordering them by postcode seems fair enough. Andjam 07:08, 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 karmafist 10:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unison FAQ[edit]

Wikipedia is not a FAQ repository.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep as nomination withdrawn. Well done to Movementarian for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 10:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corner Shot[edit]

Advertisement. Originally this was so badly formatted that it was unreadable. In the process of Wikifying it became clear that this is nothing more than a product profile. Durova 04:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sounds interesting. Should be checked for copyvio though. -- JJay 04:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Read too much like an ad, but I have (hopefully) removed the advertising to everyone's satisfaction. Movementarian 07:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Movementarian did some nice work on it. — TheKMantalk 08:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn/keep per Movementarian's rewrite. Durova 09:30, 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. However, a fresh redirect to the aircraft model seems reasonable, and is not contested herein. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:39, Dec. 25, 2005

Bravo Bravo[edit]

Advertising, nn bar. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to google, the Bravo Bravo restaurant here in Ottawa is more well known, and it's certainly not encyclopedic. Delete or redirect to Aero Bravo Bravo 700. Pburka 04:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 04:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand if possible to make more encyclopaedic. Notability is not Wiki policy (yet).Jcuk 09:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP:ABOUT: Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable […], and neutrally presented….. Also, from WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Pburka 22:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ad for a nn bar --Jaranda wat's sup 05:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SmartWorks[edit]

Advert for non-notable software product. Klaw ¡digame! 04:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Poorly-written advertising. Andrew_pmk | Talk 04:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertising. — TheKMantalk 08:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. — JIP | Talk 18:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising, unless anyone can rewrite in a more encyclopaedic manner Jcuk 09:59, 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 ] 17:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charyyapadas[edit]

I could not find any external references to this word. Any online references seem to be just copies of this wikipedia article. I believe this article is bogus. Spookfish 04:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I found a non-wikicloned reference to Charryyapadas. [12] Thesquire 09:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above Tom Harrison (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand as above.Jcuk 10:03, 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 speedy delete as a re-creation of Obscured by Species (AfD discussion). —Cryptic (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obscured by species[edit]

NN webcomic - the article even admits it's obscure. AFD'ing rather than speedy-ing in case anyone can prove otherwise 23skidoo 04:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I am swinging on this, so I will just go over my reasons in point form:
Why it is worth deleting:
  1. Alexa rank of 3 million
  2. not listed in topwebcomics.com's top 100
  3. its forum is empty
  4. only 51 unique google hits
  5. Their main page talks about advertising
  6. They go on about being published, yet only have 1 edition published.
Why it is worth keeping:
  1. 17,000 google hits
  2. It is available for sale (hence not just a web comic)
In the end, it looks too much like advertising for mine. So I am going with delete. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 09:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the article's self-description as "somehwhat obscure." Thanks for the supporting research, Zordrac. Durova 09:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete very nearly nom'd this one myself. BL kiss the lizard 12:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, webcomic vanity. — JIP | Talk 18:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17,000 Googles, of which 50 are unique. Saberwyn - 22:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what's your vote? 23skidoo 05:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to vote? I have no interest in the fate of this article either way; I was just curious, and found that one of the facts provided to keep was incorrect, and wished to make a note of it for those users who concern themselves with the fate of this article. Saberwyn - 12:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough -- I wasn't sure whether your comment was just that or if you were trying to support one side or the other. Cheers. 23skidoo 13:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Are we saying Webcomics are not valid for inclusion in Wiki here?
    • No, we are saying that this particular webcomic is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Check out the Webcomics section of WP:WEB to see what a webcomic has to achieve to be suitable for inclusion. Saberwyn - 12:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was move to Dirk of West Frisia. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, Count of Holland[edit]

Not submitter. Just completing deletion procedure. I'd vote keep as there's plenty of random European nobles around here. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I would like to see more information before saying they are two different people. The year of death for the "newly discovered" Count is the same as Dirk I. Movementarian 09:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Let me put it another way: renaming this article Dirk of West Frisia makes it consistent with the Count of Holland article. Whether there really were two different people might better be discussed on Talk:Count_of_Holland. - Jeroen [[User_talk:Jkruis|(talk)]] 10:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see your point. Movementarian 11:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Dirk 1½ of West Frisia, maybe? :-) --Agamemnon2 06:45, 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 20:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ComputerWorX[edit]

Lacks notability Hirudo 04:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Company in question is also only the number 3 hit on google behind two other companies with the same name (but different capitalization) Hirudo 04:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Apman[edit]

non notable band member of a non notable band Missing Lynx (which is also nominated for deletion) and appears to fail WP:MUSIC so Delete--MONGO 04:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klingon packleader[edit]

Non-notable. I feel speedy deletion is not justified because the article does assert that the person is "infamous" in a certain "community", however misleading this may be. Deco 04:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this may be a Speedy A7, if not Delete. -- JJay 06:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Movementarian 07:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 speedy delete. --Apostrophe 16:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very POV on a non-notable subject. However, he did bother people to the extreme. DeathThoreau 17:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and speedy A7 (or even speedy per WP:IAR if anyone's feeling brave). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete or redirect to Klingon. Players of MMORPGs or other online games are inherently non-notable. — JIP | Talk 18:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, extreme nn. Pavel Vozenilek 19:03, 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 JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


NOLM[edit]

"A new acronym that sweeps the internet on 12/14/05." Neologism. — A.M. 05:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boon-Dog[edit]

Was tagged {{nocontent}} by User:Jwestbrook. Moving here for vote. Jamie 05:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Coffee 08:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

European women[edit]

This article is completely nonsense, and the entire topic is insignificant. It should be deleted. King of Hearts 05:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gyal[edit]

Dictdef. Jamie 05:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Movementarian 11:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Flapdragon 13:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not even as much as a dicdef, not even a dialect word, just a phonetic representation of Caribbean pronunciation. Flapdragon 01:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Dicdef. From the way I originally read it, I thought it was a nickname or a last name referring to a person, so I nominated it as an nn-bio. Sorry about that. --Spring Rubber 01:40, 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. Comments by persons believed to be affiliated with this corporation have been disregarded as non-objective. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:46, Dec. 25, 2005

Piga Software[edit]

NN company. Was speedy, but bringing here for a vote. Recommend delete Jamie 05:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The youngster making the software and the page is talented, but the "company" and website are non-notable. It is unfortunate in some cases, but we need to try to maintain Wikipedia standards. Hu 13:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is only a description of a free software site and not Vanity. Comrade Hamish Wilson 18:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The vote to keep above is by the author of the page and the owner of the site. Hu 19:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This one isn't... On a more serious note I don't think that this article should be deleted but I understand the claim of being not notable. kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 20:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You haven't indicated any positive reason to keep this article and you haven't addressed the self-promotion. Hu 16:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self promotion and not notable. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is not Wiki policy and therefor a redundent argument. The article needs cleaning up substantially though, as there are several grammatical and spelling errors contained within it. Jcuk 10:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, notability is an important developing policy at Wikipedia for products: Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Yes, it is not quite "policy" yet, but the ball is in your court: You need to explain why a non-notable download site should be kept, which you haven't. You haven't claimed any positive reason for keeping the article (a double negative is not sufficient). You will notice that in the developing policy notability is the critical issue for products and services: Criteria for products and services: A product or service is notable. If you continue reading, you will find that this site doesn't come close to meeting any of the criteria. Further, you haven't addressed the issue of using Wikipedia for self-promotion. Hu 16:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Notability distinguishes interesting articles from self interested articles. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep G.W 11:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The above vote to keep by Graham Wilson (G.W.) is by the other party in the site (undoubtedly a family member due to the same family name as Hamish Wilson), so it works out to be more self-promotion.
  • Delete Self-promotion. Wikipedia is not yahoo or google, not every software site needs an article. --Dtremenak 04:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant vanity article. On google you get eight real hits most of which are to wikipedia. Nothing notable, and self-aggrandizement is telling.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, vanity article for a nn company --Jaranda wat's sup 04:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ] 00:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Frischknecht[edit]

Not much here. His name, his website and the stub notice. --Schmiteye 05:50, 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× ☎ 19:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Games Design Doc[edit]

plus Art Poduction Plan, Concept Doc, Games Proposal and Technical Document added by RHaworth 10:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NN, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. Jamie 05:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the lot. Per nom and WP:NOT a free host. -- RHaworth 10:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User:Paul zx who contributed all of these, has this to say on his talk page: "This is my first contibution to Wikipedia YIPEE!!!!". For copyvio, tests and vadalism, we have "no thanks" type templates. Is there one for this? Something to let the user know (nicely) that this type of article is not as valuable to the wikipedia as it might seem to him? Jamie 12:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of the above for sorely lacking notability and encyclopedic content. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:07, Dec. 15, 2005
  • Delete as original research and several other things WP:ISNOT. Has anyone left a nice note for the editor? It's not malicious nonsense, just nonsense. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all not enough drivel for CSD:nonsense, not notable enough for WP  J\/\/estbrook       08:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gamecruft Paul 18:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy kept as redirect. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 05:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion by consensus of a few editors on the Hindu-Arabic numerals talk page

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

The result of the debate was delete, extra weight being given to a delete vote by a notorious inclusionist, and subtracted from several weak/conditional keep votes. Prepetual cleanup tagging is also a factor. See you on WP:DRV, or better yet, go to the sandbox and re-write this as a good article. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:03, Dec. 25, 2005

Jewish-Arab conflict[edit]

I beleive this should be deleted as this is not a distinct recognised "event", and that the (single) author has a NPOV agenda. Jgritz 06:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's only a single reference on google to the 623-627 timespan from a single article replicated throughtout various sites. The article is here - http://www.cooper.edu/humanities/core/hss3/kuntzel.html Jgritz 06:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, unless someone can make a compelling case that this is not OR. -- JJay 06:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while this appears to be OR to the untrained eye, the addition of a few citations would improve matters Savidan 06:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe. Seems fairly absurd to me though. -- JJay 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to delete, there is even a parallel article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Toya 06:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - valid argument. Needs references though. It is very encyclopaedic, and, per Toya, there is already an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Can easily be written to conform to WP:NPOV, although I am not convinced that the current article is overly biased anyway. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zordrac. Movementarian 11:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be enciclopedical enough, but needs cleanup,categories and of course references since it is a controversial subject abakharev 11:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least move or re-name the Mizrahi were both Jews and Arabs from the era. Read Coopers (Not that Dodgy Uni, but the Irish Encyclopaedia makers!) for more Info... really interesting stuff! --Irishpunktom\talk 15:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to clean it up. its still fairly terrible.. a Mish-mash of jumbled ideas of the History of Muhammad and the spread of Islam.. not really worthy of a keep. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just about, but if it's not cleaned up with vigour I'll be voting delete if it comes back. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Whenever I use my AdministrativePower® on an article involving Islam, the author invariably contacts me about it, asking questions about the content, and I have to reply that I'm just the janitor. But this article seems like it should be mostly valid. — JIP | Talk 18:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but revise. The concerns cited here are valid, but there is a need for an article about this (there are elements of the Jewish-Arab conflict which are distinct from the Arab-Israeli conflict, most notably events before the creation of Israel). Savidan 06:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is no relationship between the events of the time of Muhammad, which was not a "Jewish-Arab", but a Jewish-Muslim conflict in which both sides were Arabs by most definitions (including according to this article), and the conflict between Zionists and local Arabs in Palestine that began some 1200 years later. This article inaccurately characterises them both as "Jewish-Arab" conflict and then tries to draw an ahistorical link between them, which is original research. Palmiro | Talk 15:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but requires a lot of work. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Qualifying my vote: the topic deserves to be described in an encylopedic and NPOV way. AFAIR, POV is not a reson for deletion. As the tags already say, this article needs to be reworked and possibly renamed/merged. Suggestions to what/where are welcome. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but need improvement. AucamanTalk 22:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not notable. There have been so many two bob tribal wars in history - why is this one notable? Unbehagen 00:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as original research which also verges on patent nonsense (the Jewish-Arab conflict was a conflict between Arab Jewish tribes and Arab Muslim tribes? ah come on, that´s not only ludicrous given the article title but entirely inaccurate). This is ahistorical crap and allowing it to stay on Wikipedia can only harm WP's reputation. The worst piece of idiocy I have seen here in a long time. Palmiro | Talk 15:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree 100%. This article is total crap. Can anyone find any evidence which can even say that this ever happened? On that note, has anyone here ever even heard of this? Tobyk777 04:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per palmiro. Also clearly this article is being used to add POV information and links that can't be added on other articles. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- surrealistically revisionist original research. I hear Columbus had a prescient grudge against the Foxwoods casino, too. Better cover that in Italian-Native American Conflict. BYT 19:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this current incarnation. If someone wants to write a proper article on the 7th century events, that would be fine, but this isn't it. It's just an embarrassingly inept attempt to link something then to something now. --Zero 01:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lol. German-France conflict. X-Y conflict. --Striver 01:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV original research. Jayjg (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can't believe that this article is going to be deleted. People, there is article about that in the Hebrew Wikipedia - הסכסוך היהודי ערבי, and no one deleted this article! Come on, you can't delete this article! Toya 10:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could you translate it for us so we can compare? Jgritz 11:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd quite like to see that as well. Palmiro | Talk 13:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The first version of the Jewish-Arab conflict article was pretty much translation of part of the Hebrew article. Toya 14:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that is the case, I guess I'll be discounting remarks along the lines of "it's in the Hebrew WP" in future. I just hope someone sorts it out there. Palmiro | Talk 18:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So? Go and vfd that to. I wonder why nobody vfd'd the one in Hebrew Wikipedia? --Striver 11:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard that the Hebrew version is inherently biased against Islam and Muslims and especially Arabs, however, not being fluent there was no way of commenting on it. I guess this proves it. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How does this prove a bias? -- JJay 20:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of one bad article is hardly sufficient grounds for inferring "inherent bias against Islam and Muslims", I feel! Palmiro | Talk 02:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I speak Hebrew, but not very well, so I am unable to fully comprehend the Hebrew version of the article, so I can't comment. But, think logicaly for a minute. The conflcit is between Israel and the Arab world. The only country in the world which speaks Hebrew as their national language is Israel. Wouldn't it make sense that people involved in the conflict would write with a bias? However, I personaly have a pro-Israel bias, but that's irelavent. This article isn't about the Israeli Palestinian conflict, it's about a fictional event which apparently no one here has ever heard of except for the author. Almost every keep on this discussion has been becuase they didn't know about the subject, and learned from the article. But this article is totaly wrong. Can anyone here honostly say they can confirm anything this article says? Tobyk777 04:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tobyk777 04:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Marvelous piece of original research, starting with "Proponents of this view see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Arab-Israeli conflict as a "reincarnation" of the Jewish-Arab conflict" onwards. Ramallite (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --Ian Pitchford 17:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very interesting piece of information--Astriolok 20:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's embarassing for WP that people would want to keep this. I'm not against the article title so much as this line "The Jewish-Arab conflict is the name given by some people to a series of conflicts from the years 623 to 627". Who are "some people". No-one except for some bloke called Küntzel who studies at a place funded by Vidal Sassoon (yes the hairdresser!) has even mentioned this period according to google. Maybe there's something wrong with the translation of the title from the Hebrew version. If the article is kept, then it has to be rewritten as a an observation of the conflict over a lot longer period, without any emphasis on it being a "reincarnation". Jgritz 21:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One could imagine a serious entry with this title, but this isn't it.--Sjsilverman 22:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research as noted by the regular editors who represent various Jewish/Arab perspectives. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Misleading article. The title and the content do not match! It is called J-A conflict (ethnic) while the content talks about a religious one. Cheers -- Svest 12:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
  • Delete Yuber(talk) 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - inaccurate and misnamed. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ten past seven[edit]

per WP:Music nn band. Durova 06:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless proven to be notable in Ireland. Punkmorten 16:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedily as non-notable group of unidentified persons. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:10, Dec. 15, 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. – Robert 20:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coca-Cola Groups[edit]

Original research (see WP:NOR), unverifiable (see WP:V). Chick Bowen 01:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nonsensical. Gazpacho 01:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with GazpachoTheRingess 01:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone had one too many. -- JJay 01:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The votes and the nomination itself were removed by User:LSEditor and replaced with this text:"Keep this page. It is great for those looking in to this fast growing cult in Sudbury." Please do not edit other people's votes on AfD. Chick Bowen 02:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Have updated it and cleaned it up. I think it is ready to go. I have showed it to the democraphic it is supposed to see it and they agree with its facts and would like it to stay up.

I have actually gotten a member of the group to look at it and make sure it is factually correct. He has and I feel becaue he is the leader of one that it must be up now.

I will continue to add more info as I find it in already written readings. This is not my own research. I have read a few books written by people from the cult on this.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZeroSpyware[edit]

"The article is nothing but an advertisement for a commercial product.DeleteTheRingess 06:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 08:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spam. Pavel Vozenilek 19:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexa ranking in the 100 000s. And kill that screenshot when you're done with it. 68.39.174.238 18:04, 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 20:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of RWD passenger cars made after 1980[edit]

Wikipedia is not a collection of lists. Also, with the rear wheel drive vehicle category and the rear wheel drive article itself, this article is basically redundant. --ApolloBoy 06:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete list explosion supernova Ashibaka tock 06:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. An arbitrary list of arbitrary objects meeting an arbitrary criterion made after an arbitrary date. What part of "WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of information" do these folks not understand? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly conceived and unencyclopedic. No, they don't understand, but be kind. Chris the speller 18:31, 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× ☎ 19:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eating out of Tempurature[edit]

Non-notable neologism for being too lazy to use the microwave. Zero search results, even when spelled correctly. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:02, Dec. 15, 2005

  • Keep This article is about a common cultural practice. It should remain, and in time other members can contribute to it. Even if it isn't refered to by the above name, it is still common. Roman Soldier 07:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree that the practice is common (I myself am known for this), but the phrase itself does not appear to have any currency, regardless of spelling. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:50, Dec. 15, 2005
  • Delete no notable content and even temperature is spelt wrong. This is not a common use phrase; I'd describe cold pizza as left overs. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is changing an "u" to an "e" that complicated? Roman Soldier 07:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I am myself a college student, and do this regularly, I have not heard of the term, even if spelled correctly. Roman Soldier: if you wish, you may recreate the article with correct spelling, and list your old article under speedy deletions. — TheKMantalk 07:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is not a widely used/popular term and it is misspelled. It is too weak for an article in my opinion. --Eeee 07:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons by TheKMan and FreakofNurture. Thesquire 09:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Movementarian 11:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to something like 'eating cold food'. the term might not be used, but millions of people do it (presumably). Something could probably be put together like how theres decent articles on things like Full English breakfast. -- Astrokey44|talk 13:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but someone might be curious as to what a 'Full English breakfast' contains; 'Eating cold food' is self-explanatory and unencyclopedic, if you ask me. I say delete. - squibix 15:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one else wants this page, I put the material on my User page, where you have no right to delete it. :p

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GlobeOp Financial Services[edit]

Just another financial services company. Could not find anything with Google to indicate anything especially noteworthy about this one. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 19:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheeple[edit]

Neologism that belongs on wiktionary, image is pure POV for BJAODN  ALKIVAR™ 07:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - do hear this a lot on the websites I frequent but I really can't decide if the article deserves to stay. That pic, on the other hand, is hilarious, if a bit POV. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 08:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • These questions should help you to decide: Can an encyclopaedia article about sheeple (not about the word, but about the actual concept) be written? Is there anything that sources have said about sheeple, in addition to describing them as believing whatever they are told? Uncle G 14:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: term definitely used contemporary politcal discussions. On the other hand, the article is little more than a dictdef with an hilarious image. Jamie 09:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: this is not a spur-of-the-moment humourous article, its history goes back to Oct 2004. Jamie 09:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless of the creation date, do you see the content as anything more than a dicdef? If not you should be voting transwiki to the Wiktionary (which is where dictdef's belong).  ALKIVAR™ 09:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a tough call. We have other articles which are not much more than dictdefs for words with (minor) cultural significance. Sheeple could possibly be expanded to explain its significance in the context of (inflamatory) American political discourse. But that's pretty weak, which is why I voted weak keep. Jamie
        • No, xe shouldn't. Transwikification of this article is not a valid option. Any opinions that that this article should be transwikied would have to be discounted. Uncle G 14:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a word/term (frequently) used on AfD --SockpuppetSamuelson 14:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not frequently used. Indeed, it is hardly ever used. The phrase used here is "sheep vote". Wikipedia is not its own source, moreover. Uncle G 14:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But Wiki should surely be its own glossary --SockpuppetSamuelson 14:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This term is used on Usenet (at least in the groups I frequent). It is real. It is also a neologism. I suspect that transwiki is the best solution, but am open to persuasion in any direction right now. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwikfication is not a valid option. Please make another choice. Uncle G 19:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Just zis Guy, you know? pointed out, it would be transwikiable if wiktionary didn't already have it (thanks, Uncle G), and that's a subset of deletion. And, in answer to Uncle G's question about whether or not an article could be written on the concept of "sheeple", I believe the answer is... no. And even if it could, there's no reason to keep an article about something else under that title until it does get written. It's not like we need to keep articles' seats warm for them until they arrive or something like that. The Literate Engineer 19:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, Uncle G is (as usual) right. It can't be transwikid because Wiktionary already has it: [14]. I didn't check (I was in a hurry). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 00:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You made your point, but two biased POVs don't make an NPOV. Sources need to be cited and this article needs to be cleaned up and expanded, but the term definitely exists. Requesting a deletion because of POV in an article is silly. --Peter McConaughey 13:50, 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 speedy delete as {{nn-bio}}. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-15 09:56:25Z

Joanna Robinson[edit]

This is a Wikipedia:Autobiography. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Unforgettableid (talk • contribs)

  • Indeed it is. Speedy as {{nn-bio}}. Jamie 09:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Jamie. Durova 09:46, 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 all. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

House Palpatine, House San Maarten, House Schultz[edit]

Fallacious article, there is no such thing Lacerta 08:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Confirmed via Google. --Unforgettableid | talk to me 08:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly originated from a misunderstanding of this: http://www.lanceandeskimo.com/duneguy/quizd.html --Lacerta

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amerispanic[edit]

Non-notable and nothing but a definition - Rudykog 09:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: dictdef with spurious photo. Jamie 09:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move to Wiktionary, but definitely delete the photo. Thesquire 09:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and speedy delete as copyvio from [15]. Except for that site and Wikipedia mirrors the term has virtually no Google presence. It's also vanity: same portrait on the creator's homepage. Durova 09:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - already deleted several times from Wiktionary - so please don't move it there. Jeff Knaggs 10:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To late to speedy, but I tagged it as a copy vio per Durova's information. That has the fortunate side effect of getting rid of the photo. Movementarian 10:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone removed the copyvio central listing, but the copyvio tag is still in place on the page. (I reverted the removal of the listing, but reverted my revert because I was unsure of what to do.) A person claiming to be the owner of the source website says he grants permission to Wikipedia to use the definition, but the claim in the Talk page is unsigned. Noelle De Guzman 12:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Calvin and Hobbes. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stupendous Man[edit]

This and all other comic stubs are much to insignificant to be listed in their own article. There is already a discription of Stupendous Man in the Calvin and Hobbes article.--FelineFanatic13 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I agree it is to insignificant to stay -Frogman1326
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. This has already been voted on 7 times. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To those voting, please discuss the page itself rather than its seven previous AfDs. Please remember that this discussion is about the GNAA and their notability, and whether or not the inclusion of the article is encyclopedic .

Gay Nigger Association of America[edit]

Come on, guys. These trolls are NOT NOTABLE. I don't care how many people on Wikipedia have heard of them (see WP:SELF), they just aren't. Please, let's delete this article and end this nonsense once and for all. Firebug 09:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - vanity article. Thesquire 09:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep(now Neutral), based upon seven previous attempts at deletion. - Rudykog 09:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the subject may be offensive to many, however I feel that the content, whether NN or not is in agreement with Wikipedia rules. I do not believe that the group or the article attempt to offend anyone or any group. Perhaps there should be an offensive warning label? - Rudykog 10:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is not whether or not it is "offensive." It is about notability. And if it was NN, it would not be in agreement with Wikipedia rules because it is NN! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I see now, I didn't pay attention enough, I revise my vote to Neutral. - Rudykog 10:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but most of them were "no concensus." That people have tried so many times speaks for itself, but not in favor of keeping it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I revised my vote to neutral. Let's see if this AfD actually succeeds, finally. Jamie 11:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - people on wikipedia may have heard of them, but they are not notable in any encyclopedic fashion. Wikipedia isn't the collecting place of every miniscule piece of internet trivia, including a trolling organization that operates on one or two sites. Regarding all the previous AfDs - like the Japanese say: "Fall down seven times, stand up eight." We've messed up seven times by not deleting this nonsense, but eventually it will be done. -Parallel or Together ? 10:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - They have always been non-notable. But the shitstorm that errupts every time this has been brought here (and FAC) has brought the page to the attention of almost every active Wikipedian, creating the false air of notability. Like Parallel said, we've heard of them, but they are not encyclopedic. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Generates 981 Google hits [23] and 249 of those are from Wikipedia [24]. They may be widely known amongst portions of the internet community, but they have not achieved notability outside of that. Movementarian 10:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Movementarian. A quarter of their total notability originates with Wikipedia - and the Internet is their specialty. Durova 10:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trolling Wikipedia doesn't automatically make you notable. Average Earthman 10:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Regarding Google hits, it appears that most websites mentioning the GNAA do not spell it out (for easily guessable reasons). GNAA gives 69,400 results, an indeterminate proportion of which obviously refer to other topics. However, I refined my search and discovered that +GNAA +slashdot gives 11,800 results, +GNAA +IRC gives 23,800 results, and +GNAA +internet gives 29,400 results. All of the results from the last three queries appear to exclusively pertain to the Gay Nigger Association of America. This group has achieved notability, even by my (perceivedly harsh) standards for inclusion, previous nominations not being a factor. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:06, Dec. 15, 2005
  • Comment. Fair enough. I can agree that my google search was too restrictive, but still don't think that they have achieved notability outside of the pockets of the internet community that they effect. Movementarian 11:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-referential article, whose first sentence states its subject's non-notability ("self-aggrandizing"), and which may violate WP:BEANS. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete much of the "keep" commentary on previous nominations seemed to be based on the assumption that, while not well-known elsewhere, the GNAA is very famous on Slashdot. However, being active on Slashdot myself and doing quite a fair amount of browsing there, I've found that this simply isn't true. In maybe 3 months of at least daily visits, I haven't seen anything there by or about the GNAA, not even in passing reference. Granted, I wasn't exactly looking, but still, if these guys were truly the scourge of Slashdot, you'd think they'd be mentioned with some regularity. Also notice that, while the article has a decently-sized references section, it's (almost) all forum posts, blog entries, and the like. If their activities were important, why aren't they reported on in newspapers? Why aren't they profiled in any published books? The answer, of course, is that forum trolling is only of any interest to a very, very, very small number of people (mostly the trolls themselves) and that individual trolls and groups are seldom, if ever, notable or verifiable in an encyclopedic sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. To my knowledge the GNAA is not particularly famous on Slashdot and no good verifiable evidence to that effect has been presented. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on the fact that the page is used for reference by several Wikipedia administration pages on the subject of article vandalism, since a number of alleged members of this group are regular vandals. Perhaps, for that reason, this can be moved into some sort of administrative space rather than kept in article space? 23skidoo 14:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Notability is not a deletion criterion, and since you haven't provided any other rationale, there is no reason to delete it. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-15 17:42
    • Notability is too a deletion criterion and claiming otherwise is dishonest. [25] Ashibaka tock 01:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIf this is unspeedied then why does the comment still survive below? The way this nomination has been handled is very strange and stifles debate. Durova 21:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted per WP:NOT and WP:IAR. No sense wasting AFD space on this. FCYTravis 09:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet paper soccer[edit]

Content indicates due to recent creation of game it isn't notable. Possible WP:VAIN. --Whouk (talk) 09:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BFC Computer Help[edit]

Non notable message board. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:33, 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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Francis J. Pierce[edit]

Not sure if this passes Wikipedia is not a memorial test Also, all of the text comes directly from: http://www.michigan.gov/dmva/0,1607,7-126-2360_3003_3012-8021--,00.html . Since it's governmental, are there any copyright issues? I tagged it but left the text intact, just to play it safe. Janet13 09:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to the Michigan web page, it's copyrighted, so let's let the copyright process take care of it. I've blanked out the content like it's supposed to be and I'm closing this AfD. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:42, 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× ☎ 19:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Party foul[edit]

A drinking slang term which is dicdef at best. Has no potential to be a full encyclopedia article. I say delete it, though I would also be okay with moving to wiktionary. Parallel or Together ? 09:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hikaru Koto[edit]

Barely asserts notability (although that might be the wrong word to use here). While I have to resign to the fact that Wikipedians appear to view significant porn actor/esses as notable, this one isn't notable enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, "35 DVDs of her performances, as well as 3 books and 2 videos" on Amazon.co.jp. Also helps redress systemic bias. Kappa 02:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Google.jp gives 631,000 hits. Other random sampling from the Category:Japanese porn stars don't reach this number; and even then, the comment about systemic bias is still appropriate. Neier 13:16, 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 20:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Fug[edit]

Non-notable (even says so in the article). RobertG ♬ talk 11:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 13:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one recorded song, no evidence that it was published -Meegs 15:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as a redirect with no imaginable use. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:19, Dec. 17, 2005

December 21, 2003[edit]

This redirect (technically a triple redirect since the page that it redirected to was merged into Brett Favre, which is the only article that linked to it) is actually a malformed date. Speedy Delete this. - Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 11:12, 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, then redirect (plausible search term/accidental link target) as it is agreed there is nothing here to merge. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:43, Dec. 25, 2005

Yus (letter)[edit]

This article is a stub that is redundant to the much superior Yus. pfctdayelise 11:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. pfctdayelise 11:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • sounds like a perfect merge (if anything there worth it) and redirect candidate to me. BL kiss the lizard 12:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The usual thing to do here is redirect. Jamie 12:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - nothing to merge -- Dalbury(Talk) 13:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Yus. — JIP | Talk 18:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nearology[edit]

slang neologism with 116 google hits. delete or transwiki if wiktionary wants it. BL kiss the lizard 11:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. MCB 07:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. siafu 17:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The tolling gang[edit]

Completely non-notable (four Google hits including three from urban75.net and thetollinggang.org) Flapdragon 12:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it, it's a growing site of significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.148.237 (talk • contribs) , at 15:17, 16 December 2005
  • Delete per nomination. Let's get the non-notable stuff outta. Madman 21:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am one of the founding members of the site in question and we do not want an article about it here, thanks. 86.130.215.16 11:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Another founding member, and signatory to the statement used here. Considering it's a bulletin board which is less than a month old, I can't see any reason for it having a Wikipedia entry atm. Bristle-krs 18:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - another member here. It is not yet a significant site. Tho it will be. Belboid


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ] 00:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon schaffer moved to Simon Schaffer[edit]

Just being a professor at a university does not make one notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Did a quick google search, but does anybody else know if this person is notable? If it does stay, it needs to move to Simon Schaffer and some serious additional information. Parallel or Together? 12:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -I've certainly heard of him and I'm no history expert. He appears as a commentator on British TV and radio quite frequently. Also the position of 'professor of...' at Cambridge is quite a prestigious one. It does need serious expansion, though. --Sachabrunel 17:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although being a professor at a famous university doesn't make one notable, appearing on the BBC and winning a (prestigious?) professional prize makes this an easy vote.[26], [27]. Durova 19:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then move to Simon Schaffer (capitalizing the name), add a stub, and improve the article. I guess I can start the article improvement part today using those links. -Parallel or Together? 23:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • nudge I already added the links. How about you do the move? Durova 00:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy Keep and then I'll move it. I just rewrote it to at least stub length, so once a sysop closes this AFD (I certainly can't or don't know how) I'll finish it up with a move. -Parallel or Together? 00:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rhollenton 00:36, 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 pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcano-ciosis[edit]

Neologism, google shows only WarCraft references (it is akind of a password there). Delete abakharev 12:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy as nonsense.--nixie 13:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like all of the other mis-spellings that people have created articles at, just redirect this to the actual page on the hoax: pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. Uncle G 14:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Uncle G. Keresaspa 14:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Punkmorten 16:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the article about the disease whose name I couldn't possibly hope to spell correctly. — JIP | Talk 18:40, 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:25, Dec. 26, 2005

Halo2forum[edit]

Unexceptional game forum, delete--nixie 12:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. NN game forum. Thunderbrand 16:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete this? It's a totally legit site with nearly 10,000 members. Unless you've actually become a member and attempted to be active and involved, don't act like you know whether the site is any good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.111.136 (talk • contribs) 12:18, December 15, 2005
  • Actually, I count less than 3700. Of interest only to fans of the game. Delete. You can call me Al 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the best halo site in the world. It's the most active Halo forum out there, no need to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.17.132.22 (talk • contribs) 13:48, December 16, 2005
  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 14:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was closed. - Mailer Diablo 13:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PSIplus.png[edit]

This image is now in commons, please delete PSIplus 13:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is Articles for deletion. You want Wikipedia:Images for deletion. But actually, since you are creator of the image, feel free to slap a {{db-author}} (speedy deletion by request of author) tag on it. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:27, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Surnames[edit]

It's an unwikified (and hardly worth wikifying) string of Italian names and surnames, with no source and no information that cannot be found in other articles. Probably an example of what Wikipedia is not. Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because: a) derivation information is covered much more thoroughly in Family name; b) I think Wiktionary actually covers things like this (maybe Transwiki?); c) for corn's sake, they left off Alito and Scalia! For shame, for shame. BD2412 T 15:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I have a hard time believing a list of surnames in any country is encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 18:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable unencyclopedic listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 19:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm half Italian, and this article still isn't any good to even me. Eduard Gherkin 02:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm Italian. I was planning to add what regions the names are from. I was planning to add a much more extensive list of names. And I was intending to add famous people for every name possible. Kindof like an extensive list of Italian orgiginated surnames, who they belong to... etc. I do not have so much time on my hands just recently as i planned to so until I do... which will unfortunately never happen. I agree that this list is going nowhere. --Alexbonaro 08:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could collect the information you need elsewhere, and then propose it for reference. Even then I'm not sure if such an annotated list would be considered encyclopedic by other editors. Check the Wiktionary. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:09, 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 withdrawn by nominator. - Mailer Diablo 13:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bjornar Simonsen[edit]

This Wikipedian is an International Counselor of the Korean Friendship Association (KFA). Unfortunately, the article talks mostly about his disputes within the Wikipedia community about North Korea. Fplay 15:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unlike Alejandro Cao de Benos this article does not establish notability. I considered merging it to his user page or making it a user subpage, but it's the work of other editors so just delete it. Gazpacho 03:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RESOLVED: I am going to remove my AfD on this guy for now. He has already indicated that he is indifferent to the page, which he did not create it. Also, I removed the stuff about the Wikipedia fights that went on. It was a little too self-referential. I may put it up for AfD again if nothing else of note can be said about this guy. -- Fplay 17:05, 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 - no consensus. FireFox 22:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CGI Filmmaking, The Creation Of Ghost Warrior[edit]

This is a real book, and it may even have some notablity, with 15 reviews on Amazon; however, the article reads like an advertisment and was created by User:Keaze, whose only edits have been to this article and articles about the book's author (Timothy Albee) and his film (Kaze, Ghost Warrior). - squibix 14:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being uncertain of the inclusion criteria for books, I abstain. - squibix 14:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. The book is sold online by Wal-Mart, and the nomination mentions the amazon reviews. In the absence of any specific rules on notability for books, I'd say that qualifies. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but so are 600,000 other books; are they all notable and encyclopedic? Should we, say, have an article on Apples of Gold: A Six-Week Nurturing Program for Women, to pick an example at random? - squibix 15:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apples of Gold has just four very short reviews on amazon, so it's not much of a comparison. Regardless, I couldn't find any guidelines on notability for books. You have not made a case for non-notability in the general sense. If the only problem is that the article reads like an advert, then slap the {{advert}} tag on it, or rewrite it yourself. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no encyclopedic content, notability not established, most likely attemt for ad. Pavel Vozenilek 19:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. To be kept, a complete rewrite would be needed... and the testimonial quotation should be discarded as nonencyclopedic. B.Wind 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Klaw. -- JJay 21:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's be clear, this is an unexpandable stub about a non-notable book written by a small-time filmmaker to promote his own barely notable film, which it appears exactly 27 registered IMDb users have seen [28], though I must admit that 7.7/10 is an enviable average rating. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:42, Dec. 26, 2005
  • Delete, the article is in horrible shape. A more encyclopedic article can be written, but this content would be of no use in that. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep, go discuss this at the ArbCom election talk page. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 17:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Vote[edit]

Open ballots are the tools of tyranny and dictatorships. We used to have a secret ballot. Whatever happened to "this year's election will be held using the Special:Arb-com-vote software" ?

  • Delete --Victim of signature fascism 15:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Sigh* Look, we're in the middle of discussions about this. If you don't like the way Jimbo wishes to do the election (as close to RfA as possible), talk to him or discuss on the talk page. Don't AfD pages that are being used for discussion. Speedy keep. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The page isn't being used. It's principally blank. --Victim of signature fascism 15:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's being linked to from the talk page as an example of what a vote would look like. We don't delete proposals; discuss it at the talk page instead. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be AFD'd. We already know what Special:Arb-com-vote looks like. --Victim of signature fascism 16:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-Ril-, you're missing the point here: the point is that this page is being used for discussion currently (check out the main talk page and the page's talk page); if you disagree with using open voting in the election, bring it up on the talk page (which several users have already done) instead of trying to get this deleted. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, bad faith nomination. Plus it shouldn't be on AfD, it should go on that other deletion page for wikipedia namespace articles. Proto t c 16:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a clear case of WP:POINT. Further, it is in the wrong place - it should be at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.Further, it is likely to prove useful for many Wikipedians. Capitalistroadster 16:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Nomination out of process. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Space Flag[edit]

NN vanity. Article is about a flag to be used by earth colonies in outer space. This is a personal project by a space enthusiast from Australia with no official sanction from any organization. External links are to the creator's website and an article the creator wrote about the project for another publication. Most google returns are about computer coding and incidental occurrences of "space" and "flag." Durova 15:20, 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. – Robert 20:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John I. Wilder[edit]

non-notable blogger. Laura Ingalls Wilder is notable, John Ingalls Wilder is not Melaen 15:22, 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 - no consensus. FireFox 22:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CGI Filmmaking, The Creation Of Ghost Warrior[edit]

This is a real book, and it may even have some notablity, with 15 reviews on Amazon; however, the article reads like an advertisment and was created by User:Keaze, whose only edits have been to this article and articles about the book's author (Timothy Albee) and his film (Kaze, Ghost Warrior). - squibix 14:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being uncertain of the inclusion criteria for books, I abstain. - squibix 14:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. The book is sold online by Wal-Mart, and the nomination mentions the amazon reviews. In the absence of any specific rules on notability for books, I'd say that qualifies. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but so are 600,000 other books; are they all notable and encyclopedic? Should we, say, have an article on Apples of Gold: A Six-Week Nurturing Program for Women, to pick an example at random? - squibix 15:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apples of Gold has just four very short reviews on amazon, so it's not much of a comparison. Regardless, I couldn't find any guidelines on notability for books. You have not made a case for non-notability in the general sense. If the only problem is that the article reads like an advert, then slap the {{advert}} tag on it, or rewrite it yourself. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no encyclopedic content, notability not established, most likely attemt for ad. Pavel Vozenilek 19:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. To be kept, a complete rewrite would be needed... and the testimonial quotation should be discarded as nonencyclopedic. B.Wind 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Klaw. -- JJay 21:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's be clear, this is an unexpandable stub about a non-notable book written by a small-time filmmaker to promote his own barely notable film, which it appears exactly 27 registered IMDb users have seen [29], though I must admit that 7.7/10 is an enviable average rating. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:42, Dec. 26, 2005
  • Delete, the article is in horrible shape. A more encyclopedic article can be written, but this content would be of no use in that. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ] 16:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emily R. Gillis[edit]

Non notable.. Delete -- Eagleamn 06:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable --Eeee 06:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - her webcomic has been going on for about 3 years now - and has achieved a certain level of notability above...certain other webcomics. Barneyboo (Talk) 15:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on the webcomic article. If the webcomic is notable, so is Emily R. Gillis. — JIP | Talk 18:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Barneyboo & JIP. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Barneyboo & JIP. Hiding talk 23:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 22:22, 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 - no consensus. FireFox 22:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finbar Madden[edit]

Secondary school teacher, notability not asserted Demiurge 10:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I have cleaned up this page, it should no longer be nominated for speedy deletion. Finbar Madden clearly meets the criteria for inclusion.


May i refer you to Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies[30]

It says one of the criteria for inclusion is:

  • 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.

Clearly Finbar Madden fufills this criteria. A quick search on amazon will show you he has sold considerbly more than 5000 copies of three his books on this site alone. For this reason and after cleaning up the page i strongly recommend it is not deleted. N mcdermott 04:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I did a search on amazon.co.uk, couldn't find sales figures (just sales rankings) for any of his books. Do you have a link? Demiurge 11:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies i misread the sales rankings/figures, but clearly having four books published more than meets the criteria, therefore nomination for deletion removed. time for this targed campaign against johnfullerton to stop.

  • I don't understand what exactly needs to be cited in the article. Do you want links to his books on amazon.co.uk or something?--159.134.207.182 17:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Not an incomplete nomination, but one that became orphaned when the article was moved without updating the AfD link. See the original AfD. Owen× ☎ 00:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz-Ellis House[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Green Shirt Thursday[edit]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JoltForums[edit]

JoltForums are a small group of forums--there are only 18 registered members. the joltforums page was created by Zakerius in august 2005 and hasn't been edited since (except to add the deletion notice). Zakerius doesn't have a userpage and his only activity was to create this one page. the page seems rather useless to me. danhash 04:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knifesite[edit]

Not notable. -- Eagleamn 06:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete - non notable and advertisement, WP:ISNOT a link repository. -Drdisque 06:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by BanyanTree (Special:Undelete/Logical_psycho). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Logical psycho[edit]

AfD - nn vanity

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ] 16:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marcas O'Murchú[edit]

Non-notability under Wikipedia:Notability (music) - plus probable WP:POINT by poster after the John Fullerton afd (attempt to hype the notability of teachers at a Derry school). Tearlach 01:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable and a clear case of WP:POINT. Keep, sources have been added to article. Demiurge 10:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel Marcas meets at least three Musical Notability guidelines:
  • Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. He has performed on TG4, a national station in Ireland, and has also introduced a number of programmes.
  • Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city. The Belfast Telegraph describe him as one of the "country's finest musicians".
  • Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network. “Turas” on RTE-Raidio na Gaeltachta is an hour long radio programme of Irish music and conversation between 3-4pm each Friday afternoon from June 17, running until September, presented by well-known flute player, Marcas O Murchu. - [[32]]--Johnfullerton 11:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marcas clearly fulfills these three guidelines, of which he only needs to fulfil one. I don't understand why the deletion box has been put back in place.--159.134.206.12 14:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment OK, add this information to the original article (and cite it properly in accordance with WP:CITE) and I will withdraw my deletion vote. (If you had included this evidence in the article in the first place in accordance with Wikipedia policy, the article would likely have never been listed for deletion!) Demiurge 15:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Exactly. I know we're not supposed to bite the newbies, but this cycle is getting exceedingly boring. #1 Someone posts an unsourced article with exaggerated claims of notability. #2 It's disputed on those grounds. #3 Lots of vitriol ensues. #4 After sufficient arm-twisting they finally cough up references supporting far more modest claims that turn out nevertheless to be sufficiently notable to keep the article. Any problem with going straight to #4? Tearlach 03:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Question Does this mean that you will be withdrawing the nomination Tearlach?--Cactus.man ✍ 10:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Expand and clean. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources are cited in the article. Arguing in AfD is all very well, but does nothing to make the article any more keepworthy. Keep, thanks Capitalist. --Last Malthusian 09:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable musician within his genre and I have cited reliable sources in the article. Capitalistroadster 17:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be notable enough, the article is sourced and he meets the necessary criteria at WP:MUSIC. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very very weak keep. A folk musician whi has apparently released at least one CD, who was once mentioned on the BBC's Ireland site but is not there now, and is admired by some other folkies. 550 Google hits is extremely low for a contemporary figure in music. But it is folk music, which is notoriously hard to verify on Google. So in the end we must presume good faith on the part of the editor. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Links reference evidence that this meets WP:Music. Durova 18:46, 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. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WPKN[edit]

This looks too much like an ad to me. I don;t think it can be edited to npov either. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 11:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - It reads matter-of-factly to me, but finding enough to say about it to make the article worthwhile would be a challenge. Thesquire 22:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least pending a check of the FCC database. Licensed radio stations are inherently notable. Haikupoet 06:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The FCC DB link was added to the article. Vegaswikian 06:21, 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 speedied. - Mailer Diablo 13:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IllumiRate[edit]

web page un-notability, also the article's author stated on the talk page that it should be deleted Melaen 15:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Grant the author's wish and delete it. B.Wind 01:05, 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. Three established users agree that this should be deleted. Thus, the chorus of unsigned votes, by anonymous users, with strikingly similar IP numbers, have been summarily disregarded. To them, I can only advise getting an account, making a few constructive edits and getting a feel for what is and is not encyclopedic. WP:NOT is a good place to start. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:00, Dec. 26, 2005

Panyet[edit]

Dictionary definition of an invented word, unworthy of Wiktionary. Pablo D. Flores (Talk)

  • Delete, neologism. — JIP | Talk 18:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article admits that it originated as slang and Google fails to generate relevant hits (surnames, Portugese texts). Durova 18:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well written article and one which deserves to be seen. Neologism it may be, but additions like this are essential to the English language.
  • Keep it does actually get several surname hits on Google, while I'm not quite sure why it must appear in Portugese - the chap is Greek after all. Neologisms appear every day on product labels in English, most of them meaningless compound words. This is at least derived from a name, and references a common experience. Perhaps we should give this little word a chance in the big wide world and see how it fairs!
  • Keep it makes more sense to let the English decide what enters their language than an Argentinian and a Finn. It's quite a handy word, might start using it myself.
  • Keep this is the kind of logic that would still have us communicating in grunts. "Panyet" is a valuable addition to our empoverished language, and I for one shall be lobbying the OED for its inclusion in their next edition. I just hope nobody else does so first — that would be deeply ironic!
  • Keep isn't 'Wiktionary' a neologism (see 'meaningless compound words' above; wiki-dictionary or wikiary would be tolerable). Perhaps that should go too.
    • Comment This is a discussion, not a vote. Panyet is better suited to the Urban Dictionary. It just isn't encyclopedic. Durova 16:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a fine example of the way in which English grows and develops, one of its greatest strengths. Perhaps the article could be updated to make this clear? Am I the only one who finds this sort of thing exciting?
  • Keep "Pinky chocolate fudge dumping" and "rusty trombone" are both to be found on Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure you'll fail to find either anywhere outside Roger's Profanisaurus - as an example of slang they're more or less unbeatable. Why on earth wouldn't "panyet" be suitable?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:01, Dec. 26, 2005

Datatecture[edit]

"This is a very pov article that reads almost like a commercial for the website it links to. The author did not provide any evidence that the word was first used by the man mentioned in the article. They also did not provide any evidence that the term is now commonly used.DeleteTheRingess 19:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, can't call it a neologism because it's around since 1996, but it's not notable or encyclopedic. Stifle 23:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 16/12/05, which AfD thinks is still the 15th. Hrmph. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as per User:Uncle G/Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day#That_infamous_game. Uncle G 21:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia race, Wikirace, Wikipedia Race[edit]

All self referential, and non-notable. RobertG ♬ talk 15:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all, pure drivel. Pavel Vozenilek 19:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aaaaaargh! How many more times? I'm closing this now. Uncle G 21:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by UninvitedCompany (CSD A1 -- "no context"). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Forum-website[edit]

Discussion board with 119 members. Enough said, I think. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virocommunications[edit]

No google hits, almost nonsense, but no speedy i'd guess. feydey 16:00, 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. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Piirainen[edit]

We can't possibly put an article about every crime. Google shows 233 results [33]. ^demon 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per my own nom. -^demon 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Molly Bish --Melaen 16:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep because she has a Finnish surname. — JIP | Talk 18:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • People with Finnish ancestry are somehow remarkable now? I think not, and I happen to be one. It's grim, but I don't think Wikipedia has room for every murder victim. --Agamemnon2 07:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. May be important case. -- JJay 22:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. It's a COLD, unsolved case. Chandra Levy stays on WP, and her case is also cold. Lets leave Holly on here, shall we? Or we can Merge her to Molly Bish. I vote for both. --Shultz 09:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable well-known murder.  Grue  18:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - why exactly can't there be an article for every crime? Is there a limit on the number of articles in Wikipedia? I also definitely would not agree with merging the article with that on Molly Bish - they are two separate cases with only the most tenuous link between them, almost just one of those flukes of history. And even the issue of whether or not they are 'cold' cases, while supportive of retention, is really irrelevant - a crime is a crime, and ANY murder has significance for many, many people - not only those involved, but whole communities. Wikipedia is an first an encyclopedia, not an aid to crime-solving, though it may be useful in that end. I vote for keeping both articles as they are. -- Ishel99 23:31, 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 redirect to immigration. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economic migrant[edit]

This issue is substantially covered in immigration and in a year has remained a useless and unnecessary stub. Redirect to immigration. SqueakBox 16:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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


Picture[edit]

I think that there should be a photo for this topic. There are many pictures included in newspaper articles on the current economic migrant crisis in Europe that would be great for this page. Please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerrih1126 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 19:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Contreras[edit]

Non-notable drug smuggler. Google shows 0 google hits.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC) May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. NN bio and possibly an attack page. --BorgQueen 16:32, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Adolescent Narcissism[edit]

I can't find any proof that this really exists. Google doesn't even show a handfull of hits. Were this a real term, I believe it would be more well documented on the web. ^demon 16:05, 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 as complete bollocks. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:03, Dec. 26, 2005

Farditmitts[edit]

Seems like non-sense Computerjoe 16:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well that's nice and open-minded of you Joe, by that reasoning you should trundle off to the Christianity, Scientology and Santa Claus pages and have a go at putting them up for deletion as well. I'm sure people affiliated with those concepts won't be offended at being labelled 'non-sense' either. ZeRo 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, and you, sir, are beating a strawman while pulling the "Respect my beliefs!" card at the same time. Neither is working very well. --Agamemnon2 07:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, promotion, see www.farditmitts.com where it says: I just read an article on the BBC that says that wikipedia, the open source online encyclopedia, is as good as the encyclopedia Brittanica. And since it has always been an ambition of mine to get farditmitts recognised as an official word I thought what a better place to start than to get it listed in the worlds biggest freakin encyclopedia? -feydey 16:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain Please. What is the matter with you people? Your like evil librarians on speed... What exactly is so wrong with the above exerpt that would deem this entry worthy of promotion for deletion? ZeRo 16:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Only Google hits for the term are the creator's website. Neither notable nor encyclopedic. Durova 16:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being complete vanity and nonsense. --Apostrophe 16:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair Enough so if I can gather a group of people together who can verify the existance of farditmitts, confirm their use of farditmitts on a daily basis and show their support for a wikipedia entry on the subject everything will be o.k? By the way is this actually a 'discussion' or just a virtual pitstop for power tripping, stuck-up, kill-joys? I mean does anyone actually ever come back to defend their comments once they have made them?
  • vanity? and nonsense... Nonsense, yes, nonsense in a way is the definition of the word farditmitts. But if you want to delete something because it's definition is nonsense you'd better go and delete this one as well: Nonsense. As for vanity, I don't know wot you mean by that and if your going to be as 'responsive' as the other people that have posted so far, I guess I never will. ZeRo 17:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dicdef doesn't belong in Wikipedia. A concept or term should have an impact outside of it's adherents or at least have a large number of such adherents. DeathThoreau 17:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That strategy wouldn't work because it's too easy to fake, even if the subject were encyclopedic. If you wrote a book that sold over 5000 copies or did something that got national news coverage, that would be different. Durova 18:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the site says: "Joining FarditMitts is free, easy, fun and pointless". As was creating its article on WP. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not once did I mention or promote farditmitts.com, infact I would incourage you not to go there.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Walton Smith[edit]

opened a newsagent shop doesn't give any notability--Melaen 16:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by RHaworth (author request). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

axani.co.uk[edit]

should not have been created here Owain 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP. — JIP | Talk 18:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mário de Andrade[edit]

  • Delete No one cares about this LSEditor 04:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD uncompleted by LSEditor. Speedy keep, bad faith nom. --Apostrophe 16:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is a featured article tagged for AfD by User:LSEditor (currently blocked for vandalism) because it is linked to from the articles created list on my userpage, as revenge for an AfD I posted. Incidentally, I think Jwestbrook was quite right to remove the AfD tag, in the spirit of WP:IAR and WP:Be bold. Chick Bowen 16:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, clearly meets criteria for notability, possibility of bad faith nom. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough, as per above. DeathThoreau 17:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep just trying to cleanup after User:LSEditor  J\/\/estbrook       17:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment thanks :)  J\/\/estbrook       17:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep likely bad faith nomination. Clearly a worthwhile article. CarbonCopy (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, encyclopedic, well written article. --אריאל יהודה 18:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B-Town Project[edit]

Band vanity (created by User:B-Town Prophet). And truly horrible. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Just more evidence of the need for a CSD subcategory for non-notable bands. (If you agree, say so here!). | Klaw ¡digame! 17:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete horrible. feydey 17:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Children and divorce[edit]

Not an encyclopedia entry, unlikely it can be salvaged. Not enough to interwiki. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:18, 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. – Robert 20:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CORPLISH[edit]

Not patent nonsense, but essentially nonsense anyway. A humorous neologism for a well-understood concept. Nice try, but not quite, I'd say. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 19:05, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Watch[edit]

Subject of this article is a nn subpage of Daniel Brandt's website which already has an article; FRS 16:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Recommend protected redirection of this page to Daniel Brandt to keep all the eggs in one basket. --FRS 16:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral this might be worth an article separate from Daniel Brandt. But the current article is highly POV and reads more like a blog entry than an encyclopedia article. CarbonCopy (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite per CarbonCopy. See if enough can be written for a real article, but I suspect not. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary at this point. This website just isn't that important. But recreate as protected redirect to Daniel Brandt, per nominator. u p p l a n d 20:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Daniel Brandt. Already has adequate mention in that article. --Carnildo 20:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously and portion from Daniel Brandt should simply point to this. Necessary to keep to conform to WP:NPOV which entries relating to this are having major problems complying to. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way does NPOV necessitate that Wikipedia Watch must get its own separate article? NPOV requires that things be described fairly; you're going to have to draw the connections if you want to substantiate your claim that "Wikipedia Watch described in Wikipedia Watch == good and fair; Wikipedia Watch described in Daniel Brandt == bad and POV". Given the bad-faith "hide the content" games recently played with Wikifiddler, I must agree with FRS; Protected redirect to Daniel Brandt. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess the problem here is that we've claimed that Daniel Brandt is notable. Now, within the activist community and the conspiracy theory community, he is, and has been for the past 20 or so years. However, those are seriously underground communities, and its really only through Google Watch that he got any interest beyond those very underground communities, where most people's names are never released to the public. Thanks to Google Watch, his name was released, he was interviewed, etc etc. Yahoo Watch was really just a tag on to Google Watch, while Scroogle was almost always mentioned alongside Google Watch as they compliment each other. So then the issue is Wikipedia Watch. It is, in a lot of ways, just a tag along for Google Watch, because he created it claiming that Wikipedia is an agent of Google, and that everyone here is a CIA agent (or at least enough CIA agents to force us all to be brainwashed in to going along with the CIA agenda). All CIA agents put up your hand so that we know who you are! Come on, anyone? But see the big issue here is this - is Wikipedia Watch just Daniel Brandt? If it is, then merge and be done with it. If not, then don't. Whilst he does go on about his personal views, its not just about him, because he mentions all sorts of other people that were affected by Wikipedia, and it has been contributed to by more people than him. Is it notable? I've counted 15 international news sources that have mentioned it. By my mind, that makes WP:WEB quite happily. Sure, most of them are in some way related to the Seigenthaler affair, but not all. So the issue is that - if we wipe this, then can we justify keeping things like Daniel Brandt? We can hardly suggest that he as an individual is more notable than his pieces of work. Or do we think that Bill Gates is more notable than Microsoft? Maybe we should merge Microsoft in to Bill Gates as well. And Windows and everything else as well... Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just another bit. Google Watch Watch has its own page, with less media coverage, and is a much smaller site - on virtually the same topic. So if this gets deleted, then so should that one. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, no. It does not have its own page. It has a redirect to Chris Beasley. Which you know, because you were the one who created the redirect. Less than twenty-four hours ago. What exactly are you trying to achieve here? I'd hate to think that you created a redirect from Google Watch Watch to Chris Beasley just so you could argue that we have to keep Wikipedia Watch for consistency, but I find it hard to construct any other explanation for you creating it and then misdescribing it here as an article rather than a redirect -- without disclosing that it only exists due to you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I put in the redirect, but I didn't write the Chris Beasley article. I for one think that it should be Google Watch Watch with a redirect from Chris Beasley (i.e. other way around to what it is now) but hey, either way. And if Google Watch Watch has next to no media coverage, then Chris Beasley has even less. Outside of Google Watch Watch he is unheard of. Anyone who votes delete on this should put Google Watch Watch/Chris Beasley up for deletion, because there is no way in hell that that is more notable than Wikipedia Watch. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're not answering the question. You're saying that it is unacceptable to have Wikipedia Watch described at Daniel Brandt and have a redirect pointing to it. You seem to be claiming that for consistency, Wikipedia Watch has to have its own article, Wikipedia Watch, because after all, Google Watch Watch has its own article, doesn't it? But in point of fact, this is not the case, and you know it's not the case, so it seems that what you're trying to claim now is that Google Watch Watch is automatically so much less notable than Wikipedia Watch that if Wikipedia Watch doesn't get a separate article, Google Watch Watch shouldn't get any coverage -- a premise that I find extremely specious, to say the least. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • What? Anyway, this web site has had major international news coverage and meets WP:WEB. And yes, Google Watch Watch does have its own article, and has for quite some time. As stated elsewhere, Google Watch Watch is NOT a site - its an article. Yes, that article has been referenced elsewhere, but that's just it - its an article. Now, if Wikipedia Watch was only 1 article, sure, same deal. But its not. It currently has 4 articles on the site. Granted that's not a lot, but Google Watch was notable when it only had 4 articles on its site too. Wikipedia Watch is a site. Whilst it started off quite personal, it has grown beyond just his personal campaign. Anyway, please stop adding "Outing" to the Daniel Brandt article. Your reasons, that it is "proving" that he is hypocriticial is POV. You might think he is hypocritical, but that's just your opinion, and it doesn't belong there. Instead of just having "Outing" in there, you should write how some people think he is hypocritical. Not everyone does. Most activists would think that he is far from hypocritical. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is not the place to discuss that link, since that is not even the article under AfD. Kindly stop dragging things off-topic? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Frankly, I am weary of Brandt's hatemongering and disrespect for our body of work. He has no compunctions about tarring us all with the same brush because of whatever indignities he has been subjected to. The best we can do is report each and every facet of his efforts, provided they cross pre-existing criteria for inclusion. Heck, let's make him a Featured Article candidate. Why? Because we can. Because it's fighting dirt with a big vacuum cleaner. Because it's a little bit zany and more than a little, as the French call it, bartesque. Keep/Rewrite --Agamemnon2 07:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC). Having been blackballed by Mr Brandt, I hereby shut the hell up about the topic. Changing vote to Abstain. --Agamemnon2 19:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, to keep the main article's size bounded to reasonable limits. - Bevo 16:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete Daniel Brandt, Chris Beasley, Google Watch, and Google Watch Watch as well. The only Wikipedia recognition Brandt deserves so far is his mention on John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. This whole trailer-trash drama means nothing to 99.9 percent of the planet. If you don't believe me, go out in the street and try to find ANYONE who's ever heard of Daniel Brandt. We'll leave the porch light on for you. wikipediatrix 20:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd think that Google Watch is sufficiently notable though. I had heard of that soon after it came out in 2002. As for the others, I don't know. The thing is that most of his activities were basically anonymous, so, whilst he probably did do a lot of notable stuff, you can't really attribute it to him. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Musn't self censor stuff about ourselves and this site looks notable, SqueakBox 23:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Blueslipper 00:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC).Surely people are not here to censor critics of wikipedia.[reply]
  • Merge into Criticisms of Wikipedia. karmafist 04:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If and when the site is notable for something other than wikipedians hoaxing it, the article can be recreated. WAS 4.250 17:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Daniel Brandt. No need for a separate page.  Grue  18:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete to brand't article. This stuff's already covered there. --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 20:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, please — Dan | talk 20:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per WP:ASR, if this were about web site "A" that critisizes web site "B", we would say it was "not notable" --rogerd 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if I agreed with the sentiments of some here that this is an obscure web site of interest to no one and irrelevant to wikipedia (which I do not), then it would still look bad if this were deleted. Wikipedia is not without its flaws and to delete articles like this would create the impression that these flaws are being covered up. --SpinyNorman 04:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike Google Watch, Wikipedia Watch does not yet seem to be individually notable. This can be covered in Brandt's article. Gamaliel 08:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Daniel Brandt. Much of what is covered in Wikipedia Watch is already mentioned in Brandt's own entry. No need for two pages that say essentially the same thing, especially when Brandt seems to be the power behind Wikipedia Watch in the first place. As another one of his exploits, it is better off there. - RPIRED 15:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Deleting an anti-Wikipedia site hobbles the concept of NPOV coverage. Articles involving individuals or entities critical of Wikipedia should be handled with care. I do think Brandt should be capped at, say, a maximum of five *prefix*-Watch site entries on Wikipedia, though. For his own good. Any more, and he won't have time to eat. Adrian Lamo 00:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep whether we like it or not the Siegenthaler affair has exposed Wikipedia to controversy, we should not shy away from this. PatGallacher 12:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - More notable than a crapload of stuff I've nominated before and kept. - Hahnchen 22:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Criticism of Wikipedia - as per Karmafist. Svest 00:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
  • Keep, even if we dislike it. --badlydrawnjeff 21:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per rogerd's excellent reasoning. Agnte 23:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn website founded two months ago. If such one is allowed anything else goes. Pavel Vozenilek 04:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's reached a level of Notoriety now that leaves it warranting inclusion --Irishpunktom\talk 15:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wales says:[edit]

I copied the below subsection from User talk:Jimbo Wales. WAS 4.250 17:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are personal attacks now acceptable?[edit]

Suppose I were to send a hoax email to the subject of a Wikipedia article, and then write up the results (haha! got him!) on the talk page and in the article. The subject of the Wikipedia article also happens to be a Wikipedian.

Would that be: (a) good traditional encyclopedia research, or (b) an egregious personal attack?

I say (b), but the Wikipedia community (including several admins) says (a).

Oh, and the article subject/Wikipedia user happens to be very unpopular (in fact has been blocked from Wikipedia). Does the answer depend on that? Should it?

See User:Grue/Brandt for details. Mirror Vax 22:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No it is completely unacceptable behavior. Very disappointing. We are Wikipedians and for me that means something.--Jimbo Wales 19:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that I should include "Attacks on Wikipedia Watch" as a sub section? Happy to remove that. Can also include another section "Criticisms of Wikipedia Watch" as well if you like. I see that Jimbo's comments have been quoted in the Daniel Brandt article as criticisms of it. Are there any other published comments criticising it? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete And while we're at it, destroy the Brandt article too. (unsigned anonymous comment 14:48, 21 December 2005 86.137.180.163)
  • Keep This is becoming a part of Wikipedia history, and Mr. Brandt has thrust himself into the public spotlight because of it. He fights for privacy, but revels in the attention. I believe that this page, with a bit of work could become a great summary of a controversial event in Wikipedia's history. --DaiTengu 01:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Living in spain[edit]

WP:ISNOT a FAQ (explicitly). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buying Property in Spain[edit]

This article is a FAQ, and contains original research Varco 17:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 19:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, d. Pavel Vozenilek 19:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Also possible copyvio from [35] (although permission is claimed). Dlyons493 Talk 20:47, 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 20:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1LIFE[edit]

Personal essay, not encyclopedic content. Content appears to exist at author's userpage. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:00, Dec. 15, 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. – Robert 20:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phase kings college london[edit]

plus Octane, kings college added -- RHaworth 08:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article about a party in London. Encyclopedic - no. feydey 18:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non - encyclopedic No Guru 20:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Staff have often outnumbered guests - reminds me of some of my own non-notable dramatic appearances. -- RHaworth 08:54, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 18:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gaston Lagaffe[edit]

No one in the United States has heard of this comics character. Delete as non-notable. — JIP | Talk 18:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Speedy Keep Well-known and very famous character with many published books and a half-century of success. Google score is 300,000+. While it's true that he's essentially unknown in the US, that's due to the lack of translated material available (as opposed to, say, Tintin). No reason to delete offered. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: also, Lagaffe was WP entries in ten languages, and is a Featured Article in the French Wikipedia. Nominator, what were you thinking?? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lady Cooper[edit]

  • Article about an apparently non-notable blog. Delete. -- Karada 18:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article is an advert for a blog which has no importance whatsoever - (Erebus555 18:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 19:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Betacomix[edit]

Creator and only content editor is the guy who runs this site [36]. Wikipedia is not self promotion. Site is hosted on a free webhost, and almost certainly does not meet WP:WEB proposal. I am also nominating The Chronicles of megaman, an article about an individual comic on this site. This site is presumably located here [37]. W.marsh 18:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - self promotional - (Erebus555 18:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • delete, looks to be self promotional and I can ascertain little critical opinion of the site. Hiding talk 23:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of megaman[edit]

Individual comic on a site that is also up for AfD, Betacomix. Ariticles are both created and solely editted by the guy who runs the site, wikipedia is not self promotion. W.marsh 18:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I can ascertain no critical evaluations of the strip upon which to found an article. Hiding talk 23:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn self-promotion/vanity. -Sean Curtin 07:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significance explained in the article. Only 21 google hits as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 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 20:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeltsin (band)[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rasely[edit]

Delete, because it's a mess and doesn't seem to fulfil the criteria on WP:MUSIC - Petros471 18:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)*[reply]

  • Keep. This would fall under WP:BIO. His Mel Bay book is legit and many of his accomplishments can be found via Google [38]. PJM 19:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utter mess. Stifle 00:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No doubt it needs a serious clean up, if kept. PJM 00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:40, 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ELion[edit]

This is a wholly inappropriate topic for an encyclopedia, and I thus nominate it for deletion under the "Idiosyncratic non-topic" clause of the deletion policy coupled with the fact that WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. This amounts to a person at Penn State thinking too highly of their school's IT setup and creating a large article about a piece of Penn State trivia. The Literate Engineer 18:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as NN advertising. Durova 19:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up. If not merge. -- JJay 01:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a merge target in mind? And may I ask why you think it should be kept? The Literate Engineer 03:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seemed pretty interesting when I looked at it, but it needs to cleaned-up (btw, did you check it for copyvio?). For a merger, I was thinking to a page on comparable software or to the University page. Ideally, we should have a page on University accounting software. -- JJay 04:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless completely rewritten and made relevant to other articles (can be red links) about university administration. JackyR 15:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable off-campus. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:24, Dec. 26, 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 redirect. This is not a topic of VfD; just be bold next time. mikka (t) 21:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zorba the Hutt[edit]

no useful conent, not encyclopedic enough for a seperate article. Was tagged for speedy delete, but IMO does not qualify. Howver, Delete. DES (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Short fancruft. --Apostrophe 06:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge somewhere. -- JJay 22:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:55, 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjith Joy[edit]

Vanity page, nn-bio, gets 223 unique Google hits. Blackcap (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

National Youth Computer Literacy Drive[edit]

Whilst this initially appears to be an education initiative further examination of the site appears to be mostly related to recruitment. All Google results are wikipedia related. The entry has been made by the site webmaster. Mozzerati 19:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SRE[edit]

  • Undelete and restore How can a small local band become Nationally known when they cannot advertise or sign with a record company? They get their name out on a free Encycopedia that many people use regularly. It's not advertising because they didn't try to sell anything from Wikipedia, and there wasn't an article in its place that was erased, and the empty space hasn't been taken over by a new article, so why not let them have this small page in this huge enyclopedia?
  • Delete ....εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not internationally or even nationally known. Just a small local band. - (Erebus555 19:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - Borderline vanity, could have been candidate for speedy delete; in any event, this band does not appear to meet established criteria for notability (see WP:MUSIC). Engineer Bob 08:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Owners Beware[edit]

Personal essay, original research, and otherwise unencyclopedic material. Delete. Was listed for speedy deletion, but it did not meet WP:CSD. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

  • Delete Original Research and unencyclopedic. We aren't a publishing house for people's personal essays on subjects. --Wingsandsword 21:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per reasons listed above. Kingfox 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peklo[edit]

del A series of Slavic myhtology by anons. contributor's speculations. "Peklo" is simply "hell" in a nubmer of Slavic languages. mikka (t) 16:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • del the Slavic word for hell from English-language encyclopedia. This is not an appropriate place for original research. --Ghirlandajo 12:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is based on a theis made back in the 19th century. Have you ever thought of why it got the name hell in the first place.

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:20, 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rai (mythology)[edit]

del A series of Slavic myhtology by anons. contributor's speculations. "Rai" is simply "heaven" in a nubmer of Slavic languages. mikka (t) 16:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Slavic word for paradise from English-language encyclopedia. There is nothing to distinguish the Slavic notion of paradise from that of other peoples. The etymology is fake, Alkonost is a purely Russian development, etc. --Ghirlandajo 13:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know. It seems you have not studied this fairly.

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Ghirlandajo. Durova 20:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Dragonmom[edit]

nn band; fails WP:MUSIC. Might be vandalism. Delete this shit. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

  • Delete per above. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -^demon 13:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a real and decidedly notable noise group that deserves its own page, but this probably ain't it. Keep and mark for Cleanup. MrBook 00:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with international performances they pass WP:MUSIC. Kappa 01:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC --Jaranda wat's sup 02:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Article is in fact shit, regardless of subject's notability, which is suspect. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:34, Dec. 26, 2005
  • Keep per Kappa. Always happy to oppose ugly and bad-faith nominations. Owen× ☎ 19:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 for the rationale given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Phone Access Numbers. Uncle G 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virtualphoneline.com[edit]

Advertisement, and probably non notable, billions of websites exist, I read nothing that made that one special. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's also out and out plagiarism! It's now up for deletion as such. 68.39.174.238 19:29, 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 (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 01:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Maye[edit]

This is a non-notable person. The article was apparently created and is maintained by several bloggers, and links to no other articles in en.wiki. NoSeptember talk 19:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this case is having a far reaching effect, I'd usually say delete, but this is much more notable [39]. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article as I found it had his name misspelled and his birth date off by 2 years. Thanks to Encyclopedist for catching these errors and correcting them. If we keep this article, then we certainly need to continue to clean it up. Currently it seems to be sourced from a single blog and that blog has not been very precise with factual details. NoSeptember talk 20:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clean it up!? Well there is a novel idea... almost makes me wish we had posted it to a forum that allows that to happen in an open manner. If it is deleted no more than 3 days after it is posted in the first place where is the collaboration to come from? Do you understand what the strength of an interactive and user managed Wiki is?
  • Keep as per Encyclopedist. Meelar (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Non-notable? The guy is to be put to death, he was not even supposed to be arrested. The original "raid" lacks physical documentation. This is VERY pertinent.
  • Keep as this issue is being followed across the blogosphere.
  • Seems like a keeper to me also --Censorwolf 20:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it should be in the news. It's not. Please don't censor it from here as well.
  • This deserves explanation: Corey Maye is a prisoner on death row in Mississippi. Police officers entered his apartment on a search warrant. He shot and killed one officer. He had no criminal record prior to this event. The police found one joint and/or trace amounts of marijuana in the residence. There was no other associated crime. Maye claims he was sleeping when the police entered and that he fired in self-defense, unaware that the man approaching him was a police officer. His defense attorney had never handled a capital case before. Maye is black and the officer was white. He's garnered some attention in the liberal blogosphere (which isn't encyclopedic, unfortunately). Two legitimate news outlets have covered the story: a local newspaper and the local NBC television affiliate. I checked the websites for Amnesty International and the NAACP: neither site returns any results for his name. After some hard thought I'm voting keep. Two mainstream news sources is enough. This has encyclopedic interest as an example of the United States death penalty system. Durova 21:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having an explanation was a good idea. People need to realize that a blog is not necessarily a good or credible news source. I expect most of the unsigned comments on this page came here from the blogs. There are literally millions of people in prison and many if not most assert their innocence. Being imprisoned and claiming innocence is not enough to be a notable person. As noted in the nomination, this is a stand alone article linked to nothing else, most likely created by a blogger who desired an article on this person. There seems to be some interest in the case, which is fine by me, but that is a case by case thing. Being on Death Row does not make one automatically notable. NoSeptember talk 21:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This looks like an unusual case. I gather that this became eligible for the death penalty because the court found that the shooting occurred in the commission of a crime. This logic normally applies to armed robberies, not misdemeanor drug possession. While I'm no legal expert this certainly piques my interest. So does the defendant's lack of any prior criminal record. Durova
        • Keep It's a capital murder case because the prosecution says Maye knew Jones was a cop. Killing a cop is worse than killing a mere "civilian", you know. Anton 02:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the story is developing and not all the facts are fully known yet, I don't think this is non-notable. --Error28 21:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've heard about this person many times before seeing his page on wikipedia. Definitely notable. Strong keep. --Pierremenard
  • Keep While merely saying "he should be in the news and he's not" is not a reason to keep an article (I'm glad to see that our recent policy change has um, encouraged, more people to actually open user accounts, the new people need to realize what arguments they need to use, and not use, in deletion votes. This will be instructive). I believe this case is arousing national interest in the U.S. and will eventually be covered by the major media. I know we don't consider blog posts to be serious sources (a policy I think deserves more nuance) but the fact here is that an awful lot of bloggers, people who usually don't agree on much, are picking this case up and drawing attention to it. There is a website devoted to it which has nothing to do with the blog. Eventually the media we consider reliable sources will do stories. I'd rather have the article now than recreate it later. Daniel Case 22:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "links to no other articles in en.wiki." Huh? Within hours of the article being added, I spent one myself slavishly going through and linking where necessary. I have since dabbed a bunch. At the time this AfD was posted, there were plenty of links to other articles. I cannot see how I can assume good faith here, given that the many links in the article were present at the time and could not have been missed. I think that argues even more strongly for a keep. Daniel Case 22:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was referring to other articles that linked to the Corey Maye article (click on "What links here" to see what links to the article). In other words, there are no incoming links, you added plenty of outgoing links. Please don't let your "good faith cushion" run so thin. ;) NoSeptember talk 22:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maye himself is not notable, but then that's partly the point: the guy had no criminal record yet is slated for death after a murder that might have been a justifiable killing. This story has legs, and since when should wiki just follow the MSM? -Leonard 22:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-notables have a way of becoming notables. Look at Justice Roberts. Leonson 23:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maye's case IS notable. This is a wrongful conviction that needs to be corrected. This NEEDS to be in the news, and the only way that will happen is if the word is con
  • Comment I think NoSeptember should withdraw this nomination per obviousness. Speedy keep εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats fine by me. I withdraw my AfD nomination and request a Speedy Keep. To those of you who registered just to vote, I encourage you to look around for articles in your area of interest and help edit and improve them, they are easy to find. NoSeptember talk 00:17, 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 16:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panocracy[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DXLab[edit]

Blatant advertising. WP:NOT a propaganda machine. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

Note to closer. Several pages redirect to this article. If it is deleted they should be too. -R. fiend 20:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't see anything encyclopedic here. WP is already full of insignificant software BS. We don't need any more. -R. fiend 19:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This piece of "insignificant software" is used continously by thousands around the world to facilitate communications. It is completely free; with no revenue, the term "advertising" has no meaning. I note a WP entry for Linux. --—the preceding unsigned comment is by AA6YQ (talk • contribs)
  • Linux is not blatant advertising, and besides that is actually notable. If you can prove notability and expand this beyond an advert, then we might have something. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Delete I concur with R. Fiend, although I prefer to look at it not so much as "we don't need any more" but as "we need to reverse the trend". The Literate Engineer 19:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One can apply the WP:CORP criteria for products and services to softwares. (For example: Hdimage (AfD discussion) fails to satisfy those criteria, whereas grep succeeds.) Searching turns up announcements from the author (and simple reprints) and mentions in discussion fora by pseudonymous people, but also turns up people independent of its creator considering this software notable enough to have written their own, often quite lengthy, reviews of it (by other amateur radio enthusiasts by more amateur radio enthusiasts by Thierry Lombry by John Butcher by Serge Stroobandt by W8BYH) and even to have written softwares of their own to work with it (MMD). Although this is far from what an encyclopaedia article about these softwares should look like, and although an actual book would be a much stronger indicator, it appears from the sheer number of people that have done more than simply include this, and its accompanying blurb from the author, in directories of free software for download and that have actually put up their own reviews, on their web sites for other enthusiasts to read, that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 23:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G's evidence and arguments. This article is not promotional, and AFD is not cleanup Kappa 01:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per R. fiend. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:37, Dec. 26, 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. – Robert 20:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schnozz.net[edit]

WP:NOT a web directory. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sport farting[edit]

Do I really need to say why? Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 19:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete though I think there might be a reality TV show idea in here. 23skidoo 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an article that really stinks. Durova 20:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - gone with the wind. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 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. 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[40], 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 delete. – Robert 20:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aalpha Technologies[edit]

advert, nn per WP:CORP WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 19:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete for being one of a series of submissions that were straight copyrighted advertisements, clearly intended not to be released under the GFDL by the copyright owner. Consider this to be Extreme Copyright Judo, if you like.

In detail: Supertec (talk · contribs) submitted a number of articles on products and services of Super Technologies Incorporated, which were direct copies of the company's own advertising blurb on its web site. From the account name, it is reasonable to presume that this user is, or represents, the copyright owner of the advertising blurb. In three of these articles (Superphone, SuperPBX, and IP-PABX) xe explicitly added the text "All rights reserved. All content is copyright © Super Technologies Inc." to the article as a separate edit. In other words, it is clear that this copyright notice was deliberately included. The author clearly did not want this content to be licensed under the GFDL. Two further articles that xe submitted, Virtualphoneline.com and this one, do not contain such copyright notices. But given that they are part of the same overall package of interrelated advertising blurb, with all of the articles involved submitted here one after the other over a short span of time, and that they are also copies of the company's advertising blurb, it is fair to presume that the author's copyright licensing intention, which is wholly incompatible with Wikipedia, applies to these, also.

Uncle G 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Phone Access Numbers[edit]

advert - Rudykog 20:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Cryptic (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Fry[edit]

Vanity Page Varco 20:16, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 06:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matoaca High School[edit]

There is nothing notable about this high school Censorwolf 20:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge into school district or town if article is both below three sentances and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture when AFD is closed. This school, like all others, is an important public institution and should be written about somewhere, even if it cannot sustain an article on it's own. Presently people do create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, I feel it is always preferable and takes much less energy to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district of local education authority of other school system, while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use. This is the baseline consensus that I feel was reached at WP:SCH. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand. It's a High School. -- JJay 23:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of 38 articles about high schools in Virginia. Rhollenton 00:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge until it meets WP:SCH proposal.Gateman1997 01:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on WP:SCH which requires (for a stand-alone article) three sentences each containing a fact verified by an independent source, which the article (just now) has. A google search on the school name indicates there's a good basis for growth of the article. --Rob 04:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent on high schools. Could perhaps be merged, but this school has at least a couple of notable alumni and merging in the weblink references might clutter up the Chesterfield article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep providing enough information is found. Proto t c 10:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all valid high schools. — RJH 17:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a violation of the long standing precedent to keep articles about high schools. Silensor 22:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep <remove personal attack>. Kurt Weber 02:05, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 06:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Cherokee War[edit]

Incomplete nomination, listing it so someone can close it. Gazpacho


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ] 16:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Virus[edit]

Not very notable and not much content. NicM 20:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aanarav Sareen[edit]

Vanity page Varco 20:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non Notable
  • Delete - Non notable vanity page. --Wingsandsword 21:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 23:56, 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 delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:39, Dec. 26, 2005

The Dartmouth Beacon[edit]

non-notable, advertisement AaronS 21:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. At first, I just edited out the boosterism in this article that borderlined on being spam advertising.. Not only is it a stub (which isn't in and of itself enough to merit deletion, but I can't imagine what else could be said about this relatively non-notable, non-controversial student publication), but I don't think that it would be a good idea to have an article for every small student publication at every college in the world. It's just not encyclopaedic. And, unlike The Dartmouth Review, the Beacon has no national presence. It barely has campus presence. --AaronS 21:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Same reasons as AaronS. This a student publication formed last year and is not significant. Luckynumbernine
  • Delete I double checked because the well known Dartmouth Review isn't the primary student newspaper on campus. That's The Dartmouth, founded in 1799. The Dartmouth Beacon lists its first issue as October 2004: just another NN student newspaper. Durova 21:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the Review is not the official newspaper of Dartmouth, it is significantly more well known than The Dartmouth
    • Comment The point of my explanation is to state that Dartmouth has two encyclopedic student newspapers. This isn't either of them. Durova 15:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Been around for two years. The article isn't even factually correct/honest, as it has been "founded" two or three times in the past. --152.163.100.67 21:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A little more than 200 Google hits, many of them from a website or two existing to make fun of the paper. Just looking at the history, this page was created as a tribute gag to the current editors. TheDakPAC 23:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a number of dartmouth publications. The dartmouth beacon is one of them. Of course apponents to the magazine's conservative message will object to it's presence on wikipedia, but it is a legitimate magazine at Dartmouth and popularly read and thus a legitimate article on wikipedia. Just like any other political magazine - the review, the jack o lantern, etc.
Response Nobody cares about its message, whatever it may be. The Dartmouth Review is an older and more prominent conservative publication, and everybody here supports its article on Wikipedia. The Dartmouth Beacon is a new publication that has little presence at Dartmouth, let alone outside of Dartmouth. The Review has been around for 25 years and has a national presence; The Jack 'O Lantern has been around for nearly a century and has alumni like Dr. Suess. The Beacon does not compare to either. Wikipedia cannot include every minor college publication on Earth. The fact that the Beacon is at an Ivy League college makes no difference. "Apponents" don't care about its conservative message. They care that it is non-notable and unencyclopaedic. --AaronS 17:53, 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 speedy delete by Marudubshinki. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Xio Jade[edit]

Nonnotable material created solely by User:Supershadow as one of his many empty and spurious rumors, absolutely no backing in Star Wars canon, a bogus rumor churned out by a well-known internet crank is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Wingsandsword 21:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 00:40, 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 speedily redirected to golf per Uncle G's brilliant suggestion (really, article was pretty much speediable anyway). BD2412 T 02:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Putts[edit]

Delete - our first nomination from the new Wikipedia:Neglected articles project, this is somewhere between a dicdef and a joke. I would say redirect to putt or putting - but neither exists. BD2412 T 21:40, 15 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 delete and redirect to cyanobacteria. – Robert 20:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Green Algae[edit]

Appears to be spam for bluegreenfoods.com; touts various health benefits in human diet but entirely without citation. See also Phycomin and Love Molecules. -choster 21:57, 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:42, Dec. 26, 2005

Thunder Clap[edit]

  • Delete. 70,000+ google hits, but the 44 that identify it as a dance move are all Wiki mirrors. BD2412 T 22:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, try googling "do the thunder clap". Kappa 01:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm willing to be convinced, but that search gives about 200 links, most of which refer to a lyric in a Beastie Boys song - that doesn't make it a real dance move... perhaps there is some better place to which this could be redirected? BD2412 T 01:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Or "doing the thunder clap" Kappa 03:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Better... still only 21 real hits, not spectacular. BD2412 T 03:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
          • The results demonstrate that it's a real move. I don't see why you want to count them for a restricted phrase like this. Also the Usher lyrics are about the move so it's been exposed to a wide audience. Kappa 05:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was just thinking that there might be a more prevalent name in use - I'll lose no sleep if this article is kept (and indeed, will add the song references now). BD2412 T 14:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Kappa. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 01:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C.W. Blubberhouse[edit]

Hoax. David | Talk 21:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio. Deleted. Plagarised from: [41]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Love Molecules[edit]

Appears to be advertising for bluegreenfoods.com of also AFD'd Blue Green Algae. An identical article is posted at Phycomin. I highly doubt this term is in widespread usage to refer to this specific substance. choster 22:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of slang terms for excretion[edit]

The page provides no value and I don't see how that can be remedied (or why anyone would care to). Simply not needed on Wikipedia. Eugene Medynskiy 22:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to delete it, don't be such a stiff, it's funny, why are you looking at it anyway if you think it's so immature? -Jack Gallegos (Captain Awesome)

Thank you Captain Awesome (and perhaps...obvious?) Why are you looking at it, if you don't like it? What in the world were you searching for that lead you to that? Hmmm? (Une_Fleur_du_Mal)

I agree not to delete the article. If your offended then don't read it. We need information on everything, even poop. Wikipedia is a great information source and i dont see how an article on poop could ruin it. -Anarchski

This page provides an audience with alternate usages of slang terms, which may be necessary for the betterment of any and all of the following: an argument, a humorous paper, a serious paper in need of clever comic relief, or verbal entertainment. Unless someone can find me an example of someone/something adversely affected by this page, there is no true logical reason to delete it.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 now that author agrees with the deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

XGT[edit]

Admittedly "small-scale" gaming clan of 30 people. A slicker article than most of these, but still.... FreplySpang (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn Zzzzz 00:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC) - change vote to *Speedy delete as the author himself agrees article should not exist. Zzzzz 09:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is more nicely made than most similar gaming clan articles, but style does not make substance, or encyclopedic status. --Wingsandsword 08:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete It's a growing clan. If it bothers people, i'll remove some stuff so it does not take up as much space on Wikipedia. Granted it's small but deserves being noted and last i checked there weren't any articles about other PS2 gaming teams. -- Predator 17:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems more like a vanity page then anything else, non encyclopedic. Beowulph 22:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move the information to a User page. The reason that there aren't any articles on other PS2 clans is that you would never read about any of them in an encyclopedia. There are very few gaming clans on Wikipedia and most are professional eSports teams, all that stay are over 5 years old, and those that are not professionals have to be large and notable. Few clans can survive the gauntlet, even if as well written as this one is. If you can get newspapers, magazines, or commercial websites to write articles about your clan, it is probably notable, otherwise not. (By the way, the XGT Wolf page will also meet the same fate (so move the information to your user page, where no one can complain....) --Habap 14:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reason why: It just looked as if there was a lack of articles when I put this one up, but I guess I should have researched more. On second thought, most of the information here can be found on the website for this clan and the clan itself is quite a small scale one. Sorry for a waste of space, there's no real need for it.

--Predator 20:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If they only have 30 members, none of whom are inherently notable, having an article here looks like advertising. Notability guidelines for gaming clans wouldn't hurt, if a lot of these articles start cropping up. --Idont Havaname 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:44, Dec. 26, 2005

Danny Nichols[edit]

Student journalist, nominated for speedy deletion under CSD A7, but might not qualify due to claim of being a published author of newspaper articles. Sending this to Afd instead. Nominator abstains. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete these are two articles which I wrote that were caught by Google.com: [42]

[43] there are more, but these were the ones that I was able to find online, since the rest are archived, and cost money to see. but this should be proof that I have been published, and that this page shouldn't be deleated. - Danny Nichols

  • Delete After searching through the archives of The Columbian, could only find 6 articles written by Danny Nichols. They were all featured in the "Our Readers' Views" section. There was one other article that mentioned his appearance at a local peace rally. While he has been published IMO there is not enough for him to be notable enough for an encyclopedic entry.Das Nerd 22:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am the one who tagged it as CSD A7. --Elliskev 22:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think an A7 speedy would have been fine, personally. Friday (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:47, Dec. 26, 2005

JuCo Express[edit]

Vanity page for a fantasy football team. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And a crappy fantasy football team at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.234.210 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 00:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the nomination. --Wingsandsword 08:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This nomination has been vandalized to change votes. To our anonymous friends, please do not change other people's comments anywhere on Wikipedia, especially here. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ESKOG WHO MADE YOU GOD!!!??? WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE!?!?!? WHAT HAVE YOU CONTRIBUTED??????!?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.152.81 (talk • contribs)
    • Well, no one made me God. That's why we vote here, to see if there is a consensus about this article's status in Wikipedia. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no basis for deleting this site, (ESkog), so I think that it should stay. FAntasy football is a cultural phenomenon and vanity plays a part to be sure, but early entries into the COLLEGE fantasy football realm are essential to understanding sociological man in the early 21st century. Plus, it's funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.119.232 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Monaghan (adult performer)[edit]

Nothing to say that this person is particularly notable. I considered speedying this as NN-bio, but this many magazine appearances could probably be argued as a weak claim of notability. Delete CLW 22:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. -- JJay 23:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Not necessarily a household name, but seems to be notable enough within the genre. 23skidoo 05:59, 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 boldly redirected to Dylan Thomas by Proto. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Llewelyn Thomas[edit]

I have expanded the article on Aeronwy Thomas, but I feel that the articles on Dylan Thomas's two sons should be deleted, as they are already mentioned in the main article, and I can't find any other information about them. Deb 22:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only claim to fame is that he's the son of someone famous. JHMM13 (T | C) 00:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boldly redirected to Dylan Thomas. Proto t c 10:48, 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 redirected to Dylan Thomas by User:Proto. – Robert 20:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colm Garan Thomas[edit]

I have expanded the article on Aeronwy Thomas, but I feel that the articles on Dylan Thomas's two sons should be deleted, as they are already mentioned in the main article, and I can't find any other information about them. Deb 22:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only claim to fame is that he's the son of someone famous. JHMM13 (T | C) 00:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, boldly redirected to Dylan Thomas. Proto t c 10:49, 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 20:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zawolanie[edit]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaliyah Timberlake[edit]

Strangely enough, there appears to be a person by that name, but she seems to be totally non-notable without all of the outrageous claims listed on the article, none of which google can verify. - Bobet 22:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with the entry, aside from a lack of references. If citations can be found, keep, if not - delete. --Dschor 22:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:To save people some time:the tv show in the article links to an American show (the article claims she appeared on a South African show), and the creator of this article added her name on that page's cast list anyway. She doesn't appear on imdb in the long cast list of the tv movie listed, and as far as i know, there wasn't a prince Ibrahim of Saud who died in a plane crash. - Bobet 23:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax. Durova 23:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 23:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Noelle De Guzman 06:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per the nomination, unverifiable and likely hoax. --Wingsandsword 08:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:30, 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 by Ambi (nonsense spam). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Girlslib[edit]

This article is just a bunch of advertising for a porn site. Cmdrjameson 23:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per spam. JHMM13 (T | C) 23:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 23:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete badly written porn spam. Sliggy 00:20, 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 20:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alphastrike.com[edit]

Article on obscure, dead site which existed for less than a year. Google test on "alphastrike" lists 635 hits, most of them having nothing to do with the former site. Not notable and probably spam Mecanismo | Talk 23:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Triff[edit]

Neologism. Coined in the winter of 2005. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:56, Dec. 15, 2005

Delete. Neologisms do have a place on Wikipedia, but this one isn't notable enough. -- Daverocks 00:16, 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 (10 keep, 8 delete, 1 merge), thus kept, with condolences to Zordrac. In the words of John Bender, "Screws fall out all the time; the world is an imperfect place." — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:04, Dec. 26, 2005

U.S. v. Brandt[edit]

*Delete - this is already included in the Daniel Brandt article. We cannot justify this when we are questioning whether major supreme court cases should be included. This was just another draft dodger. We don't have articles about Sylvester Stallone's draft dodger case, so why should we have one on Daniel Brandt's? Its utterly ridiculous. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This should be closed since I nominated it and am withdrawing the nomination (I think that's how it worked). After his efforts today, he has no right to privacy at all, so keep this thing, and show the world what he's really like. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Where to start? First of all, I've never noticed any AfD about notability of a USSC case, all of which are of course notable. Even so, the USSC (and any other court) may often cite case law from other jursidictions, so there is certainly no reason that a case from a lower court should not be encyclopedic just because it's from a lower court. I can't tell much about how important this particularly case really has been, but a draft-era case in which someone you so pointedly refer to as a "draft dodger" was cleared by a federal circuit court seems unquestionably notable to me. If Sly had a similar legal case at this level, it should certainly be mentioned in wikipedia (but I see no mention of anything like that). Bikeable 01:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, this is not a USSC case. It is an appeal of a local court case. Hence it is essentially a local court case, which is decidedly not notable. It had zero media coverage at the time, and has zero usage for anything other than talking about Brandt's biography. Interestingly, and hypocritically, something of actual note, like Wikipedia Watch, which has meaning well and truly beyond Brandt, is apparently on the road to deletion. There is more than 1 thing wrong with that logic. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • An "appeal of a local court case" is essentially a local court case, and therefore non-notable? What about Roe v. Wade? Essentially no cases start at the USSC; they are all appeals of (more) local cases. In this case a federal appeals court took a case of the US government against a private citizen; this is hardly a "local court case". It got no media attention in 1970? How do we know? Whether it has been an important precedent in draft law I am not qualified to judge, but it is not obviously non-notable. Finally, comparing this to any other AfD is just silly, unless you're comparing it to another appeals-level decision. I'm afraid there's some politicking here I don't get, since I don't even know who Daniel Brandt is, and I don't particularly care; I'm basing my opinion entirely on the article and the fact that a federal appeals court decision on a draft-era case looks notable to me. Bikeable 06:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good point. "We don't know" whether this had any media attention or was notable. Almost certainly it didn't. Unless it definitely did get media attention or was used in some cases then it is most certainly not notable. As for the Roe v. Wade case above, that obviously had some claims to notoriety. What claims does this have? I'll tell you what - in 2004 in Australia there was a High Court case of R v Vizard against Steve Vizard, who was the founder of Full Frontal, a comedy series, and also a prominent lawyer. He was found not guilty. There was also a Supreme Court trial of R v Trinh & McLean where 2 teenagers were found guilty of the murder of 2 Filipino prostitutes that they said they were forced to kill because of threats from the Hells Angels who are the largest organised crime group operating out of Darwin. Now, which of these 2 is the most notable? Steve Vizard's one was in a higher court than Trinh & McLean's. Or, wait, what about R v Murdoch? That one wasn't in the High Court either. Maybe that one isn't notable. LOL. I can think of dozens of High Court cases that are not remotely notable and haven't been used for anything. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems OK. -- JJay 01:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Already included in the Daniel Brandt article. Beside, I don't know about his article, but this is breach of Brandt's privacy. Kaliz 01:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very good point. I guess that the problem here is that his privacy is already breached by Google when they publicly released his name, and then secondly by Wikipedia creating an article about him. So the damage has already been done. This article does not further damage his privacy. Indeed, there is an argument that Google had already breached his privacy and hence that Wikipedia did not worsen the existing privacy breaches, and hence did nothing wrong. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so? The facts of the case are certainly public record, and anyone could look up these details in the court proceedings. Bikeable 04:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. USSC oops, 9th Circuit case. Informative article about sth of real import to peoples' lives with potential broad application. Billbrock 05:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) corrected Billbrock 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's not true. This was an appeal of a local court case. There is a whopping great difference between this kind of thing and a trial of murder or something like that. Do we include every single appeal in here? It's absurd. People are still questioning the notability of something like R v Trinh & McLean, the most important case in Australia of 2004, yet someone is saying that this unheard of case should be included in here, when it has no significance to anything, other than to Brandt's personal biography. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. SCOTUS cases are inherently notable. And Zordrac's argument is absurd; the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over very few things, almost EVERYTHING starts off as a lower court case. Name the dozen most important cases in US legal history, and I'll bet 10 of them started off as appeals of lower court cases. Zordrac doesn't understand how the US legal system works. Firebug 07:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither notable nor relevant. At best, merge into Daniel Brandt. -Sean Curtin 07:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable in any other respect other than its relation to Daniel Brandt's biography. Indeed, I question the motives of the original writer. --Agamemnon2 08:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't see a problem with documenting legal cases, however don't feel that it is notable enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Again, not a Supreme Court case. This was merely an appeal from an administrative hearing. The decision has not been cited by any court since 1976. Whether or not Brandt himself is notable, the case is not. (unsigned comment by Paul Stokstad 19:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Brandt-cruft. I'm still waiting for Wikipedia v. Brandt :)  Grue  18:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wrote the original to fill in a red link on an article. Obscure content isn't harmful. This is a public record and certainly not a "breach of privacy." The reason the case has not been cited since 1976 because Conscription in the United States ended in 1973. I am not going to go to the mat on this one, but I find the rash of deletionism in general lately a little disconcerting. Jokestress 21:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think all recorded cases are notable. While this is not very notable, in a few years when wiki has 10m articles, hopefully all these cases will be in. Oh and by the way, this is not an invasion of privacy, it is a matter of bloody public record which is the exact opposite of private information. jucifer 02:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just so you know, my Dad had an almost identical case to Brandt's. My Dad is extraordinarily non-notable, his case had 0 press coverage, other than in generally reporting on the combined sum of the cases, which did not specifically mention his name. Yes, you can go down to the court and request a copy of it, and you are not breaking any laws by publishing it up here. But most people consider such things to be an invasion of privacy. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think Brandt's notability or privacy are pertient issues to this discussion. The notability of this particular case should be the matter at hand. Aside from being an incident in Brandt's life (and it is discussed in his biography article), I see zero notability. There is no evidence presented that this case is particularly significant, or significant at all, that it established any notable legal precedent, or that it has been referred to in any way in any legal or historical writings. Gamaliel 07:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever isn't already in Daniel Brandt to Daniel Brandt --Alf melmac 12:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Brandt has recently become very notable. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep // paroxysm (n) 01:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 18:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete If I had my 'druthers I'd keep this article and delete the Daniel Brandt, but since we seem to be stuck with the bio, this article is essentially redundant FRS 18:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 20:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Satirical Bums[edit]

Google reports no hits for this show. Probable hoax. -- SGBailey 23:57, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_15&oldid=1081091839"