Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 15 December 17 >

Purge server cache

December 16[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 wasI have decided to close this debate. Obvious keep. Notice this vandal harbors a grudge against Wikipedia (check edits). Placement at the top designed to encourage lengthy and frivolous debate. Lotsofissues 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tilly Smith[edit]

Keep - Had not heard of Tilly Smith prior to seeing her listed in Wikipedia. Suggest you keep the article and include a link to the National Geographic article [1]. Teachers looking to see how they can have a positive effect on students may benefit. In my opinion, this is valuable and relevant information for social, psychological, humanitarian and educational reasons. Tilly Smith saved 100 lives. Who writing here has saved one? The act itself deserves an entry. Clyo Beck December 16, 2005

NN person, just a girl credited with saving nearly a hundred foreign tourists at Maikhao Beach. Unknown UserTalk 15:26, 16 December, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - subject of international recognition and media coverage. ABC. BBC, National Geographic. the wub "?!" 10:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • just a girl credited with saving nearly a hundred foreign tourists? Man, even if I hated tourists that much, I would not confess it on Wikipedia. Assuming that the nomination by a user who does not reveal his identity was in bad faith, I vote for speedy keep. --DrTorstenHenning 11:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, subject of major news coverage, also received award. If saving hundreds of people all at the same time isn't noteworthy, I don't know what is. - Mgm|(talk) 11:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is surely verging on a speedy keep based on silly (if not bad faith) nomination. --Last Malthusian 15:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Language is possibly a bit unclear there - I don't think it's a bad faith nomination, I do think it's rather silly. --Last Malthusian 15:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the criterion for a "speedy keep" is that the nomination is clear cut vandalism and/or WP:POINT. I do think that this is a borderline case. Speedy keep. Capitalistroadster 15:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is notable, she hit the headlines in the UK after the event and again when she got her award. Keep keep keep. Peeper 16:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Ditto above Computerjoe 18:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The next time a student complains about how useless geography is - I hope this article will be here to point to. Ifnord 20:27, 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 Lucky 6.9. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 01:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics and every day life[edit]

Obvious delete,any slightly relevant info could go on the Math article. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pointless article, maths relates to real-life, so what? Zzzzz 00:10, 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. FireFox 18:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

House of God House music event[edit]

Google From Googling the main terms, I found nothing but wikimirrors. Seems like a neighborhood event somewhere. delete

Lotsofissues 00:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Alr 01:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Wingsandsword 02:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Nothing wrong with having articles on neighborhood events, as long as they're properly referenced to publicly-available information. However, unless a second source (i.e., additional to the website) can be produced, there's probably not going to ever be enough verifiable information to make a good article. —Simetrical (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it turns into a much-more-detailed article.--SarekOfVulcan 09:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and User:SarekOfVulcan. Jolan tru or something. — JIP | Talk 09:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. the wub "?!" 10:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking - well anything, very much. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:56, 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, merge, and disambiguate. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:34, Dec. 27, 2005

Tracer Bullet[edit]

This and all other comic stubs are much to insignificant to be listed in their own article. There is already a discription of Tracer Bullet in the Calvin and Hobbes article. I've also listed other Calvin and Hobbes stubs as articles for deletion.--FelineFanatic13 00:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Calvin and Hobbes Zzzzz 00:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no need to merge the two articles because Tracer Bullet is already listed in the Calvin and Hobbes article.--

FelineFanatic13 00:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect then? - Rudykog 00:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else can redirect it if they want to. Redirecting is not my speciality on Wikipedia.--FelineFanatic13 01:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not that hard. Anyway, something that can be merged doesn't need deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 11:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Tracer Bullet and Tracer bullet are different pages... I still like the idea of the dab. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. -- JJay 01:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and I'm a big C & H fan. Wikipedia must be useful. Right? Billbrock 03:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's enough verifiable info available to make a full-length article about this. See this. —Simetrical (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify: it is my opinion, as explained elsewhere, that Wikipedia does not need notability requirements, and in this instance my opinion is not contrary to policy. —Simetrical (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bog-standard private-eye parody popping up a few times as a gag in comic strip? Uh uh. Comic-cruft. Delete outright or redirect to Tracer ammunition. --Calton | Talk 06:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for those voting to keep everythig verifiable - It's not like the section on alter-egos in the Calvin and Hobbes article is swelling to the point of bursting or something, why have redundant information? You have a point about Wikipedia's potential purview, which I don't disrespect, whether or not I agree, but in this case, you're overextending, IMO. The first article to bud off of the Calvin and Hobbes article would have to be the entire alter-egos section, and then, when each section of that grows big enough, it could be split. That's when Tracer Bullet gets his own article. I'm not holding my breath. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate or delete. I can't see this being as useful as Spaceman Spiff is.--SarekOfVulcan 09:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Calvin and Hobbes. — JIP | Talk 09:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Calvin and Hobbes and then disabiguate with Tracer ammunition. the wub "?!" 10:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - to Tracer ammunition, and to Calvin and Hobbes, where this info should be merged. Too crufty for its own article. Proto t c 10:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • disambiguate and then redirect to C&H. This should not stand alone. Eusebeus 11:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect info that's not yet mentioned at Calvin and Hobbes. If you want a reference to tracer ammunition, it should be at tracer bullet, note the lower case "b". - Mgm|(talk) 11:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, from where it can be broken out again if it expands beyond the size of that page. Hiding talk 12:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per GTBacchus. - squibix 14:02,
  • Merge into calvin and hobbes---Frogman1326 14:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

16 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 keep - per an overwhelming consensus. FCYTravis 09:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gay rights in Iraq[edit]

I believe that this article should be deleted. It is just pushing the author/authoress' point of view, and doesn't give much information, but to be fair I'll put it to a vote. Chooserr 00:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I disagree with the previous poster. The article has a neutral point of view and factual information, as well as a good list of references. I see no reason to delete it. -- Ritchy 00:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now, although the article might need renaming (e.g. to LGBT rights in Iraq). Out of curiosity: what are the pov issues you are talking about, Chooserr? Aecis praatpaal 00:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Deletion is only an option if the article is intrinsically and irreparably pov. I don't think that is the case with this article. So if there are any pov issues, put a npov tag on the article and fix the problems or use the article's talk page. Aecis praatpaal 09:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changing my vote (again), this time to speedy keep. Nomination is a violation of WP:POINT. Aecis praatpaal 14:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - factually pointless information. npov? article smacks of western cultural bias. those disgusting iraqis, staying over there with their own culture and traditions! why cant they be decadent like us! Zzzzz 00:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what you're saying is only Western countries should have gay rights articles? Remember, this is a vote to delete, not a vote to fix. Ashibaka tock 01:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is plenty of precedent - we have many other articles in Category:Gay rights by country, including a number of non-Western countries. FreplySpang (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article is wild full of POV, totally inapropriate, attack pice against america — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.13 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, but take out some POV statements. JHMM13 (T | C) 00:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is absolutely nothing POV about the concept of an article on LGBT rights in Iraq. If there are POV problems, fix them. FCYTravis 00:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointles POV "article"

User:Jcuk 00:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable topic on which verifiable information exists. Capitalistroadster 01:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I find it hard to understand the nomination or the delete votes. This is a fairly good sized article with a dozen external links that has received quite a few contributions from different editors for half a year. It's a dry analysis of Iraqi law and recent history as it affects gay rights. It certainly doesn't attack the United States. If it does have POV problems (which I don't see), then the proper procedure is to give it an NPOV flag and leave comments on the talk page or better yet to correct the text. The nominator attempted none of these remedies. There is no valid basis for deletion. Durova 01:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Speedy keep per User:Rob. Bad faith nomination. Now I know why several deletionists seem not to have read the article. Durova 16:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Yep. I daresay it's a borderline speedy keep. FCYTravis 01:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I'm at a loss to see what POV issues to fix. The only specific examples in this discussion come from people who appear not to have read the article. It attacks no country or culture. It does not advocate homosexuality. Category:Gay rights by country has 35 other entries. I say this with caution since such things should not be suggested lightly, but perhaps the intersection of gay + Iraq pushes buttons for some people. Durova 03:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and whoever thinks this article is POV should say why, specifically, on the talk page, so we can begin to fix those POV problems. Deleting is not the solution. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete needs to go--64.12.116.12 01:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clean it up, don't wipe it. That's not how you solve problems. Ashibaka tock 01:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per precedent. Jasmol 01:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fix any problems. -- JJay 01:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fix NPOV problems. No matter how little is left after NPOV, its better than nothing. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 01:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This article, as said by Durova above, is a well researched and rather comprehensive one (IMHO) covering history, legal issues, etc. The POV issues that some users seem to see should be discussed on its talk page and eventually fixed, not simply speedily deleted. That does not solve problems and as far as I was informed, was not the way Wikipedia operated. You don't see the George Bush or Palestinian articles being speedied, and those are, again IMHO, more controversial and potentially POV than this one. Another problem seems to be User:64.12.116.11, who has in the past couple of minutes added a NPOV tag, a nonsense tag, a totally disputed tag, an unwanted tag, and finally deleted the article (which has now been reverted). This user has a history of vandalism and has struck again here, evidently, which I think is a different issue than the other discussions. Sputnikcccp 01:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an informative article worthy of inclusion to Wikipedia. --Apostrophe 02:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Fix POV and I am ok with it. JG of Borg 02:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Detailed article with useful information. No reason has been given for deletion- the only one stated is POV, which is something corrected by editing, not deletion. This could easily be a Speedy Keep. -- Jake 02:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, per User:Durova.--SarekOfVulcan 02:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Are we going to have to have articles about this on every country in the world? Dwain 02:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Why shouldn't we? We have articles on every freaking elementary school in the world now. The way a country treats its gay and lesbian citizens is hardly non-notable. FCYTravis 03:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Dwain 03:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow, I see you have a pretty strong POV. "Homosexuals are non-notable"? Is that why their rights are a major political issue around the world? "Irrelevant minority?" Way to show your biases. FCYTravis 05:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Surely people have a legitimate interest in knowing how to obey the law? Many countries have criminal codes on this subject, but the laws differ. Durova 05:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, we are going to have articles about this on every country in the world. And why shouldn't we? Homosexuality is notable, just like crime, cuisine, culture and religion. And the legal dealings with homosexuality in different countries is definitely encyclopedic. I won't get involved in a religious discussion with you (although I have a feeling that I think most of what you feel is utter bullshit), but you really shouldn't let your pov get in the way of your contributions to this encyclopedia. We are dealing with the world as it is here, not with the world as it perhaps should be. Aecis praatpaal 14:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete 100% POV nonsense, get it out of here--152.163.100.12 03:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no problems that can't be corrected by a good edit. Cynicism addict 03:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per User:Cynicism addict. Fix the POV. Billbrock 03:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. There was a serious academic book on the subject in China (Passions of the Cut Sleeve), cited in Homosexuality_in_China. Billbrock 03:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. By analogy to the above citation, I would suggest a redirect to Homosexuality_in_Iraq; hard to discuss the legal aspects w/o discussing the culture. On second thought, no, per User:Durova. Billbrock 04:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.P.S. Check out Gay_rights_by_country and note some of the amusing omissions. Billbrock 04:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • May need editing, but there's enough good material in there for me to be a firm keep. —Simetrical (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Edit or tag the article for NPOV, but don't delete. Chanlord 03:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I hope that whoever counts the votes can see that none of the people who voted to delete have any valid reason for doing so. Logophile 04:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, they aren't votes anyway. This is a discussion, not a poll. There's clearly no consensus to delete, so it won't be deleted. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Even though I think this article needs improvement, there's decidedly no reason whatsoever to delete it. --ParkerHiggins 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Given that this AfD is obviously going to fail, I would strongly suggest to the nominator that a withdrawal would be in order. Unless you like watching people run up the vote. FCYTravis 09:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - bizarre how much response it generated though, isn't it? I guess the whole idea of gay Iraqis really touches on a nerve of some kind... who knew? -GTBacchus(talk) 09:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Not that bizarre. This is a clearly encyclopedic topic for which there is absolutely no logical reason to delete. The nominator went around posting this AfD on talk pages of people he figured would support him. Seems like he got more than he bargained for. I liked the one delete voter's logic that "homosexuals are non-notable." FCYTravis 09:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Right, FCYTravis, it's not about the content of the article. I personally don't care at all about the topic. To me it is about the idea of somebody nominating a valid encyclopedia article with no justifiable reason.
        • Comment - I guess I was referring to the delete votes. Those are what I find bizarre. Nobody's explained what the so-called "POV issue" is yet. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, gay rights in various countries are an important topic. — JIP | Talk 09:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Informative. the wub "?!" 10:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep legitimate, interesting, and useful article. PatGallacher 12:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I find this[2][3] attempt at organizing along religious lines unacceptable (specifically asking Catholics to delete an article for being about gays), and think it shows an invalid basis for the nomination. Anyways, this article is clearly on a signficant topic at a high level (national) with plenty of signficant information to cover (with great room for improvement) --Rob 12:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those edits do not stand on their own. They are part of what seems to be structured and organized behaviour to fix votes, and with it wikipedia content, along the lines of religious beliefs. See for instance user:Pitchka's talk page spamming concerning the CfD for Category:Pro-life celebrities and Category:Pro-choice celebrities [4]. In the space of a few hours, he scoured just about every user category where he thought he could possibly find supporters. He spammed no less than 57 users, asking them to vote his way. I'm not sure if this qualifies as meatpuppetry, but it sure reeks of vote fixing. Aecis praatpaal 19:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • They also seem to be on a mission to eradicate the BCE/CE dating system from wikipedia. 1 Aecis praatpaal 22:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Dwain 04:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

        • I think you've just illustrated everyone's point in that statement there. Please keep in mind that everyone does not share you opinion and homosexuality and the rights and opinions of various countries on homosexuality are important and notable. And please don't use Wikipedia to push your own agenda. Chanlord 05:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A noteworthy topic that could easily be fixed up and NPOV-ified by A Wikipedian with knwoledge of the subject at a later date. - Wezzo 14:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems verifiable and real, but desperately in need of cleanup. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, good article and lots of precedent. (At this point in the vote I'm me-tooing, but any attempt to religiously censor Wikipedia overcomes my usual laziness). --Last Malthusian 15:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --dcabrilo 16:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- it contains absolutely no objectionable material in accord with Wikipedia's policy. Sebastian Prospero 19:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no reason to delete at all, although article could use improvement. Garion96 (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. POV and other "cleanup" problems have no bearing on an article's nomination unless it is inherent in the subject. I don't find this the case here. Ifnord 20:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and POV-ectomy. AfD is not an appropriate way to handle any perceived POV issues. --Bletch 21:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I've fully reviewed the article, I really don't see any POV issues. Where's the beef? --Bletch 00:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the whole discussion here and follow the links. Durova 02:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and let it be improved --Petros471 23:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. Someone with more motivation may want to consider an RFC or similar opening of discussion of this group trying to silence gay-rights issues and censor the BCE/CE system from Wikipedia. This smells like the beginnings of a more serious problem. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just remove the POV bit. p_b1999 (Talk|Contribution) 00:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A topic worthy of Wikipedia, regardless of how poorly it may be drafted at present. Jtmichcock 01:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and incidentally, the feminine form of "author" is "author." Nandesuka 01:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, NaconKantari 02:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and censure nominator for abuse of AfD process for POV-pushing. --FOo 03:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is typical you don't like something or someone so they must be punished. He had every right to nominate this article for deletion. Just the title alone is Point of View. Dwain 04:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is talking of censure simply because of nomination of an article we wish kept. It's the *expressed* motive of the deletion that's the problem, and the means of promoting the deletion. We must assume good faith, but the nominator has made clear through their own words and actions; that they're seeking the deletion of articles based on religious/moral grounds, and are trying to gather a coalition of like-minded voters along sectarian lines to accomplish this. That's what's truly unacceptable here. As an anology, if somebody nominated a Christian rights in Iraq article because they personally opposed Christianity, and solicited votes principally from people they thought shared their religious views (based on religious affiliation), then that would also be unacceptable. We don't want any religious block to start dictating content at Wikipedia. If you don't like the article title, then please go to the talk page, and suggest an alternate name, and try and gain a consensus for a better one. --Rob 04:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are "Gay Rights" a POV? What about Women's Rights? Is that POV? Just because some people don't believe people should have rights, doesn't make the term Gay Rights POV? Chanlord 05:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. FireFox 18:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crucible Guild[edit]

Vanity/non-notable guild - Rudykog 00:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. -- Daverocks 00:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems like the original author has tried blanking the page. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A World of Warcraft guild is not, on it's own, notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. --Wingsandsword 02:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (although it has to be rewritten completely, the existing content but not the page should be deleted). There's bound to be enough information on the site itself to provide verifiable sources, although of course the source has to be clearly stated. See here. —Simetrical (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify: it is my opinion, as explained elsewhere, that Wikipedia does not need notability requirements, and in this instance my opinion is not contrary to policy. —Simetrical (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but vanity and self-promotion are two things we don't need. Clans are simply unencyclopedic regardless of notability guidelines. Are you saying we should have every garage band in the world as well? - Mgm|(talk) 11:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your opinion is contrary to policy. CSD specifically allows for speedy deletion of unremarkable people. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete, nn gaming clan. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Gaming clans are not notable in the least unless they have competed in top-level organized gaming competitions. Listing this "guild" is like listing a university's Ultimate Frisbee club team. FCYTravis 04:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gaming clan vanity. Written in first person even. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's virtually impossible for a gaming clan to be notable. We should have a speedy delete for them. -- Kjkolb 08:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FCYTravis--SarekOfVulcan 09:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. the wub "?!" 10:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. - Mgm|(talk) 11:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. p_b1999 (Talk|Contribution) 00:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, gaming clan vanity, not encyclopedic. --Stormie 02:41, 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. FireFox 18:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bumpshack[edit]

I'm sure the "college gentlemen" who called it home between 1999-2003 remember it quite fondly, but that doesn't give it encyclopedic notability. Lots of unverifiable opinion about how great the bachelors were and how they really drew the ladies. Textbook vanity. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. A house a few people lived at in college and had fun in is not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. --Wingsandsword 00:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Probably lying about the ladies. -- JJay 01:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article, delete content (so delete for the redlink, but allow it to be recreated). There's probably enough publicly-accessible info on the topic to produce a verifiable page. See here. —Simetrical (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC) After consideration and discussion with Zoe, change vote to delete. The website is, to my knowledge, the only source for Bumpshack's existence, and it is not reliable. —Simetrical (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify: it is my opinion, as explained elsewhere, that Wikipedia does not need notability requirements, and in this instance my opinion is not contrary to policy. —Simetrical (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Completely unencyclopedic even if there were 11 zillion verifiable sources available about it. In 5 years, nobody will care that a bunch of college kids had a crash pad. Hell, nobody will care in a year. Or even six months. Bumpshack gets 475 Google hits, of which most are linkspam farms. Unverifiable and utterly unimportant drivel. Borders on speedy fodder. FCYTravis 04:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, verifiability does not matter when it comes to nonsense. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement page mixed with vanity. Kusma (討論) 04:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad; I am open to reconsidering the issue if the BumpHotties so request. Billbrock 04:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - interesting site, but nn.--SarekOfVulcan 09:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You have to be one of the original five people to care a flying rat's behind about this house. — JIP | Talk 09:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Um, doesn't need to be notable in its field to have an article? Foppery. Proto t c 10:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JIP. the wub "?!" 11:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Not really notable enough, and that's coming from an inclusionist - Wezzo 14:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JIPs entirely accurate assessment. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- using is spamming other articles with this link - Tεxτurε 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity, non-encyclopedic. --Stormie 02:42, 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 was delete. Singularity 06:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waddle[edit]

Page was made again on here, but used as a different thing. This song was never a single. It is a song that was released, but it hasn't been on an album or isn't a single. Y5nthon5a (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter princess[edit]

Slang phrase and stereotyping. Not remotely encyclopedic even if there is some truth in it... Malcolm Morley 00:34, 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 merge and redirect. bainer (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dodo Magazine[edit]

  • Non-notable. Delete. Enochlau 00:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Non Notable is NOT grounds for deletion (or at least thats official Wikipedia policy).

Non Verifiable might do it mind you....... 80.177.152.156 00:59, 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 speedily deleted per WP:NOT a general knowledge base. FCYTravis 04:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soul cypher[edit]

According to article, just a college club. Lotsofissues 00:37, 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 keep. Jaranda wat's sup 01:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plan It X Records[edit]

Spam, minor local record label Reid A. 00:38, 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. Default to keep. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge and redirect as the mood strikes them, or to renominate this article at a later date. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 19:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan negationism[edit]

  • The term is a neologism of difficult understanding.
  • Even if the already proposal of renaming it as historical revisionism (Spain or Catolonia) in the sense of

historical revisionism (political) will hold no sense with the text present

  • The article is full of factual errors and outlandish claims, which extracted would leave the article nil. If needed I could elaborate
  • The intention of the article is, as the last line shows, intentionally derogatory (and perhaps slanderous) of, at least,one political party and a well known journalist
  • The appearance of a genocide denial accusation makes the derogatory intentionality even more evident. I know of no person who has denied that during the Spanish Civil War, crimes than in a broad sense could be called genocide happened in both parties. What there is, ever since the start of the war, is discussion about the causes, ways and numerical volume of it.
  • Discussion of the war at a whole, and many other historically related issuess has recently flourished again in Spain (it's true partly on /around political issues), but the so termed revisionists,mainly keep their research within scholary acceptable standards, Their conclusions may be controversial in relationship to current mainstream perceptions or affront some political groups, and even might be false -the race is still open-. But that's just the normal play.
  • I think, as the so called revisionist school has very few things in common, specific problems are better suited in the articles which touch the matter. Wllacer 00:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Wllacer 10:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC) : A note to reviewers who vote for merge. I've been researching a little more on the topic. AFAIK it seems it has appeared in the last few weeks, as part of the usual political bashing, regarding some ongoing questions in Catalonia (and Spain in general), and has less to do with the historians' debate as I thought. And it's still to early to kown if the idea will stick. Therefore, in case you vote for merge, i would propose to do it into Politics of Catalonia, after all factual errors has been cleared[reply]

I've put on the article's talk page, a detailed account of the, IMHO, factual errors --Wllacer 12:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Zero Google hits. If it got a few Google returns I'd say merge with Spain under Franco but this looks like pure original research. Durova 01:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Catalunya. Jasmol 03:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Catalonia or other relevant articles, unless it gets too large to be put in any of them. —Simetrical (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking any evidential basis of widespread support. The editors on the Catalonia article are sure ot have covered this in appropriate depth (which may or may not include ignoring it as sub-trivial). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above Tom Harrison (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not merge, because the content isn't any good. Do not redirect, because the name is a total neologism. Spain under Franco should probably deal more with the repression of the nationalities, and if we got enough material on that, it would deserve to be spun out on an article of its own Repression of nationalities in Spain under Franco , but this poorly researched poorly written article is no place to start. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Don't bite the newbies.
  • Nominator is improperly conflating a discussion of what they perceive as POV issues in the article, with the issue of whether the article should be deleted or merged. That is wrong. All discussion of POV issuss should have been left on the article's talk page.
  • The original author of this article clearly isn't a native speaker of English. But it looks like they tried to confine themself to a neutral point of view. As to nominator's assertion that the title is a neologism? I strongly suspect the original author made their best effort to translate a real term, in Cataln, into English. I think it is unfortunate that the nominator didn't assume good faith, and suggest the actual translation for the Catalan term.
  • See the suggestion that the article more properly belonged under a name like Historical revisionism (Catalunya). Nominator has not assumed good faith, and is implying that the creation of an article duplicate content is an attempt to end run policy, rather than considering that it is a shocked newbies attempt to conform with policy. I think these two nominations highlight the importance for nominators to comply with policy and leave their concerns over POV issues on the articles talk page.
  • This nomination gives the appearance that the nominator is trying to use wikipedia policies to win the upper hand in a POV dispute. I had a wikipedia contributor, who thought my contributions showed a biased POV. When I asked them to explain how they thought I was showing a bias, they couldn't or wouldn't explain themselves. Instead of engaging in a civil dialogue they started nominating the articles I created for deletion. It was a highly disturbing attack on the wikipedia community, in general. Having gone through this, I urge all wikipedians to make the effort to show good faith, follow the policy, and not let their POV concerns leak into {afd} discussions. And I urge all wikipedians who follow {afd} discussions to be on the lookout for nominators who, consciously or unconsciously, slip POV issues into their nominations. -- Geo Swan 14:46, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 01:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amphitheatre Anglois[edit]

Article without sources on very obscure circus from the 18th century. Google test list 145 hits, including wikipedia mirror sites. Mecanismo | Talk 00:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, clean-up and expand. If not merge somewhere. Why would we want to delete material on early circus history? -- JJay 03:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an poorly written article which is orphan, uncategorized and filled with unverified information on a very obscure subject from the 18th century. If wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, it should try to host verified/verifiable information on any subject. --Mecanismo | Talk 03:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You tried to verify it, did you? Because writing style does not matter. -- JJay 04:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems you voted without taking the time to read the article that was submitted for deletion. I suggest you take a look at it and try to realize what I meant by "poorly written". About the verification, read above. --Mecanismo | Talk 04:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you require more sources? There are many available. But, please stop these seemingly misguided attempts to remove valuable information from the encyclopedia. Consider using some of the many templates available such as cleanup, or unreferenced. You can insult me all you want, but I intend to try and save as much vital early circus knowledge as I can. -- JJay 05:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that verifiable information appears to have been provided, keep. In my opinion, Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements, and on this issue policy is not contrary to my opinion. —Simetrical (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. References have been provided, and thus no reason exists to delete the article. The Google test is obviously biased towards current information and completely irrelevant in a case like this. I would welcome more articles on historically popular theatres and entertainment venues. u p p l a n d 09:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this is truly the first permanent circus, as the Miami U site seems to agree, Strong Keep.--SarekOfVulcan 09:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being the first permanent circus is certainly notable and I don't know how the nominator expected Google to cough up thousands of links to 18th century history. It's simply underrepresented, but that doesn't mean it's unverifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 12:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This shouldn't be difficult. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 145 hits for an 18th century circus is a large amount. Comparable to 145,000 hits about any Pokemon. -R. fiend 18:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Thanks to JJay for adding the references. Ideally, research, beyond Google hit counts, should be done before doing a nomination. --Rob 13:26, 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, no consensus to merge anywhere. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What Chair[edit]

Unencyclopedic. WP:NOT a joke book. Unsourced. FCYTravis 00:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per nomination, Wikipedia is not a joke book. Contents might be added as a note into an article on humor or specific types of humor, but a punchline does not a encyclopedia entry make. --Wingsandsword 07:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's pretty funny, but Wikipedia is not a joke book, and it's not exactly an encyclopedic article. Cynicism addict 03:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary if it's actually a legitimate phrase as claimed (let them deal with the question :)). Otherwise, delete. —Simetrical (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can confidently predict, without even asking at the Beer Parlour, that the advice of most Wiktionary editors will be to "clean up your own messes". Uncle G 08:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks Jokebook if acceptable (although this may not be possible as it is undergoing VfD there) otherwise delete. This is a perfect example of an anti-joke. Movementarian 07:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Jokebook is in the process of being deleted, as per Jimbo 1. Uncle G 08:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mentioned that. Movementarian 08:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bah! This is what I get for doing multiple things at once. ☺ Uncle G 09:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete.--SarekOfVulcan 09:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Joke. The Joke article can list various famous jokes but they don't deserve their own articles. — JIP | Talk 09:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think this story is more often described as an urban legend than as a joke -- see Snopes's mention of it here. Suggest merging with urban legend, perhaps in subsection on academic lore. Perodicticus 10:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to urban legend if they want it. It's an urban legend all right. I've got a book which lists this as one. - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN as it is actually a joke. I don't think this is a joke book, is it? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's funny, so it's a verified joke, and we should keep everything verifiable. BJAODN, Wikipedia is not a jokebook. --Last Malthusian 15:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ot transwiki to somewhere else. Same vote, really. -R. fiend 18:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to BJAODN -- p_b1999 (Talk|Contribution) 00:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has little if any chance of expansion, referencing or illustrating.
  • Delete, WP is not repository of jokes. Could be speedy IMHO. Pavel Vozenilek 04:53, 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. bainer (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell Crew Connection[edit]

Vague rumors about a local street gang (?) are completely non-notable, totally fails Google test with 0 hits. Wingsandsword 00:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Durova 01:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with nom, also unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. —Simetrical (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified.--SarekOfVulcan 09:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 12:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom.Bjones 17:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:V. -- JimR 06:46, 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. bainer (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creighton Lovelace[edit]

Was tagged as speedy, but claims notability, so User:Kappa removed the tag. Original reason given was "not notable". howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete An otherwise completely non-notable local pastor whose only tenuous claim to fame is some media attention for a sign he put up by his church for a few days? Sounds too non notable for a Wikipedia article. --Wingsandsword 01:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The rewrite emphasizes the magnitude of the incident and pushes it over the threshold into notability. --Wingsandsword 03:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Kappa that the verified claim of making national news saves it from Speedy territory, but I still don't think it's article material. If anything, could be merged with his church or perhaps another article on Chistian-Islamic religious tensions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. All major US networks covered the story. The Associated Press covered it and it gained attention from international media. I'll be editing the article in a moment. Durova 02:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revisions posted. Durova 02:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I agree with Durova. The improvements to the article are superb and professional. If a student is doing research, Wikipedia ought to have a dossier or article on this event or personality for information. I would keep it. Creigl 03:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a formality, we should mention that you created the article in question. Kappa 06:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The information provided is verifiable, and Wikipedia doesn't have or need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Anyone who has made it into national news is notable, in my opinion. —Simetrical (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Durova. Movementarian 04:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable unpleasant incident. Thanks for the references and proof of media coverage Durova. Danieltown Baptist Church Kappa 06:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia does have a notability requirement: it's in the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and we should not carry content that does not belong in an encyclopaedia. This, meanwhile, is a good, verifiable, encyclopaedia article. Good work, Durova. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well done to Durova for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 09:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is more of a news article than an encyclopedia article (not in quality, in permanence of fame). Merging into another article may be appropriate. -- Kjkolb 09:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nice job on the rewrite, Durova, but without the news stories out of Gitmo, this never would have been noticed.--SarekOfVulcan 09:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Without the other scandal this probably wouldn't have happened. Since this did receive international news coverage, I decided a well sourced and objective article is worthy of the encyclopedia. This is a very hot button issue. Hot button issues in general are prone to distortion. Suppose a rumor takes shape that Christian Churches in the United States support desecrating the Koran. A concise account can help put those fears to rest. Durova 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. The incident is certainly notable, but the article isn't about Creighton Lovelace. It's about the incident involving the Koran. - Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Mgm - Wezzo 14:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it redirects from Danieltown Baptist Church, links from Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005, and is in the Islam and controversy category. That should be enough for people who want to find it. Durova 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move (not sure where yet), which I gues is the same vote as Keep and rename. This isn't really about Lovelace. Maybe The Koran Needs to be Flushed? Not sure yet. -R. fiend 18:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't a biography by any conceivable stretch of the term. The guy had his 15 minutes of fame (15 seconds, more like) and will almost fade into the woodwork. Briefly mention it in Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005, at best. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 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. bainer (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gibrán Hernández[edit]

Does not appear to be a notable composer, not much information available QQ 01:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC) *Keep εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Appears to have a following. Billbrock 04:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely looks verifiable, so keep. Wikipedia doesn't have or need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on my recent acquaintance with certain facets of Wikipedia policy with which I was not previously familiar, I reluctantly change my vote to delete unless evidence is provided that his songs were widely played or sold a substantial amount. —Simetrical (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search for his name came up with 19 results none of which indicated notability [5]. Nor does the article suggest that he is of any note. Capitalistroadster 09:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as virtually invisible on Google. Not even to counter systemic bias, I think. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable. Eusebeus 17:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless evidence is given as to how he qualifies under WP:MUSIC. -R. fiend 18:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified. I will add to the chorus (forgive the pun) that I would change my vote if some source provided noteworthiness. Ifnord 20:33, 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 deleted by User:Zoe. FCYTravis 04:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Solano[edit]

Totally good guy and local celebrity though he may well be, I can't see that he's notable enough (yet) for inclusion in an encyclopedia: so recommend delete Staffelde 01:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted, nn-bio. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Mindmatrix 17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Mariñelarena[edit]

Non-notable, just an independent filmmaker, same for his three short films De entre los zapatos, Historia de una madre, and Fe (Short film). Vizcarra 01:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 08:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dressage queen[edit]

Similar to Hunter princess, dictionary definition and slur. Durova 01:10, 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. I have protected the page with a {{deletedpage}} notice to stop a re-post. Harro5 04:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warbucket[edit]

Another forum. Was previously deleted on 6 September as vanity. Since then it has been WP:XD'd but someone reverted it. Ashibaka tock 01:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was boldly redirected to Weather by Proto. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The weather[edit]

Lacks notability Hirudo 01:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there does seem to be a band with may meet the notability criteria, but it's not the one currently shown in the article Hirudo 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. bainer (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oseh Shalom BBYO[edit]

Individual chapters of organizations are inherently non-notable. Delete  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 01:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was sppedy delete. Hoax/vandalism. -R. fiend 18:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Zamboni Act of 1943[edit]

No references, no sources, no Google hits, no pages linking to it, almost no substance to the article itself, and no relevance beyond a text dump that appears to be prone to vandalism. Ziggurat 01:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like a hoax. Alr 01:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; patent hoax/nonsense. MCB 02:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probable hoax, though I can't imagine what the point of such a hoax might be. No relevant Googles for "Zamboni Act", and the Zamboni wasn't developed until 1949, making such an act impossible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost certainly a hoax, totally unsourced, utterly fails Google test. --Wingsandsword 02:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete "penis sheath"? Someone was bored. Billbrock 04:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete quick. The Zamboni was not invented until 1949[6] which makes this a hoax or patent nonsense.--Dakota t e 04:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete hoax. —Simetrical (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- hogwash. Reyk 06:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but hockey hoaxes always get me to chuckle. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Lenahan's comment above.--SarekOfVulcan 09:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (There's no CSD for complete bollocks like this, much though I wish there was...) Jamie 11:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparent hoax of staggering pointlessness. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per User:DakotaKahn. Durova 17:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to speedy this as a hoax/vandalism. The jury is in, in any case. -R. fiend 18:46, 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. bainer (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arachnid (band)[edit]

Article on extremely obscure band that only released a demo in 2005 and isn't listed on allmusic guide Mecanismo | Talk 01:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very obscure band, written in the first person plural, no less. Chris the speller 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN band. Lose the picture, too. Alr 02:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 03:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete page unless sources are provided. Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements, but it does need verifiability, which this lacks. —Simetrical (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify: it is my opinion, as explained elsewhere, that Wikipedia does not need notability requirements, and in this instance my opinion is not contrary to policy. —Simetrical (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is only one of the various aspects where the article fails to justify its existence. For example, analyze the article on the light of WP:MUSIC. It fails to satisfy every single guideline listed there. On the other hand, let's not forget that an entertainer's notoriety is directly proportional to it's importance --Mecanismo | Talk 12:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. FCYTravis 04:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 09:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and lament again the lack of a speedy criterion for band vanity Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per above  J\/\/estbrook       20:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nomination, and wishing there was a Speedy Delete criteria for vanity pages of bands.
  • Do Not Delete This bands page is as valid of an entry as any other band on Wikipedia, and deserve their place just as any other band. Just because it's not famous doesn't mean we should delete it. Psychomonkey 17:13, 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. bainer (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver M Grech[edit]

Vanity page of member of an extremely obscure band Mecanismo | Talk 01:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. FireFox 22:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brower Commons[edit]

POV, unencyclopedic article about a non-notable college dorm dining hall; delete. MCB 01:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Merge with Rutgers. Jasmol 03:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nomination. --Wingsandsword 03:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified, otherwise keep. Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Wackymacs 07:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (if there's any verifiable content) until such time as a Brower Commons section in the Rutgers article gets so big that it needs to bud off. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • don't delete it! a link in the rutgers entry will suffice, but to merge the articles would be to deprive brower of the full explanation and attention that it deserves — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.175.75 (talk • contribs) (first and only edit from this IP
  • Delete the campuscruft — zero evidence of notability outside of Rutgers, hence the lack of unbiased sources and, by extension, encyclopedic merit. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:50, Dec. 27, 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 merge and redirect to Scientific Linux. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fermi Linux[edit]

This article is trying to promote some type of computer program. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Scientific_Linux Notable Linux distribution discussed in another article and in other articles about Linux, Google test shows over 39,000 hits, name changed from Fermi Linux to Scientific Linux in early 2004 though.
  • Probably keep, it looks very verifiable. If no refs can be provided after giving {{original research}} a chance for some time, then delete. Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The FAQ probably shouldn't be here, for example...--SarekOfVulcan 09:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Scientific Linux. Once the FAQ are removed, however, I'm afraid ther isn't much left to merge. --DrTorstenHenning 11:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Scientific Linux. A lead and a full non-FAQ section is more than "not much left". - Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged and redirected. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:53, 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. Sean Curtin 06:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arching[edit]

Article filled with pure nonsense and original research with a touch of vanity Mecanismo | Talk 02:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arcomage tribute[edit]

Article on obscure fan-tribute software which is still being developed. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Mecanismo | Talk 02:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. ManoaChild 05:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, recreate after release if notable.--SarekOfVulcan 09:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not yet verifiable, so does not deserve article yet. Is also promoting the game. - Mgm|(talk) 12:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is not verifiable now and is unliklely to be anything other than indiscriminate collecting of information in the future. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Until published, it's vapourware. Ifnord 20:37, 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. bainer (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Rivitive[edit]

Non-noteable band. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Garage band. Alr 02:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Excruciatingly NN Chris the speller 02:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'reigning from England'??? Does the Queen know about this? Jasmol 03:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Information is unverifiable. —Simetrical (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable Garage Band. --Wingsandsword 03:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 09:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comeuppance[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. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Artrouble[edit]

Article on obscure expression. Google test lists 463 hits, including wikipedia and it's mirror sites. Mecanismo | Talk 02:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep per general consensus that high schools are notable. howcheng {chat} 17:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashland High School (Ohio)[edit]

Article on obscure, non-notable highschool which is badly written, orphan and uncategorized Mecanismo | Talk 02:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - NN school. Alr 02:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a high school. Has any high school ever been deleted? Are all noms masochists? -- JJay 03:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't the job of encyclopedias to serve as directories on highschools. Specially obscure, not-notable and only locally meaningfull schools like the one which the article was on --Mecanismo | Talk 19:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad you have an unbiased opinion on the subject and Ashland. Try telling that to all the Keep voters below. -- JJay 19:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been long asserted that popularity doesn't mean correctness. This is one example. --Mecanismo | Talk 00:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia is a compilation of all human knowledge; thus, the mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of inclusion. Kurt Weber 02:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I exist. Therefore, by your argument, I am worthy of having an encyclopedia article on me. My My cat also exists. He deserves an article too. I hope this comment helps to clarify your views on the subject --Mecanismo | Talk 00:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent. Can one high school be much more notable than another? Jasmol 03:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are all very notable. -- JJay 03:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes any highschool notable and therefore worthy of encyclopedia articles, specially this blurb article? --Mecanismo | Talk 03:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thay have histories. They influence people's lives. They are the centers of their communities. They have big budgets. They compete in sports. They have famous alumni. Stuff happens there. That's all notable. Ask other voters to provide other reasons. -- JJay 04:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • and regarding this afd, where in fact does this article lists information on history, the budgets, sports competitions, the influence it had on people's lives and even about "stuff" happening there? In the future please have the common sense of basing your votes on concrete and objective proof --Mecanismo | Talk 21:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that takes time. These articles don't just spring up overnight, you know. -- JJay 22:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, they don't spring up overnight. And they don't spring up overmonth or even overyear. I challenge you to go look at school articles over a year old, and see for yourself how few get much past the stage they originally appeared at. It is clear to me that inclusionists for the most part do not wish to concern themselves with the long-term viability of an article, and instead support the thesis that more is always better. Denni ☯ 02:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So what is your point? That the project should shutdown? Every article not completed should get cut? No stubs allowed? Are you advocating a blanket purge of every article that you don't consider viable? For my part, I'm willing to allow editors the requisite time to build these school articles- ten or twenty years if need be. I assume the schools and wikipedia will still be here during that timeframe. -- JJay 07:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My, you're good at setting up straw men. But I will take one of your wheat guys and say yes to no stubs for non-notable schools. West Armpit High School will be a one-sentence stub for as many decades as you care to wait, because quite frankly, Jjay, no one gives a beaver's backside about this school except a few of its former students, who probably aren't even aware of Wikipedia's existence, or if they are, couldn't be bothered to improve the article. I am willing to accept school articles which present well as articles, but I have no patience for articles which are half-baked placeholders for maybe maybe something happening down the road. Maybe. This kind of article just makes us look incompetent. Denni ☯ 00:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I respect where you stand. In fact, I would agree with you, except that there are no non-notable schools, that is nonsensical nonsense designed to fool the uninitiated. They are all notable, even PS Armpit 157. They are worth many beavers, front and back, cooked and baked. And that even extends to Canadian schools, where beaver, I've heard, may be easier to come by. -- JJay 01:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of highschools which aren't remotely notable and will never be heard of outside their region. This is so obvious I fail to understand how it keeps being mentioned. --Mecanismo | Talk 00:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete please it does not make any sense to keep this Gazpacho 07:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Ashland, Ohio which could use some more content. Clear past precedent to keep high schools. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High schools affect many lives around the world, and to say that an article about (for example) Che Guevara is more relevant to a particular person at a particular moment than an article about Ashland High School takes away the original meaning and beauty of wikipedia. 04:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.107.128 (talk • contribs)
Grocery stores influence at least as many lives, but I certainly hope they turn into articles. - Mgm|(talk) 12:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are some great articles on grocery stores. Nice point! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bored1002 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, what grocery store did you guys graduate from? -- JJay 17:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not forget about the people who are homeschooled. If this article passess based on the "graduating", "life impact" and other arguments, maybe we should start listing articles on the homes where homeschooled kids lived. --Mecanismo | Talk 12:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you submit those articles, I promise to look at them with an open mind. -- JJay 19:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment local notoriety doesn't justify an article on any encyclopedia --Mecanismo | Talk 15:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per high school precedent.--SarekOfVulcan 09:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per consensus on WP:SCH, if sufficient suitable information can be found. If not, merge into article on the school district (and if one doesn't exist, start it). Proto t c 10:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn high school. Any interesting stuff about schools would be POV. Catchpole 11:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Stubby in the extreme, but they've got a referenced alumnus. - Mgm|(talk) 12:43, 16 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» 15:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the consensus was that there wasn't any consensus and that it had resulted in school deletionists talking among themselves. Eusebeus 17:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a high school doesn't deserve an article unless it has fame well beyond its own community Edrigu 16:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, local notoriety justifies inclusion in an unlimited encylopedia providing universal access to knowledge. Kappa 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — valid high school. — RJH 17:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I thought we were over this. CalJW 00:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the fight against deletionist vandalism. Kurt Weber 02:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And where have you been in the school discussion, beyond launching cheap shots against other hard-working Wikipedians? How about bowing out until you have digested WP:CIVIL? Denni ☯ 03:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We'll have this whole site flooded with articles about high schools, bowling teams, malls, and anything else members have be part of but isn't notable. Unless something happened at this high school or someone more important than a football start attended it, it is not notable. There's nothing here that can't be expressed at this school's website. Roman Soldier 03:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A famous alum is sufficient to establish notability, given past precedent on schools. -Colin Kimbrell 21:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and please do not encourage trolling its not good Yuckfoo 07:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable and verifiable. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no credible sources on which to base an article redstucco 09:21, 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. bainer (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kionic[edit]

advertisement.I vote Delete Deyyaz 02:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advert for non-notable company. Jasmol 03:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Ad. Billbrock 03:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be verified. If someone wants to rewrite it in a non-advertising form, though, with references, it should be allowed to stay. Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per jasmol. I don't see a rewrite making it notable, but I could be suprised...--SarekOfVulcan 09:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable company. — JIP | Talk 09:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert. - Mgm|(talk) 12:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because non-notable companies are functionally unverifiable, the only source of information is uusally the company itself (hence WP:CORP). Although strictly we could get their returns from the tax office, that would be original research. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unless I start hearing about this company popular advertising venues  J\/\/estbrook       20:23, 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 {chat} 17:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nb ridaz[edit]

non notable band  J\/\/estbrook       02:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - agreed. Lose the picture, too. Alr 03:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending references. Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Small time, but they did actually get some songs onto the charts, which makes them at least mildly encyclopedic and notable, adding sources would be good though. --Wingsandsword 04:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep pending verification of charts. They have an All Music Guide entry, but no bio. Verify and cleanup. FCYTravis 04:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Further Information Link to Billboard music charts. According to this, they made it on the charts as was listed. --Wingsandsword 15:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per FCYTravis, if it's cleaned up before the end of the AfD.--SarekOfVulcan 09:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Allmusic.com shows series of hits. Capitalistroadster 20:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They're verifiable and noteworthy. The article may be terrible, but that's not criteria for delete. Ifnord 20:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have cleaned up the article and added the Allmusic.com reference. Should be renamed to NB Ridaz. Capitalistroadster 22:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on Wingsandsword billboard finding. Good call, Wingsandsword --Mecanismo | Talk 12:46, 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.
AfDs for this article:
Myron Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Myron Evans[edit]

Delete. Article appears to be original research, and subject of article is non-notable. Srleffler 03:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying this a bit: the article has been rewritten to focus on Evans' biography. It is no longer "original research", and it may well be the case that Evans is a notable crackpot. Those who read the article early in the afd process might want to take another look and see if it changes their vote.--Srleffler 04:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The link to the argument about Wikipedia not needing notability requirements makes the above essentially an argument for deleting this page. If even the page's supporters admit that the subject is not notable, the page is surely deletable under current policy.--Srleffler 06:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of my original vote, I was unaware that speedy deletion was mandated for articles not asserting the importance of an individual. I'm not happy with this policy, frankly, and I don't think it actually has consensus at this point (it only ever passed with 74% support, less than that required to make someone an admin), but I recognize that we can't very well allow individual editors to question policy because they don't think it has consensus (WP:IAR aside).
So let me change my reasoning in this case: Dr. Evans appears to have some hundreds of Google hits (some of the 1,150 appear to be talking about another Myron Evans but most seem to be referring hto the man in question), he has 59 Google Scholar hits. He is not, of course, profoundly notable, but he's certainly modestly notable at least. My vote remains keep. —Simetrical (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be vanity, content is disputed. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, not speedy. This is probably pseudoscience but appears to have close to sufficent visibility to be worth documenting. It has 10000 Google hits (but only 150 unique hits). Claimed books do exist, though publisher appears to be some sort of vanity press. ManoaChild 06:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the current article is an unverifiable laudatio for a crackpot. Writing an encyclopedic article about Evans can as well start with an empty edit box. He has some Usenet and Web notability, in diverse lists of crackpots. Compare point 25 in John Baez' crackpot index. --Pjacobi 09:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per citation in Google Scholar. Much cleanup needed, and verification of Civil List Pension and reasons therefore.--SarekOfVulcan 09:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per User:ManoaChild. PJM 12:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at least in part a copyvio (first paragraph comes from Americanantigravity.com. I suspect based on the lack of wikification and the general tone that the rest if copyvio'ed as well.- Mgm|(talk) 12:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per SarekOfVulcan comment. J. D. Redding 14:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided - the article as written is grossly unencyclopaedic and the chances of some scientist nobody has ever heard of developing the Grand Unifying Theory at that age is very small indeed (most scientists seem to do their best and most visionary work when young). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Peeper 16:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a hoax, or whacked, or both. Eusebeus 17:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • small Thimble full of keep rewrite about the person, mention the theory and link outside WP, else delete  J\/\/estbrook       20:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Ifnord 20:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He really did win the Harrison Memorial Prize in 1978, he really is (was) the editor of ISBN 0471304999 a very boring and worthy book, plus some others. Just becasuse he later came up with a possibly dubious GUT doesntmean we should not have an article on him. Rich Farmbrough 23:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Edwardian 08:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --ScienceApologist 19:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia's own definition of an Encyclopedia is 'An encyclopedia (alternatively encyclopaedia) is a written compendium of knowledge.' If this article is not knowledge highly relevant to the whole human race, I'll eat my hat! Solmil 23:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like your hat served with tartar sauce or plain? --ScienceApologist 15:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, my thoughts exactly. Note that User:Solmil is the original author of the disputed article, which is not, unfortunately, an attempted hoax.---CH 01:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The prize and scholarship makes him notable, though I'd be happier if the article were more heavily focused on him, and if the section on his theory included language indicating that it's not widely accepted within the scientific community. -Colin Kimbrell 21:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Certainly, Evans is a classic crackpot. (Einstein and Cartan are rolling in their graves.) But is he even notable? The Harrison Memorial Prize and apparently indistinguishable Mendola Memorial Prize are awarded annually "to a British Chemist who is under 30 years of age for promising original investigations in chemistry", according to Royal Society of Chemistry list of prizes. Is this really a sufficiently notable prize? RSC lists a very long list of prizes at their website, check it out. As for a scholarship, I dare say most commentators have recieved one of those at one time or another. I have been utterly unable to verify the claims about affiliation with Cornell Theory Center, etc., although this is mentioned at a large number of websites like American Antigravity, Free Energy News whose reliability is... suspect :-) I did find however that Myron Evans is one of these charming fellows who likes to take legal action to discourage debunkers. Check this out: Myron Evans Censorship Rebuttal. The "AIAS" which Evans mentions is something called the Alpha Institute of Advanced Studies, an organization directed by himself. At least some of the prizes he claims on his C.V. appear to have been awarded by... AIAS! Hence the need for independent verification of alleged notability. The UW library does have three monographs coauthored by Myron Wyn Evans. All in all, it seems very clear that if we decide that Evans' contributions to chemistry are notable (I'd guess they are not, unless we want to have a biography of everyone who has coauthored a technical book, but I'm not a chemist), then the article needs to be rewritten to clarify the dubious nature of Evans's crackpot claims about free-energy and his so-called "theory".---CH 23:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was using "scholarship" in the sense of "body of scholarly effort produced by an academic". In particular, I was referring to some of his books and papers. The article could stand a few edit sessions, there's no question about that, but I think a deletion might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. -Colin Kimbrell 00:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, we might be getting off the track, but did you notice that your Google Scholar search includes papers from Evans own site which apparently have not been published? So evidently you must be cautious in using Google Scholar to verify claims in suspect WP articles: there is certainly no guarantee that what you turn up there is even referreed, much less appeared in a respectable research journal. (Even then, of course, as the Bogdanov affair shows, problems can arise.) Also, AFAIK there is no "Evans lemma in gtr" except in his mind, and I think I know the gtr literature pretty well. What are your standards for notability? Simply having published a scholarly book or some papers? I think we need to maintain a higher standard than that, while perhaps not setting the bar as high as Brittanica. Still, I don't think you've answered the question: I see evidence for the dirty bathwater, but where's the baby?---CH 00:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some of those books and papers are self-published and/or self-referential, but others are legitimate (like this one, for example). The question is whether there are enough legitimate accomplishments remaining after a thorough sort to make Mr. Evans notable. I personally believe that there are, but of course you're free to differ. -Colin Kimbrell 19:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I'd like to see a higher standard of notability, but recognize that many do not agree. I can suggest a compromise solution for what to do with this article, although I hesitate to suggest it because I've had a bad experience in a similar context.
Question for all participants in this discussion: would you find it acceptable if some user were to rewrite the article to describe Evan's work in chemistry, which appears to be "mainstream" (it would be best if whoever does this were a chemist! or at least checks with a knowledgeable chemist), plus the Harrison Prize, followed by a brief WP:NPOV description of what I would call his "cranky" claims? It should be possible to briefly describe those claims in NPOV fashion, adding a dry disclaimer such as: this "theory" appears to be little known in physics, and is apparently regarded as cranky by those physicists who do know about it. (Whoever did this would probably want to omit the "scare quotes", but I can't bring myself to apply the word "theory" to these particular claims without qualification!) Keep the external links so that readers easily find both Evan's writings and critiques of his writings.
Assuming there is a consensus that this would be a reasonable compromise, someone could volunteer to make the changes. But probably only an admin should volunteer for this kind of content cleanup job!---CH 22:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. First, I would want to know if Evans is actually notable as a chemist. If not, he may still be a notable crackpot, but in that case the article would have to focus on his theories, his efforts to promote them, and the scientific community's view of his work. In other words, if he is notable, the article should focus on discussing whatever it is that makes him notable.
I don't see why you think it would be necessary or even helpful for an admin to do this. Admins are not that different from ordinary editors.--Srleffler 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this comment. If he is notable - for whatever reason, including being a notable crackpot or controversial theorist - he deserves an article. The quality of the article is not really relevant; there is sufficent content and AfD is not cleanup. I simply don't see enough to convince me that he is notable. His tendency to self publish and self award actually works against him here, because it makes it difficult to separate out his actual accomplishments. The Harrison Memorial award seems to be significant, but it isn't clear to me that it is important enough by itself to justify an article. ManoaChild 20:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's why I suggested obtaining confirmation from a neutral chemist that Evans could reasonably be considered notable for his chemistry work. Again tending to want to set the notability bar higher than some, I doubt Evans should be notable purely as a crank, since the only references I could find to his "theory" were on crank websites, which I suspect are very little known except to the tiny tiny minority of freelunchers. However, I am searching for a compromise with Colin, so while I myself would not include a biography of Evans, including one emphasizing his mainstream(?) work at the expense of his obscure crackpottery still seems to me an acceptable compromise.---CH 12:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the re-write proposed by CH, is the amount of watching, reverting, RfCing, RFAring (and sobbing) which is needed to keep it this way. Look at our fine perpetuum mobiles at Adams Motor, Motionless Electrical Generator, or Testatika. The antigravity department at Hutchinson effect and Lifter. Theory department at Scalar field theory, Autodynamics, Hydrino theory, Electric Universe. O.K. most of them seem to be under control in the moment. But they are always a threat to Wikipedia's reputability [7].
Pjacobi 13:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CH's suggestion sounds like a good idea to me. -Colin Kimbrell 21:55, 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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorenson BioScience, Inc.[edit]

Looks like advertising. Text is cut and paste from "about" section of company website. I searched the NY Times archive since 1981 and the company was not mentioned. Thunk 03:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, however, if the text is cut-and-paste, it's a copyvio. In that case (I haven't checked) it's a Speedy. -Lifthrasir 06:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps the company is notable, but this blurb is full of marketing speech and certainly doesn't need to be kept. - Mgm|(talk) 12:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and cue the vikings. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete send the vikings home, cue the CapitolOne Raiders :)  J\/\/estbrook       20:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is articles for deletion. You want Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canadianism[edit]

Dicdef. Alr 03:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. —Simetrical (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary or expand on it. I'm sure there is an interesting background behind Canadianism, the problem is whether anybody will research it. Croat Canuck 05:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Perhaps a redirect to Culture of Canada could work as well? - Mgm|(talk) 12:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. HistoryBA 14:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, or possible redirect to Culture of Canada, as per MacGyverMagic WilyD 14:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Do not redirect or keep. It's a straight-up definition and rightfully so: "Ottoman" is an example of a Canadianism. Eusebeus 17:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- p_b1999 (Talk|Contribution) 01:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the article history, this already existed as a redirect to Canadian English until December 1, at which point somebody created what stands there now. Correct that it's essentially a dicdef (and I'm not sure it can ever be more than that), but I'd be more in favour of recreating the redirect that already existed before December than deleting. Bearcat 19:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do both. Redirect to Canadian English (as per Bearcat) and transwiki if need be. Luigizanasi 05:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Culture of Canada. The term deals with customs not language. This is likely what the editor of 1 December meant to do. -- Perfecto 18:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Culture of Canada. Canadianism 04:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep!? Hello! I was initially responsible for changing this redirect: my intention was/is to add to it and treat it as a subarticle of sorts for some of the top-level notions in Culture of Canada, Canadian English (which can be pruned and also has a section on 'Britishisms'), Canadian French, Canadian slang (huge!), et al. A la dictionary (etc.): the term deals with customs and language, and the spartan definition (as is) is only meant as a placeholder until I can muster the time and cull and collate the other articles for germane information. E Pluribus Anthony 10:58, 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 delete. bainer (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Organic perspective[edit]

Original research at best. On the borderline of speedy delete? Jasmol 03:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per nomination: Original Research. --Wingsandsword 04:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The topic is certainly relevant, but the content of the article seems completely worthless. Redirect to Organic food or something. —Simetrical (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essay. - Mgm|(talk) 12:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mgm. Pavel Vozenilek 04:54, 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. bainer (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of unused HTML decimal character references[edit]

Anonymous contributor to List of HTML decimal character references (which is also up for deletion) did not like that their invalid codes were deleted from that article, so they created this one. The codes in question are entirely invalid, not just unused. mjb 04:01, 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. bainer (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol and Teenage Brains[edit]

This article was previously speedied due to copyvio. I speedied it again, but the author has come forward to resolve the copyvio issue (see talk page). I'd still classify it as original research. Jasmol 04:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Original research. The subject is of course serious: but the category belongs in Ficciones. Billbrock 04:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think deleteing this article would be stretching the meaning of the original research policy. The article lists numerous references and there has been no indication, either here or on the talk page, that they are incorrect or do not deal with the subject of the article. Movementarian 06:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am withdrawing my vote and am declaring myself Neutral. I still think that this stretched the original research rule, but this article displays a large amount of POV bias including the title. Movementarian 03:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Movementarian, but express reservations about accuracy nontheless. Neutral. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an article for an encyclopaedia. Delete Proto t c 11:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic, doesn't draw any conclusions, just presents the reader with questions squell 12:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I disagree with Movementarian: this may be well-sourced original research, but it's still original research. The conclusions are the author's own. - squibix 14:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any worthwhile information should be added in Alcohol :: Supergolden 15:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Agree that the information should be added to Alchohol entry. This viewpoint on alchohol usage is definately out there and can be addressed in an encyclopedic fashion but this particular work definately needs to be edited to meet NPOV standards. Epolk 18:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. This has some content of merit, but the approach and the title are wrong. A merge of the encyclopaedic content is undoubtedly justified. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:56, 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. — JIP | Talk 08:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

7th Floor Crew[edit]

nn music group. Their website is a myspace page. No allmusic or artistdirect pages. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advertisement and vanity page for yet another non-notable band. --Wingsandsword 04:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the benchmark for band vanity, a Myspace page. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this probably shouldn't be a music article as much as an article about the Miami Hurricanes flap about the explicit rap song recorded by members of its football team a few years back. It was covered on ESPN.com and caused the athletic director to issue a public apology. Very notable, should be cleaned up and kept if I don't get around to cleaning it up first. A redirect to the proper Miami Hurricanes page may be in order as well, but I feel this is a notable enough event/group to warrant its own article. --badlydrawnjeff 16:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So write a one-paragraph addition to the Miami University article. As a music group, these guys fail WP:MUSIC. Zoe (216.234.130.130 17:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
      • But they're notable, meeting WP:BIO's "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events," as reported by ESPN.com. The point that the article, in its current incarnation, focuses on their music and not their notabilty is a problem best dealt with via cleanup, not deletion. --badlydrawnjeff 17:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At best, this should be incorporated per Zoe's point above. Eusebeus 17:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have rewrote the article to reflect the notability. --badlydrawnjeff 18:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was a news event and somewhat of a scandal. It is not a commercial group and there is no money to be made from the song.
  • Keep per badlydrawnjeff. Fairly well known within the college football world. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak redirect - while a lot was written about this "group" at the time, I'm not sure if every scandal involving athletes or sports teams deserves its own page. It may be more usefull to have a page Scandals involving the University of Miami (or involving the U of M football team or athletic department) or Scandals involving the Minnesota Vikings (rather than a page devoted to the "love-boat" thing earlier in the season). Smmurphy(Talk) 06:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As said below- a newsworthy scandal, and definitely not an advertisement for the band; it's only one song, and it's free. --AnthonyA7 05:37, 25 December 2005 (ECT)

This was a big scandal. Nobody really thinks of them as a group anymore than the 85 Bears.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - nomination withdrawn. FCYTravis 05:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC) This is not a noteworthy article. It is simply a self glorifying "bio" written by a man trying unsucessfully to seek public office. This person has never even had a real job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.157.65.232 (talk) 14:07, August 27, 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Lott[edit]

Claim to notability is being student body president. Flimsy, at best. Reads like a glowing vanitybio - "is considered a possible candidate for public office." FCYTravis 04:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lott was the first black student body president at the University. That is highly notable in history, especially considering the past of Ole Miss. Wikipedia BIO qualifies if: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." Lott's being elected the first African American president at Ole Miss is newsworthy.Redwood201 04:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it was "notable in history", then please show us where it was added to the historical record. Please cite reliable sources that documented this. Uncle G 04:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • [8] or [9], but especially this piece [10] that ran in the Christian Science Monitor. Redwood201 04:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not here. In the article. Uncle G 04:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Claim to notability is being the first African-American student body president at a large southern public university with a tempestuous history of race relations. I would hardly say breaking the color barrier is flimsy. BarryManil0w 4:36, 16 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 speedy delete by User:CLW CLW 09:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blair harris[edit]

Looks like an NN band, the author couldn't even be bothered to capitalize it properly...Delete, plausibly Speedily stillnotelf has a talk page 04:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC) (Comment: not a band - individual, hence speedyable CLW)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity page of a non-notable small-time garage band. --Wingsandsword 04:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also tagged for speedy, as no notability is claimed, nothing in allmusic.com Chris the speller 07:11, 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. bainer (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Phobia[edit]

"Phobia is an RuneScape clan which was founded in early January of 2005." Not notable and not encyclopedic. Nominator votes delete. Bikeable 04:51, 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. bainer (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Projectai.com[edit]

126k Alexa ranking. Site too low traffic to be verifiable. delete Lotsofissues 05:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Rowan[edit]

Got here from Special:Lonelypages, and I can't find any verification that this person exists. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax, possibly meriting a speedy. Zero relevant Google hits for "'Ben Rowan' Australia." The article's ambiguous statement "Ben studied art in America he attended the famous Art School in Westport, Connecticut." is suspicious for its vagueness. I found three art schools in Westport, CT: one in dance, one in music, and one for children.[11] There was a Westport Art School which appears to be long defunct. The most recent reference I can locate is 1960. [12] There is no longer any fine arts program in Westport, CT. [13] The hazy chronology suggests that he studied art sometime after 1968. I should add that the article claims Czechoslovakian heritage but the name is Irish. Durova 08:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Unless people put hoaxes in their Deviant Art profile, I think this artist may exist. Unfortunately, the whole things is not verifiable. Is there a Wiki Art project we can refer this to? - Mgm|(talk) 13:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't consider DeviantART much of a source when it comes to verifying the facts or existance of someone. Anyone can set up an account in seconds and write pretty much anything. I'm listed as someone's favourite photographer there too, but that doesn't mean I'm really recognised as a photography professional. DA is a great site, and a lot of fun to use and browse, but shouldn't be used to verify information. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Double check those four hits at Deviant Art. They don't refer to an artist by this name. They're just incidental occurrences of Ben and Rowan in the same work. None of them are in the medium that this article claims is Ben Rowan's primary work. Durova 18:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable per Mgm Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not hoax, at least he is extremelly obscure. Not worthy of an encyclopedia entry --Mecanismo | Talk 16:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no verifiable evidence on Google see [14]. Two Australian stories came up in a search for Ben Rowan in Australian media both related to a baker who made roo pies for Australia Day. If this guy exists, he is not a well known artist in Australia. Macquarie.net came up with the roo pie guy but no artists. Webster World came up with no hits on this guy at all. Capitalistroadster 16:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Roisterer 03:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. Jgritz 03:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The artist is not a hoax, if it is not against any copyrights I can post a picture. The piece was done in 1979 so yes the old art school that it mentions is probably gone by now. I intend to do more about the medium if I can find the information, as you can see it is a hard topic to research, so therefore SHOULD be kept on Wikipedia. Redcrystal 09:12, 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. bainer (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pole-Land Militia[edit]

User:Xyro TR1 web site. Some kind of forum, but the article is two lines long and hard to understand what it is about. -- Fplay 05:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless notability is determined.--SarekOfVulcan 10:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just another website. - Mgm|(talk) 13:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same user also promoted some small host he runs himself as well (Unnatural Wave). He's got no edits besides the articles on his own websites and his userspace. - Mgm|(talk) 13:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this context-less, neo-patent nonsense. Ifnord 21:05, 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 (nomination withdrawn) (closing per WP:IAR). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois v. Gates[edit]

nn court case. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although the case went to the state supreme court it set no precedent. Durova 05:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per information added since my original vote. Precedent setting United States Supreme Court case. Durova 08:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why not speedy? --Silent Lamb 05:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This indepth summary will greatly help anyone studying the fourth amendment, landmark test established.Bvcxz 06:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It claims "This case is a landmark case in the evolution of probable cause and search warrants". Is there evidence to the contrary? Chris the speller 06:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if you think notability should be required, any case that reaches a U.S. Circuit Court or higher is inherently notable, because it determines a legal precedent that in principle affects millions of people. —Simetrical (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Durova. Billbrock 08:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have cleaned up and added reference. Capitalistroadster 09:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per new info in article.--SarekOfVulcan 10:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, US Supreme Court cases. - Mgm|(talk) 13:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as currently written Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest User:Woohookitty withdraw the nomination because the article creator saved the page before adding the most important paragraph. Durova 17:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I will withdraw the nomination, but according to the speedy keep guidelines, it can only be removed if we have no delete votes but we have 1 delete vote. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Should I go ahead and write the article for Spinelli as referenced in Gates? Don't want to put the work in if it will be deleted. I'm new and not sure of the standards here.Bvcxz 19:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, by all means. This article is going to be kept. See my message on your talk page. Durova 22:35, 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. DES (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atso A. Eerikäinen[edit]

Autobiography, against WP policy. -- Eagleamn 05:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article with no point whatsoever. -- King of Hearts 05:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn, likely advertising. --Fire Star 05:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also tagged it for speedy deletion, as it asserts no importance Chris the speller 06:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is more like a CV than an article. — JIP | Talk 09:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability established.--SarekOfVulcan 10:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete article reads like citation entries  J\/\/estbrook       20:37, 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 keep per general consensus that high schools are notable. howcheng {chat} 17:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Highland High School (Blackwood, New Jersey)[edit]

This topic isn't significant enough to have an article. King of Hearts 05:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, been throught this a hundred times. Keep, high schools are inherently notable. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand- Another high school article. What are the chances this gets deleted? Close to zero. Why do they get nominated? Good question...oh and the unreferenced tag is pretty funny -- JJay 07:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is almost empty and looks like a yellow pages entry. Cleaning this up would more or less mean discarding the entire content so it is better to start from scratch. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another nn school. Catchpole 11:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. By saying that this entry should be deleted you're saying that high school entries should not be included in wikipedia??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarfingle (talk • contribs) 2005 December 16
No. Wikipedia should host articles on notable subjects with verified importance and relevancy. That means if the school has a relevant history or notable ex-alumni then it stays. The AFDs should be directed to those schools which are only locally relevant,i.e., don't hold a relevant history or never produced verifiably notable alumni --Mecanismo | Talk 12:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:Catchpole is voting to delete all schools as a "counterweight" to those who want to keep schools. [15] Silensor 19:03, 16 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 ma
  • Keep, no reason readers shouldn't be able to look up information on important things like high schools, whereever they are in the world. Kappa 16:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right. Yet, the key word is "important". If a subject is verifiably important, notable and relevant outside a local scale then it is worthy of an encyclopedia article. If the subject doesn't fill those demands, it should be left out --Mecanismo | Talk 12:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should people donate to an encyclopedia promising them the sum of human knowledge but denying them access to information they regard as important? Kappa 01:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, no one has ever promissed the "sum of human knowledge". Second, because they are investing their money in the creation of an encyclopedia and not a directory listing. An encyclopedia is dedicated to verifiably notable and referenciable knowledge. If someone wants the "sum of human knowledge" that person is better off investing in google, for example --Mecanismo | Talk 01:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete re arguments for deletion at WP schools. Eusebeus 17:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all valid high schools. — RJH 17:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not only is this a notable topic the school also meets the WP:SCH proposal. Please read the article before voting people.Gateman1997 18:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes you think we didn't read the article? Kappa 18:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kappa check my vote... I was directing this at anyone who is voting delete because it's a school. They obviously aren't reading the article which deals primarily with a notable event related to a very notable individual.Gateman1997 18:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read the page. The case may certainly be notable in which case the best thing would be to redirect to ACLU v. Black Horse Regional Board of Education when someone creates that article. The school itself, however, is still an unnotable collection of bricks and mortar. Eusebeus 18:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 19:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable event (signficance/coverage outside local area) and mildly notable alumni. So, good basis of expansion. Easily meets requirements of WP:SCH. --Rob 19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominating high schools is known to be pointless. CalJW 00:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep <remove personal attack>. Kurt Weber 02:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nomination --Mecanismo | Talk 12:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Jarfingle that high schools are notable. —Brim 06:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are all highschools notable? Is it impossible that an obscure highschool exists? --Mecanismo | Talk 01:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. -- DS1953 talk 06:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and expand it too please Yuckfoo 07:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand pages for high schools nationwide are being updated as part of a WikiProject, and it easily meets WP:SCH criteria. Furthermore, school information for New Jersey high schools are being expanded as part of WikiProject New Jersey. Between these two efforts, this page will be expanded further beyond the WP:SCH standards it already meets. These AfD's are cropping up constantly for high schools and are constantly resulting in decisions to Keep. Let's put this high school issue to bed once and for all. Alansohn 16:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC). Furthermore, the school is part of a regional high school district serving three separate communities. There is no one page that this information could be inserted into. As such, Merge isn't even a viable option. As there is no justification to Delete the page, Keep must be the result (and will be, based on past results). Alansohn 16:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable by credible sources redstucco 09:23, 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. bainer (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time: physical and eternal[edit]

Original research, against WP policy. -- Eagleamn 05:38, 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. bainer (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheezy P[edit]

  • Delete This "underground" artist is WAY underground. Chris the speller 05:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. -- Eagleamn 05:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. No record contract of any kind; radio airplay is unverifiable -Meegs 13:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all white rappers. (just kidding) Not verifiable. Ashibaka tock 16:10, 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 It *is* a speedy deletion - being a principal of a high school is *not* a claim to notability. The fact that we keep high schools as notable does not make high school principals notable. FCYTravis 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Janssen[edit]

Vanity article. Principal of a high school. The high school is not especially remarkable, nor does the principal play a particularly prominent role in the wider community. Almost a speedy deletion. ALC | Talk 05:47, 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 Speedied by User:NicholasTurnbull Jamie (talk/contribs) 03:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy John Liautaud[edit]

Non-notable and sounds more like an advertisement to me. -- Eagleamn 06:34, 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 no consensus. bainer (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew McLauchlin[edit]

Non-notable person. I came back just to put this on afd. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates

  • Delete, as above. Jachin 06:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Google isn't helping me very much, but he does seem to be some sort of political figure, albeit a low-key one. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Running for a major political party in Canada. Wikipedia policy in the past has been for keeping major party candidates. Plus his expertise on the Montreal Metro should not be ignored. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to relevant article, delete otherwuse, Capitalistroadster 09:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to note that if we delete McLauchlin, we should delete all the candidates in this article Ohio second congressional district election, 2005. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to note that comparing a candidate article with the article about an election is flawed. If there was an article about Jack Mehof, Congessional candidate I'd vote for him to be deleted as well. Movementarian 09:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Read more carefully. Earl's not comparing a candidate article with an election article; he's comparing a candidate article to the dozen or so unelected primary candidates who have distinct articles linked from the election article. Bearcat 19:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it appears that he's running for the equivalent of city council in the city of Montreal. He wouldn't be notable even if elected. Frankly, Ohio second congressional district election, 2005 is just disturbing. -- Kjkolb 09:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he wins he can have an article. Candidates should only be listed in an article about the election. Movementarian 09:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If articles such as this one are deleted, it shows how blantantly American-centric Wikipedia is. There must be consistinency. -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major party candidate in a Canadian election. - SimonP 13:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not consistant. Arguments of "We have articles on those insignificant things, so we must have an article on this insignificant thing" are very wrong in my opinion. This isn't Wikipedia being American-centric; being a candidate in any location is the same. Friday (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If being a candidate in any location is the same, then candidates in any location should actually be treated the same when their articles show up on Wikipedia. But they're not. Unelected Canadian candidates get AFD'd; unelected American candidates get kept. "We have articles on those insignificant things, so we must have an article on this insignificant thing" is a blatant mischaracterization of the real issue; it's more accurately described as "these two things of precisely equal significance to each other are being treated differently from each other based on some criterion not communicated in Wikipedia guidelines". It's entirely understandable in such circumstances that some people might suspect the mystery criterion to be "American vs. not-American". Bearcat 19:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. American legislative candidates are different from Canadian ones because the American political system emphasizes individual candidates rather than parties. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates for more discussion. -- Mwalcoff 23:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not what was stated in the comment I was responding to; Friday's exact words were "being a candidate in any location is the same". Bearcat 20:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First off, not all candidates are equal. As a denizen, I can elucidate that running for the NDP means the candidate has no chance whatsoever to get anywhere close to being elected. The NDP prides itself (and why not) on running candidates in every national riding, but frequently must resort to nn students and the like, since in no-hope ridings like, oh say, every single riding in Quebec, few else can be bothered. Some seem to be putting the cart before the horse with respect to the notabilty of these candidates. Running for election because an individual has achieved notability is one thing, and certainly a number of candidates who lose are, in other respects, notable. But running for office, in and of itself, is not grounds for establishing notability. Finally, shame on any Canadians who hide behind systematic bias as a basis for inclusion. That is unworthy. Eusebeus 17:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The NDP does have MP's in the House of Commons, and IMHO those people do deserve articles. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 19:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of your arguments violate Wikipedia policies. First, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, you don't know who is going to win. Second, Wikipedia:No original research it is not up to a Wikipedian to decide who has a chance at winning. --maclean25 00:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyone who wins is worth an entry. As to the points made by maclean25, it's clear the NDP will win no seats in Quebec, ask anyone with even passing familiarity. I agree with you about crytsal ball and all that, but in this case, c'est voyons donc, 'stie calisse!
  • Merge with whatever article is going to be created listing all the federal candidates in the Jan. 23 election. If and when he wins, then he becomes notable and gets an article of his own. 23skidoo 20:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the NDP candidate list, if there's one. -- p_b1999 (Talk|Contribution) 02:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, the reason we are here, and in the other candidate afds, is because Wikipedia does not have a clear policy to deal with these cases. WP:BIO just doesn't clearly deal with these situations. It is a guideline and not a hard-and-fast regulation. The candidates are in the middle of their 15 minutes of fame. Right now they are big news (locally and in Canada), people want to know about them, and they want to tell people about themselves. However, the vast majority will disappear in a few weeks. Therefore, I support the mergist's solution, like that of 23skidoo and p_b1999. Convert these articles to redirects to the list of small bios. If an article pops up, just revert to the redirect (don't let it linger for 5 days in afd). --maclean25 03:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. I really don't understand the argument that candidates of major parties deserve their own articles simply by virtue of running for election, given that in this particular case, this guy's only apparent claim to fame once the election is over is that "he is an avid enthusiast of the Metro". I agree with maclean25's comments. Skeezix1000 19:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "merged candidate list" solution creates problems of its own, but to date it's the only workable solution anybody has found to balance some people's concerns about the notability of unelected candidates against other people's equally strong concerns that selective inclusion constitutes a political bias. So...merge. Bearcat 20:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. An NDP candidate in francophone Québec is a bit of a stretch in terms of a serious candidate. But I don't think delete is the answer. Nfitz 21:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Okay, after three elections, not merge but keep Nfitz 00:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a list of NDP candidates. Reconsider if more news about the candidate develops. -- Mwalcoff 23:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Candidates do not merit articles unless notable for other reasons. 209.202.119.248 14:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into NDP candidates list for 2006 election. --GrantNeufeld 00:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only if we merge Grant Neufeld first ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice call - what a nasty , self-promo, makes your skin crawl vanity page that is! It's pages like that surviving deletion review that make you despair about Wikipedia! Neufeld needs to be relisted for deletion, particularly in light of the current spate of candidate articles being tossed out. Eusebeus 14:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Back on afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Neufeld --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I strongly oppose a merge because he has run in three elections, and it will make it confusing for those who click his name from another election. Not to mention other candidate lists for other elections. You cant redirect to more than one page. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why would redirect to multiple pages be necessary? Frankly, after the election I think the redirects from mainspace articles, like Matthew McLauchlin or Grant Neufeld, should be deleted because after the election the list loses it proactive nature in preventing election ads. There doesn't seem to be a problem of them popping up between elections. As for the internal wikilinks, they would need to be made in context of the discussion, to not wikilink to a redirect. For interest sake: Category:Candidates for the Canadian House of Commons. --maclean25
        • Comment. (Re: Eusebeus' comment above). Just a clarification that the article on me was not posted because of my past status as a candidate. Some still think of it as unacceptable vanity (which is being debated yet again), but it's not an article "about an unelected candidate". --GrantNeufeld 04:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this article's content has been merged to the appropriate list at NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. --maclean25 02:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Other pages link to here too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Matthew_McLauchlin --Sonjaaa 18:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I doubt anyone will ever look this guy up in an encyclopedia, and I don't think he's done anything significant enough to warrant inclusion. --NormanEinstein 21:12, 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 REDIRECT no consenus to delete - but no-one wants it kept. -Doc ask? 20:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waupun wolves[edit]

nn local hockey team. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 20:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Artenio paulino dos Santos[edit]

less than ten google hits - all of them from WP. even artenio+santos+igarassu-wikipedia only gets four hits. same editor added stuff to the igarassu stub about this guy. not notable. BL kiss the lizard 07:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Wackymacs 07:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is evidence of a "Gold and Silver Orchestra" in Igarassu, though I can't ascertain it's notability due to my poor understanding of Portugese. Either way, I can't find this guy's name in connection to it. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:48, 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 merge to Zoroastrianism. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:05, Dec. 27, 2005

Vohu Mana[edit]

Previously survived an AFD (over a year ago) on the assumption that it would be expanded. It doesn't look like this is going to happen. A few pages link to here, but they are redirects. I've already moved what little information in the article to the Bahman article. Delete. Parallel or Together? 07:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speeedy delete. DES (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Shillito[edit]

Non-Notable person, biography  J\/\/estbrook       07:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Billbrock 08:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as {{nn-bio}} / CSD A7 Jamie 11:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A speedy wouldn't upset me greatly either. -R. fiend 14:30, 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 Speedied by User:NicholasTurnbull Jamie (talk/contribs) 03:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Developing Games Concepts[edit]

Long article that does not contribute to WP, only to post a Game proposal  J\/\/estbrook       07:54, 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Hamilton[edit]

Neither "Rachel Hamilton" + Tallahassee nor "Eat My Pudding" + band nor "Leonord Skreetchers" get any meaningful Google hits. This article also doesn't seem plausible, which leads me to suspect that it is a hoax. NatusRoma 07:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 17:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to Change[edit]

NN Band Jamie 08:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep as the nominator didn't want it deleted just irrelevant text removed. Capitalistroadster 23:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Noland[edit]

Vanity page. This should not actually be a full deletion, since the anon poster grafted his bio onto the page that contains the bio of an artist by the same name. The anon also added himself to the Notable Programmers section of the List of computer and video game industry people page. I am proposing the deletion of the grafted-on new vanity text, and not commentingon the original artist whose bio remains at the bottom. MobyMimic 08:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think this warrants an AFD nomination. I've already reverted to the last good edit and if you want, you can tell the user involved that he can create a separate page for the guy he's writing about. Keep with a revert. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the reverted version per JHMM13 -Meegs 12:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This is vandalism and shouldn't have been brought to AfD. Noland the painters works are in established museums, such as the Tate [[16]]. Noland the gamepunk's cruft is now suitably excised. Eusebeus 17:28, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse social networking[edit]

Reads like a advertisement to learn a new selling technique.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, nomination withdrawn. Jamie 11:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STB Office of General Counsel[edit]

NN department of govenrmnet org; reads like copy/paste. Jamie 08:34, 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. -Doc ask? 20:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Team Pro Parks[edit]

NN company, bare stub. Jamie 08:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a worthwhile article :: Supergolden 15:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless the article is expand before end of AFD  J\/\/estbrook       20:43, 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. -Doc ask? 20:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Horses Eat sugar[edit]

Non-notable band doesn't quite meet WP:MUSIC. No releases at Insound.com (which tends to have more indie artists than Amazon), no entry on AllMusic, small handful of Google hits. Great name, though. Jasmol 08:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Movementarian 08:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:43, 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 A7. Being friends with a famous person is not notable. -R. fiend 14:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kerri Yascheshyn[edit]

non-encyclopedic content. -Mayumashu 08:40, 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 Speedy Redirect, nomination withdrawn. Jamie 11:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WPL plus[edit]

NN computer language Jamie 08:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a one-liner. I've merged the one line into ProDOS; if Jamie agrees, we can just make it into a redir, and remove this AfD. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed. I was just cleaning up a bunch of stuff off WP:NEG. Jamie 10:46, 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cmed[edit]

Looks like a spam attempt; do we have any guidelines on corporate notability, like WP:MUSIC? If not, we ought to... JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:59, 16 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pronto Infotech[edit]

Once advertising text had been removed, all that remained was that it's an IT company. Is it notable enough for an article? RobertG ♬ talk 09:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable company with non notable clients [17]. Registers 204 Google hits [18]. Movementarian 11:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No information to indicate that this company has any encyclopedic merit. -- DS1953 talk 06:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP --Jaranda wat's sup 22:26, 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iscreensaver[edit]

NN software Jamie 09:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advertising. The only portable screensaver? I somehow doubt that squell 12:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert. PJM 12:32, 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Telphin[edit]

Advertisement for a VoIP software. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TelphinUSA. Delete. — JIP | Talk 09:37, 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. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 06:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lycette Brothers[edit]

NN Corp. From WP:NEG. Jamie 09:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No information in article indicates that this company has encyclopedic merit. -- DS1953 talk 06:14, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Arvey[edit]

Originally tagged as CSD A1 as this was a blank article. However, checking the history revealed that the content had been blanked, and not by the original author. The claims to notability are weak, but are there none the less, so I don't think it's a CSD A7 article and I can't prove it's vanity either. However, I suspect it is vanity and the weak notability claim ("some believe his work... has been called by many..."} don't wash with me. Delete CLW 10:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity. Movementarian 11:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 12:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the "some believe" comment is not verifiable. Not too bad for vanity, but he seems NN with the exception a few published abstracts and papers. -Meegs 12:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Isn't Skynet from Terminator? Front243 17:20, 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 move. FireFox 22:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US Department of Global Anti-semitism[edit]

Misleading substub: there is no such department. What it is: an annual report to the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on International Relations by the US Department of State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (in accordance with Section 4 of PL 108-332) - and we do link to it from the proper articles such as New anti-Semitism. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. FireFox 22:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trollse.cx[edit]

Article about a NN website that does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 11:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muladonna[edit]

If you're here because of a request from an external website:

Please understand that this is not a vote; it is a discussion. Multiple comments by very new users that fail to provide evidence are highly likely to be discounted by the closing administrator. Many Wikipedians have been known to react unfavorably to attempts to alter the course of a nomination in this manner, and may in fact recommend to delete based upon it. If you wish to prevent this article from being deleted, the way to do so is to provide verifiable evidence.

Unverifiable, non-notable, possibly fictional. Delete. Melchoir 11:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is not fictional. Please have some patience while my family and I offer our support. We created the article because we are so few.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MagneticUnderlay (talk • contribs) 11:24, 16 December 2005
    • How long will it take you to find a reference? Melchoir 11:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hopefully not long. Hang on, hey?. Not like were making big trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagneticUnderlay (talk • contribs) 11:35, 16 December 2005
      • It is very hard to find any references about this religion due to its recent formation and lack of acceptance by the wider (and uninformed) community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WholeFood (talk • contribs) 11:41, 16 December 2005
      • I Am a member of Muladonna, my Muladonna name is Kawasaki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.82.192 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 16 December 2005
  • Delete unless references are found. Movementarian 11:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • references, where? If we are writing the article, how can we reference! give an example and i will try to fulfil! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagneticUnderlay (talk • contribs) 11:52, 16 December 2005
      • Wikipedia is not a primary reference on anything. If this material has never been written down before, it belongs somewhere else. Melchoir 11:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It has been written down, but not online. The article itself tells that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagneticUnderlay (talk • contribs) 11:56, 16 December 2005
          • References must be accessible to be used as references. Melchoir 11:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • hello my name is arron, i am a member of Muladonna and i have been directed here to show my support for it's position in the online encyclopedia, we are very few but we are very humble. Getah! Hello my fellow men, my name is Joseph and I too am a member of Muladonna... it is not fiction... our numbers are growing by the day. Respect to my humble brothers. Getah! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.183.131 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 16 December 2005
  • Please keep it i have found it to be very informative. and i have heard of "Muladonna" before. -anon
  • " I heard aobut this the other day, cool." -anon
  • References must be accessible? Makes it hard.
  • We are referencing the unpublished works of Koldiber & Caradan.
    • What is this, some sort of test? Are you bored students? Melchoir 12:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - If you're a Branch Davidian, that's one thing - but a church that is made up by a single family and its friends really doesn't belong on Wikipedia, instead you should consider getting your own website, even muladonna.com or something. Worth noting that Muladonna is the name of "the ultimate hero in the universe" in the manga comic series Ultra Maniac. Also note that a string of edits appears to all be the same person, signing different names since 202.7.183.131 'Joseph' went back and edited 211.26.121.8 'Aaron's post, and the man formerly signing "Kawasaki" is now saying " I heard aobut this the other day, cool." pretending to be another internet user Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 12:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The only reference I can find on Google points back to Wikipedia --> Ultra Maniac
    "Muladonna is the ultimate hero of the universe in which the second rate drama is set. Muladonna takes the form of both male and female seemingly at will. Muladonna is also able to manipulate the world in any way and is the mortal enemy of The Dog Faced Woman." Jamie (talk/contribs) 12:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bored students? Why the hell would we invent a religion then. We'd be out sassing adults and getting to third base. Kids aren't as stupid as you give them credit for! some people are just stupid, like arron. He's just trying to help. I heard about this in Barcelona, and decided to spread it over here, it's not only a family thing.

*Comment - would it be fair to point out that your "devout followers" seem to be messing up their 'bastardisation' of the Islamic Peace be upon him, sometimes inserting after the deity's name (as per Islam), and sometimes not remembering it until the end of a sentence, or paragraph? Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 12:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC) (ANd please, type ~~~~ after each of your posts, or they will simply be dismissed as the ramblings of the same person)[reply]

  • the page is being editied by myself and a friend, we are different in our opinions of the religion, so we sometimes have conflicts. If you would stop harrassing, we could probably work that out 12:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)MagneticUnderlay
  • Hello, I am a member and i know much about it, now let me explain:You see i heard about this awhile ago in some magazine and naturaly thought it was a cult but it is a brilliant thing!! If it is not kept then it will be an atrocious abonination!***Yours truly HippyFool.*** -202.7.183.131
    • Which magazine would that be? Melchoir 12:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"**Which magazine would that be?">>>***PC World***

  • I do not appreciate this persecution of a minority which is struggling to gain acceptance on a global level. Muladonna to Victory!!!WholeFood
  • hello it is arron again. i think you may be confused hippyfool, we have published advertisements in the local newsletter and sent out flyers but i am a subscriber to pc world and haven't seen our (or any for that matter) religions mentioned. If you are indeed interested in finding out more please visit us next wednesday at Ghestwerk Hall on Maya St.
    • You're "both" at 202.7.183.131. Coincidence? Melchoir 12:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- School. Holidays began several weeks ago. That seems foolish. MagneticUnderlay 12:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is AfD? 12:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This is. Melchoir 12:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • what does it stand for 12:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
        • "Articles for deletion" Melchoir 12:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you could file the webpage away somewhere, at the very least, until we get a page. Why are you so hostile. A religion can be embraced by thousands or millions or just few, it still exists! MagneticUnderlay 12:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reference could be procured, if you're willing to wait. I know a news site which would be willing to help once it gets up and running. 12:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Muladonna would be very displeased if he was informed of this disbelief about his existance.
  • Y'know, for a free, user-editable encyclopedia, you are very close minded. Why not allow it, even modifying it slightly to say it is not verified yet. MagneticUnderlay 12:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet? Judging from the behavior of its supporters, this article will never be verified. Wikipedia may be free, but it does not need to tolerate nonsense. Melchoir 12:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, and i'll admit that many of my comrades are a little silly about supporting. But as i said, i know of a site that will offer support once it exists properly, and i can request that many people begin a tributary on Myspace pages and the like. MagneticUnderlay 12:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides! What right do you have to call this nonsense! Have you properly read the article? Some people may add foolishness, but you cannot dispute claims with no proof *EITHER WAY!* 12:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The burden of proof is on you. Sorry. Melchoir 13:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair. However, If we were to commandeer Muladonna.com, would you deem that acceptable?13:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)~
  • THREE CHEERS FOR MULADONNA!!!WholeFood
  • I mean, how far will you go to disprove us! Does it offend you that we might want to be a part of your webring? Just because you made the news as easily defrauded! Even in Australia. You capitalists make me sick sometimes. Would i lose the bet that you are American or British?
    • I don't need to disprove anything. Melchoir 13:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I notice my racial prejudice was ignored. Don't want to answer. Am i right or wrong? MagneticUnderlay 13:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Probable hoax, certainly non-notable and unverifiable. Lord Bob 13:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyone that insults Muladonna will sometime tomorrow fall in a godam BEAR TRAP!!! yeah take that you hippy-hating, f00l abusing, muladonna atrocatising bastards!***HippyFool***


- Delete the page then, If you so desire. My comrades and I concede defeat. But while you're at it, do me a favor and delete my account here also. I have nothing else to say. And if ever i am able to offer you the proof you desire, then i shall return anew. But i do not want ties otherwise. My hat off to you Melchoir. I would like to talk sometime other than these circumstances, please look me up at [email protected]. We may not have one, but the runaround was damn good. So damn good. I have nothing left to hide. Really, give me an IM. 13:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to be age-ist or anything, but alright, clearly at least one of you is 15 years old, and interestingly you have the exact same AIM, MSN and Yahoo messenger as Daniel who is also 15 Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 13:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah, I'm Daniel J. Carabellese. MagneticUnderlay 13:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-MMMm. *Won, rather. I apologise; I'm tired 13:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)~

-Rambo says: i dont think he will contact you [ - Cosmonaut Carabellese - ] says: Nor do I. But i respect him as a formidable opponant. -- C'mon, you must have had fun if you didn't just erase it on the spot. 13:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)~


Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!

  • Delete Unverifiable. --W.marsh 15:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn and/or unverifiable - Wezzo 15:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for any and all the reasons cited above. Plus the sockpuppetry. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible speedy as the author allegedly has acknowledged its deletion. Capitalistroadster 16:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Certainly nn and Unverifiable and probably a hoax. Eusebeus 17:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you want to achieve notability for your religion, begin by getting a domain name and putting up a website. Write books and have them published by non-vanity presses. Get attention in legitimate news sources (by doing community service work, etc.). Wikipedia needs to see that a religion has a public presence. Otherwise there's no way for the editors to distinguish between a genuine faith and the joking elevation of Jack Daniels to deity status in someone's Dungeons & Dragons campaign. Durova 19:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and a tip of the hat to Melchoir for being patient instead of blocking  J\/\/estbrook       20:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename 'Puppetology' Jasmol 02:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ashibaka tock 03:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as all above --kingboyk 15:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I also recommend that all the meat puppets be served up as holiday meals for the needy, seeing as how there are so many roaming around in a great big herd. Perhaps deep-fried, like a turkey. Nezu Chiza 05:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatically strong delete for the coveted 0 google hits (other than wikipedia and mirrors). Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:21, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DUmmies[edit]

NN, perhaps something that belongs in urbandictionary.com, not sure how it could ever been an encyclopedic article Agnte 11:33, 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 both. - Mailer Diablo 10:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish-Gaelic creoles and Hibradin Krayolle[edit]

This is a hoax! PatGallacher 11:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will expand on this. This article is a complete fabrication, I suspect it was loosely inspired by an April Fool which appeared in The Scotsman a few years ago. There are not and never have been any Scottish Gaelic creoles in the Caribbean or Central America. The Darién scheme, the Scottish settlement at Darien in Central America, was a short-lived affair which had no long-term impact on that region, and most of the colonists were Lowlanders who would not have spoken Gaelic anyway. PatGallacher 11:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I've added Hibradin Krayolle to this AFD for completeness. wangi 12:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - I cannto find anything to back this article up. Thanks/wangi 12:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both; hoaxes. --Angr (t·c) 13:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, as above :: Supergolden 15:00, 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. FireFox 21:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GleetchLAB[edit]

Non-notable freeware. 120 Google hits off the tool's own site, no indication of widespread media coverage etc. Looks like a useful utility, but not an important one. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. PJM 12:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ditto --Petros471 23:38, 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 MERGE to Coins of Ireland. — JIP | Talk 14:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coins of Ulster[edit]

POV-fork of both Coinage of the Republic of Ireland and British coinage. Along with Coins of Ireland, created by a user with a revisionist agenda, content is entirely duplicated and un-needed. Kiand 12:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge relevant content into Coinage of the Republic of Ireland, if any. ECU coinage seems to need an article though. :: Supergolden 16:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lapsed Pacifist 19:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment unless it can be shown that this article can exist in its own right as a substantial article, then delete. This material has no place in a Republic of Ireland article (so merging is pointless) because they are two separate jurisdictions also as it is simply about private pattern coins which have no more legal tender status than bottle tops - they are coins only in so far as they are metal disks. Djegan 19:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ulster and the Republic of Ireland are not mutually exclusive, DJ.
    • Comment unless we are acting dumb then we know that "Ulster" means "Northern Ireland" in this context. In any case neither ever produced its own official coinage. Djegan 19:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I fear some of us have no need to act. Why should there be any confusion over Ulster? There was no "Northern Ireland" statelet when John de Courcy issued coinage. Lapsed Pacifist 19:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You have got me this time LP, but in any case you do not create a article for the words "There was a series of baronial coins issued by John de Courcy, Earl of Ulster. Current details of these coins are not yet available". If anything it should be merged to Coins of Ireland. As for the private patterns their still as worthless as bottle tops. Djegan 19:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, but delete this article title as it is an artificial distinction. Djegan 21:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Coins of Ireland since the current geographical boundaries are relatively recent, there should be an article to cover pre-republican state. Jtmichcock 01:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Coins of Ireland and delete (no redirect) unless there are sufficient details to merit a sub-article of its own. That doesn't however appear to be the case. zoney ♣ talk 14:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Coins of Ireland until section is large enough to warrant own article. --Alf melmac 12:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Rich Farmbrough. 23:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect I understand the want to have space for each and every individuality, but untill these articles can substantiate themselves... Maybe you should title the article "tokens" if these are not institutionalized "coins"? Joe I 23:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster did have their own coins.[edit]

As I have stated in the article, Ulster did have their own coins. They were a baronial issue that was issued by John de Courcy. That is more reason of why it should not be merged into Coins of Ireland. - (Aidan Work 01:29, 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 keep - no consensus. FireFox 22:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coins of Ireland[edit]

POV-fork of Coinage of the Republic of Ireland created by a user with a revisionist agenda. Little to no content is not pure duplication Kiand 12:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Coinage of the Republic of Ireland :: Supergolden 16:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the above. Durova 18:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think their might be merit in keeping this article but little of it is substantial as it stands. One thing I am clear of is that any Irish Free State/Ireland (Eire)/Republic should only be merged in so far as it is benificial in improving quality, and any other material should be retained in the context of it being background material with a similar benificial/quality requirement. Djegan 19:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, but merge all post 1922 info as I stated. Djegan 21:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lapsed Pacifist 19:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The historical coinage of the island is not the coinage of one part of it. It seems to me that Coins of Ireland (without the full stop) should cover coins from historical times until 1921, and then stop. Coinage of the Republic of Ireland can commence from 1921, albeit that it includes the Free State and Ireland/Éire phases. "Coinage of Ulster" is a nonsense - either they are pre-partition "Coinage of Ireland" or post partition "Coinage of the Republic of Ireland" and "Coin (sic) of Northern Ireland" (the only coin is one version of the £1 coin, I think). --Red King 00:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aidan_Work Grutness...wha? 01:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This would be the place to enumerate (pun intented) coins preceeding the 20th Century's creation of the republic. Jtmichcock 01:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Alf melmac 12:34, 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hwagang[edit]

Not on allmusic, not on Amazon, no indication of importance. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above --Petros471 23:38, 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. Interested parties are cordially invited to move, merge and/or redirect as the mood strikes them. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 19:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Banknotes of Ireland.[edit]

POV-fork of Banknotes of the Republic of Ireland, by a user with a revisionist agenda. See Coins of Ulster and Coins of Ireland. for similar forks by the same user. Article is also mistitled (the full stop), but thats a minor aside. Kiand 12:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any relevant content into Banknotes of the Republic of Ireland, and/or British banknotes as neccessary :: Supergolden 16:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge as needed EdwinHJ | Talk 18:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think their might be merit in keeping this article but little of it is substantial as it stands. One thing I am clear of is that any Irish Free State/Ireland (Eire)/Republic should only be merged in so far as it is benificial in improving quality, and any other material should be retained in the context of it being background material with a similar benificial/quality requirement. Djegan 19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, but merge all post 1922 info as I stated. Djegan 21:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lapsed Pacifist 19:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - why was this moved to a badly-formed article name? (note full stop at end) I am reluctant to move it back while the AfD is open, but it's odd. FreplySpang (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment yes for some reason Aiden Work decided to move it[19] and Coins of Ireland. Djegan 21:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - well, I left a note on his talk page. Oh, and I see Kiand actually mentioned the mistitle in the nomination. Hm, so much for my reading comprehension skills. FreplySpang (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aidan_Work Grutness...wha? 01:02, 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, but redirect to tungsten, as it is a plausible misspelling. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tungstem[edit]

Band vanity, sole contribution of User:Jake-Tungstem, not on allmusic, not on Amazon, no indication of meeting WP:NMG. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge and redirect as the mood strikes them. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 19:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google Watch Watch[edit]

not sure who nominated this. It wasn't me. But see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Watch for a comparative article

  • Delete - I am not sure how this one got nominated, but there we go. I don't think that this is notable at all, and all of the information can be included in Google Watch (indeed I think that all of it already has been). http://www.google-watch-watch.org/ is a 1 page article. It is solely made to document why Chris Beasley feels that Daniel Brandt was wrong to criticise him and wrong to criticise google. It is not a web site - it is an article. It has been in existence for what 2 years now and has not ever gone beyond being 1 single solitary page, whose sole aim is to counter a criticism made by Brandt against Beasley. Indeed, not only should this article be deleted off Wikipedia, but I really don't see the point in google-watch-watch even existing as a domain name. What a waste of $10/year domain name fees! He should have just written a post on a forum and be done with it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article and also the Daniel Brandt article as well. Move it all to Google Watch. wikipediatrix 13:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Daniel Brandt is not widely known by name. But Google Watch is. Google Watch is without question notable. There should be a small amount of background about the author of Google Watch, Daniel Brandt, but it shouldn't go beyond that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Google Watch. And PLEASE, let's not rehash the Daniel Brandt deletion topic again. CarbonCopy (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Brimba 15:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete before the watchers disappear up their own arses. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 669 Google hits is not very many for a blog see [20]

No Google News hits at all [21].Capitalistroadster 16:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It might deserve extremely brief mention in the article on Google Watch, but it's not a particularly notable site on its own (just one page!). *Dan T.* 23:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with GoogleWatch and redirect as can be adequately covered there, SqueakBox 00:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to provide alternate viewpoint on Google Watch article.  Grue  17:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- There's no compelling reason to ignore this facet of the Google Watch controversy, but this site is not yet sufficiently notable to merit its own article. Adrian Lamo 23:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Google Watch. Jokestress 04:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but prune(/remove the criticism section in particular) to avoid rehashing. --Alf melmac 12:46, 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 JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Celtic dragon[edit]

There is no such thing. All the accurate content (which is not much) is already covered on Welsh dragon, Historia Britonum, and Welsh mythology. Googling on "celtic dragon" throws up many jewelry designs, much artwork, and a Celtic Dragon Tarot pack and nothing about Welsh dragons, Merlin, Dinas Emrys or remotely related topics, so I don't see any reason to redirect anywhere. Of the 14 edits to the page, 11 have already been deleted. Delete the rest. Telsa 12:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Alternately redirect to Welsh dragonY Ddraig Goch since there are some people (google results) that seem to use them interchangeable, correctly or not. -Meegs 13:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or redirect as above :: Supergolden 16:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect per User:Meegs. Durova 19:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- JJay 21:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welsh dragon is actually itself a redirect, so instead Redirect to Y Ddraig Goch (also referenced within this stub, albeit with a typo). -Colin Kimbrell 22:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Y Ddraig Goch. --Alf melmac 12:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there are one or two references to Celtic dragons involving "the original Gaelic", which suggest Wales (which doesn't speak Gaelic) does not have the monopoly on Celticism: example here -- this one is an academic publisher clearly referring to Scotland. This is why in my original nomination I argued against the redirect to a page about the Welsh one and why I'm still against a misleading redirect and in favour of just deleting it. --Telsa 16:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to be a common term, even if it's mostly used incorrectly, and would be a shame to delete and leave nothing there. If you understand what the topic well enough to write a 1 sentence stub, just one that says it a design related to, distinct from, but often confused for the Y Ddraig Goch, that would be spectacular. Otherwise, I too prefer deletion to redirect. ×Meegs 21:09, 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. FireFox - 21:44, Thursday December 22 2005 (UTC)

Alexander Deane[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion by 213.121.207.34 as: This is a vanity page. This person is not yet notable, and created this page himself. Further comments on the talk page. As the article probably does assert sufficient notability to make this at most a borderline A7 speedy, I have taken the issue to AfD instead. Nominator abstains. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. Not quite a speedy as stated above. PJM 13:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:VAIN. Published by small academic publisher (<100 titles in catalogue) 'Great Abdication' ranked 500,000 at amazon.com MNewnham 20:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has been pointed out to me - much of it is untrue and I'd really rather it weren't on here to provide 213.121.207.34 a venue to be so unpleasant to me! Alexander Deane 212.100.250.213 21:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may say, you did set this page up in order to put a link on your homepage saying "There is a Wikipedia article about me!", and you were deliberately misleading as to your achievements in an attempt at self-promotion. You then spuriously linked yourself to all sorts of pages which have little to do with you - for example are you REALLY a "famous resident" of your home county or town? And does the entry for the leader of the opposition in the UK REALLY need a link to you just because you once worked for him when he was a less important MP? And does the entry on "Abdication" REALLY need a link to you just because you have written a book with the word "abdication" in the title? I could go on - you contrived to post at least 15 links to yourself. This isn't really what Wikipedia is about - it is called vanity Alex and you should be ashamed. --213.121.207.34 09:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Winning the World Universities Debating Championships is verifiable. But nothing else seems particularly notable and I don't think winning a university competition is enough to justify a page. Singopo 02:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Despite whatever beginnings this page has, other authors have contributed edits and the subject is pushy enough to do more in his life - see Michael Gove for a possible future. Regardless of the "abstention" it is clear that 213.121.207.34 has more of a problem with Deane than the article itself. The number of revisions (and later reversions by others) of this user's edits in respect of not only Deane but Tim Collins and David Cameron is curious to put it mildly. (Disclaimer - I know Alex Deane slightly, and while I was surprised to see a page for him here, I would hate to see any article targeted for such obvious spite as this is). Dowlingm 04:16, 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Timpac[edit]

Status as an Internet phenomena/meme/whatever you want to call it dubious at best. Google results in the 15,000 range, but most of them seem to refer to unrelated businesses. Google Groups result a mortally unimpressive eight, and I'd rather not speculate on the relevance of some of them. To be a meme, people have to, you know, propogate it, and that doesn't seem to be happening here. Delete so good. Lord Bob 13:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A7 -- I don't see a claim to notability in there at all. There goes 5 minutes of my life I'll never have back. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-bio --Jaranda wat's sup 22:30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Right Wing Army[edit]

Seems to a non notable right wing message board. Alexa traffic rank of 1,867,440. The article has a lot of tags added to it, so the AFD tag can't hurt. :) Garion96 (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Kunal (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Durova 18:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, POV Madman 00:31, 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. Homey 19:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fightback (Canada)[edit]

Insignificant group of fewer than 20 people.

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

THE CRUMBLING STEELFRAME OF INDIA[edit]

POV, original research, and a direct dump of the text from the author's blog at http://www.kumar60.blogspot.com/ StoatBringer 13:52, 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jingyee.net[edit]

Article is about a website of purely local interest, which also has no Alexa ranking and no incoming links (per Google) - squibix 13:56, 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother Dirty Dozen[edit]

Completely non-notable website, utterly fails WP:WEB. Ambi 14:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since I lost the will to live long before finding any evidence that this site is of any encyclopaedic merit whatsoever. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Five Google hits. [22] Article is at least partially fictitious. Lists seven seasons for a show/game started in late 2003. Durova 19:37, 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 keep. howcheng {chat} 17:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Believers Broadcasting Company[edit]

Incoherent article which is badly written and diverges from the topic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Mecanismo | Talk 14:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. Christian TV and radio broadcaster. -- JJay 20:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the owner of a local television and radio station. Believers Broadcasting Company isn't even the right name. It's actually called Believers Broadcasting Corporation[23]. This article should be split into an article on the TV station, WTJR (currently a redirect to this article), and an article on the radio station, KJIR (also a redirect to this article) and this one deleted. -- JLaTondre 21:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I moved the broadcast stations to articles. All that remains is the company article. If the name is not correct, then the article should be moved if kept. Vegaswikian 07:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work. Thanks. -- JJay 07:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the name and added some more information to all three articles. I don't believe the company one will ever be more than a stub, but I'm not going to object to it being kept as is. -- JLaTondre 15:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - content has improved since rewrite Barneyboo (Talk) 15:07, 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andi Pink[edit]

Relatively obscure internet model. Article seems to be an advertisement/vanity piece. Has done nothing of notability in her field. Porncruft. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 14:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP has a pretty low standard notability for those in the porn field, but I don't think this meets even the most inclusionist standards. Agree with nom, delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree this article dosen't provide any useful information --J7 04:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lots of Google hits and she's cute :)  Grue  13:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is a very cute Model with potential, The page needs to have more information added.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.181.237 (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 speedy keep - nomination withdrawn. Mushroom 20:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Regency[edit]

This article was created by User:Logoboy95, now blocked indefinitely. Since New Regency is an existing company a cleanup tag was added, but in the last 10 days the article hasn't been updated and I think it should be deleted. All the other articles created by Logoboy95 have already been deleted. Delete. Mushroom 14:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]

  • Keep as a stub but delete the dubious material posted by Logoboy. This is a legitimate company so it should have an article. If for some reason the movie company is listed under another name, then redirect. 23skidoo 20:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I withdraw the nomination. I've decided that I will try to stubify it. Mushroom 20:53, 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belltones[edit]

Article on local ska band which fails every WP:NMG guideline. Pure band vanity page Mecanismo | Talk 15:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. - Wezzo 15:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They may "continue to wow audiences across two counties and more", but unfortunately it doesn't constitute WP:MUSIC-notability. Punkmorten 19:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonjustice[edit]

Vanity article, one of a series created to promote Kimmel's book. Google search yields 181 results. Klaw ¡digame! 15:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

also article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonjustice system
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 {chat} 17:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Blackwell[edit]

Vanity article on nephew of band members which served as roadie and webmaster Mecanismo | Talk 15:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, JJay is right - keep. The (redlinked) music label seems insignificant, but the (unlinked) band is probably not. Not a shoo-in by any means, no chart positions, major tours or awards listed, but they are on Allmusic and appear to have been moderately successful. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Drummer with The Dirtbombs, Cass records- very important and verifiable. -- JJay 20:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - one of his label's bands, Trachtenburg Family Slideshow Players has appeared on Conan O'Brien.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.217.86 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ectoplasm (cocktail)[edit]

A cocktail developed a year ago by three college students is entirely unnotable and indeed, unverifiable, and not encyclopaedic content. Kiand 15:47, 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Break time cricket[edit]

Is a pastime at one community college enough? No google results. Possible vanity page.

TheLateDentarthurdent 09:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Durova 19:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claims to notoriety. And come on, every damn school has some version of this. This is just backyard cricket by another name. Absolutely no reason to give it a special name ESPECIALLY when it is being attributed to one school when in all likelihood the exact same rules were used in some other school 300 or 400 years ago. We can't know when this kind of thing was invented. Without some kind of definite information, this is ridiculous vanity. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hrm. For some reason Beach cricket is considered to be more common than Backyard cricket. Not sure why that is but hey. They are totally different sports to each other, and backyard cricket is the more common variation. But hey. If we can't even get these two in to separate articles, why have this version which is just a variation on backyard cricket? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:12, 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. FireFox - 21:47, Thursday December 22 2005 (UTC)

H3lx[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This [24] indicates he got some airplay around Ireland, but I can't Google anything that would qualify him under WP:MUSIC. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J. Erick Sinkhorn[edit]

Delete as nn-bio. Google search showed two opinion bits in a newspaper, and a blog reference. WP:BIO-- Syrthiss 18:44, 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of FWD SUVs[edit]

More listcruft. --ApolloBoy 06:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's the "some cruft justifies all cruft" argument, though. What's encyclopaedic about this particular list, being the one that's being voted on? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment did not include pejorative slang. Please refrain from that type of usage. Same goes to Nom, who has failed to justify this nom. Regarding the list, it could be useful for folks who need a list of FWD SUV's. Inclusion criteria is well-defined and concern objects that interest a lot of people. One of the many lists of automobiles at Wikipedia. We should be encouraging these types of contributions, particularly as they facilitate anon participation. -- JJay 20:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Sin[edit]

non notability / vanity Melaen 16:56, 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 keep. howcheng {chat} 17:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tiana Benjamin[edit]

Not enough information is to be found for this actress. No picture. Nothing. We know that Tiana Benjamin played Angelina. So what? What other info is around about her? (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 keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticality[edit]

A website on the Internet. Not notable, and not "verifiable" either (listed only on podcast directories). Ashibaka tock 16:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Listed on a lot of blogs too. Sorry, I'll have to redact this. Ashibaka tock 17:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG KEEP 110,000 hits on Google, mostly related to the podcast. Brimba 16:39, 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drunk Monkeys[edit]

This seems to be yet another website. I don't think it passes even the most lenient notability standards. dcabrilo 16:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unimportant site aparently devoted to facilitating intellectual property theft. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "A fast growing community forums where backups are shared for educational purposes", in other words, a pirate/warez site. It's an insignificant, non-notable and now-dead site devoted to piracy. Most certainly delete. --Wingsandsword 18:41, 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 keep. howcheng {chat} 17:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benfica Castelo Branco[edit]

nano-article on obscure sports team from Portugal Mecanismo | Talk 16:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. — RJH 17:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC) A Portuguese third division championship team. Somewhat obscure, but still a professional sports team. Their stadium holds 15,000. — RJH 17:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you could include those facts in the article? Punkmorten 18:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3rd division is the regional championship. I don't believe that there are a lot of professional players playing in the portuguese 3rd division. On the other hand, if the article is expanded with meaningfull and factual information proving notoriety and therefore justifying the article, then the nomination would be reconsidered. Until then, that mini-stub should be considered as a serious deletion candidate --Mecanismo | Talk 19:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per comments from Mecanismo above. -- JJay 20:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...If (enphasis on the "if") the article is expanded with meaningfull and factual information. Therefore I believe that, if you base your vote on my comment, you vote for deletion if no meaningfull and factual information is added to the article --Mecanismo | Talk 21:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I voted Keep, not delete. Please add all the information you know about to article. -- JJay 22:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you based your vote on my oppinions... Please read my parent comment again and please take some time to reflect on the subject --Mecanismo | Talk 12:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some info per comments above. If anyone knows some Brazilian editors or other Portuguese speakers maybe they could add more. -- JJay 19:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as obviously notable football club. I added some more info. Carioca 20:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks much. We need more Portuguese speakers like you willing to help out. -- JJay 20:43, 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 12:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creativery[edit]

Delete: this is nothing more than a made up term used to advertise a website (spam) --MisterHand 16:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Woodley Estate[edit]

Not notable Nv8200p talk 16:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetua (band)[edit]

Delete. It's a nice page, but the band doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria on WP:Music. Peeper 16:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The page is nice and obviously someone invested some time on it. Unfortunately it is an obscure highschool band with no released works and the article is pure vanity from beginning to the end. --Mecanismo | Talk 16:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Creator may put it on his user page. Punkmorten 18:30, 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 keep. howcheng {chat} 17:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bengawan Solo (Company)[edit]

nano-article on obscure cake shop in Singapore. Looks like attempt at spam Mecanismo | Talk 16:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. Looks like award-winning Singaporean bakery chain with 38 outlets. -- JJay 20:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per JJay. Corp Profile Jasmol 02:25, 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× ☎ 01:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocky[edit]

Lengthy article about some "online comic made with the Half-Life 2 engine". The only people apparently interested in writing the article haven't touched it in 5+ months, and in that time, the site hosting the comic, as well as the apparent fansite and archive, seem to have shut down permanently. I can't find anywhere else where this thing is hosted. So basically, this is an abandoned article about an abandoned webcomic. W.marsh 21:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, random webcomic. Stifle 00:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is being re-listed to elicit further discussion. Mindmatrix 16:37, 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 Merge/Redirect. JWSchmidt 04:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orville Christophel Park[edit]

Non-notable Nv8200p talk 16:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's drivel. Madman 17:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whippersnatcher

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 21:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape Mini-Games[edit]

This type of article belongs in Wikibooks (see discussion for RuneScape cheats Jonathan888 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — agree with nom. Side-quests are almost always non-notable. — RJH 17:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with nom but could also belong at RuneScape Wikicities. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete - information is useful

  • Delete - we don't need articles on subsets like this. Madman 15:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete- This is useful information, although this could also be transferred to the Runescape Wikicity.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 21:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chair force[edit]

This article is an attack on the USAF and inherently POV. Even if it were cleaned up enough to make it NPOV, it is still covered in military slang. Imagine if all of the entries in that article had their own article. rogerd 16:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since I am the nominator --rogerd 17:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but the article needs a lot of NPOV work. "Chair force" is a common term. Rhobite 17:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • One part of such NPOV work would be ensuring that an article didn't use this common term as its title, since it advocates one side of the debate. Uncle G 03:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of U.S. Army acronyms and expressions or the raunchier Military slang, after paring it down. The rambling discussion portion is not useful, and not particularly encyclopedic. Chris the speller 19:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Delete I didn't see it was already in Military slang, so no need for merge. Chris the speller 16:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Military slang. Jasmol 02:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It already has an entry in Military slang. Unless you want to expand the entry there, there is nothing to merge --rogerd 05:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, Delete no need for distinct article on this. Jasmol 08:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Already there at Military slang. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 19:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is a valid article regarding a common expression.--Mais oui! 19:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't about an expression at all. It's an "are not!"/"are too!" article about the relative merits of the U.S. Air Force versus the other branches of the military. Uncle G 03:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't have a binary keep/delete recommendation but this does remind me a bit of all the ruckus over Islamofascism (term). Maybe some lessons can be learned from that, even if I'm not entirely sure what they are. That article starts with "Islamofascism" is a controversial term used by some commentators to refer to... Would rewriting Chair force along these lines make the article more acceptable? I honestly don't know, I never heard the term until today and don't know anything about it. - Haukur 19:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • HYPERSTRONG DELETE: Reason: This is similar to calling the US Marines "Jarheads". Martial Law 23:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Have a bug in my online designation program. It is being fixed. Still say that this needs to be thrown out.Martial Law 23:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. We need to support our troops overseas and at home, now more than ever. This article makes a mockery of the men and women who put their lives on the line for America every single day. Bruce176
    • Wikipedia covers the whole world, and takes no sides. Which troops are "our" troops, exactly? Uncle G 03:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By the time you remove the POV cruft, all you are left with is what already exists in Military slang. McNeight 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above and padlock as likely vandalism magnet. B.Wind 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an article about a phrase at all. It's an article about the relative merits of the various branches of the U.S. military. Such an article probably could be written. I am confident that one could find sources discussing that subject if one looked, sources more serious than Tom Lehrer, even. But this article isn't it. For one thing, this article has a title that strongly advocates one side of the debate, and thus contravenes our Neutral Point of View policy. We don't have our comparison of operating systems article under the titles Microsloth Windows or Loonix, for example. Since this article had turned into an original research magnet by its fourth edit, there's nothing to save here, so renaming the article to a neutral title isn't worthwhile. We might as well delete and start from scratch with a neutral title. Uncle G 03:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect. If content has already been duplicated in another location (Military slang), there's nothing to merge. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:40, Dec. 18, 2005
  • Strong delete - I served in the Army, so I'm biased. I make my decision as per all the other deletes on this page. Daykart 01:33, 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard_Kharman[edit]

Looks to be a Vanity Page Tom Foolery 16:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity. Richard Deeb Kharman returned no hits on Google. --Paul Stokstad 18:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete per CSD nn-bio  J\/\/estbrook       21:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity --rogerd 19:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. Vanity. ERcheck 19:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • no deletion as bio. Didn't find anything on Google on Richard Deeb Kharman,however, did find plenty under Richard Kharman. Tom Foolery 21:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Richard is a well-rounded hockey player often compared to the great Peter Forsberg of the Philadelphia Flyers..." Compared by who? Endomion 02:28, 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 Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Mind Productions[edit]

Not notable. Article even states "This independent filmmakers group is yet to be known nationally". Delete --MisterHand 17:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. Googling the title gets results, but it just seems to show that the name isn't very original. The Shane Gill that's mentioned has an imdb page written by himself with nothing that qualifies him as notable per WP:BIO. It looks like the same guy is trying to spread the word about himself on wikipedia too (this article was written by Sgill8120. - Bobet 17:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bobet. -- DS1953 talk 06:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity --rogerd 19:44, 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Reimer/Temp[edit]

Long-abandoned POV fork of David Reimer. -- Rhobite 17:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since current article incorporates these materials and this is redundant. Jtmichcock 01:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- JJay 21:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 19:45, 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 speedy deleted by Harro5. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thatte[edit]

I have nominated this entry for deletion since it is IMHO a vanity page. Thatte is a surname in India. While there have been, I am sure, notable Thattes, none of them are mentioned and there is nothing particularly compelling about this family/surname as compared with the thousands and millions throughout the world. Madman 17:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this page to remain as it is through this page that I came to know about the website on my family. I wish more people reach this page by chance and get to know about their family. Well as far as achievements of Thattes, there are many if proper research is done. Ritesh —the preceding unsigned comment is by 130.220.79.99 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia is not google. why cant people find your page through a search engine instead? Zzzzz 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. --Doc ask? 19:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete website promotion. Zzzzz 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as NN family under new CSD A7. Jamie (talk/contribs) 22:45, 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. -Doc ask? 19:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TAB Cartoons[edit]

Appears to be vanity page Front243 17:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity page. Madman 20:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 19:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Oddball Crackups[edit]

Nonsense written about some flash game. Drat (Talk) 17:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suing for Peace: A Guide for Resolving Life's Conflicts[edit]

Blatant advert for nn book. One of a series of vanity-advert articles posted by the author. Klaw ¡digame! 17:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advertising. --Fire Star 21:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. Durova 00:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam. Jtmichcock 01:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the above reasons plus those I have stated at User_talk:Bapu. --Coolcaesar 06:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and other spam from Bapu as well. Pavel Vozenilek 08:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 02:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no credible sources on which an article could be written redstucco 09:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on big google hits of 3,240 here [26]. Considering the lengthy title, I think that makes it notable by itself, as there is no way that any of those hits could be anything other than this book. Its for sale in quite a lot of bookstores [27], [28], [29] and many more. Looks like quite a notable book. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:18, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holistic law[edit]

Non-notable topic, part of a series of vanity/advert articles posted by this user to promote his book & law practice. Klaw ¡digame! 17:41, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonjustice system[edit]

non-notable topic, part of a series of vanity/advert articles posted by the author to promote his book & law practice. Klaw ¡digame! 17:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advertising. IMO, a disingenuous (or remarkably incompetent) claim that confuses the concepts of the law, personal responsibility, self-help and their relationship to the abstract concept of justice. --Fire Star 21:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 21:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and other spam from Bapu as well. Pavel Vozenilek 08:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated above. --Coolcaesar 19:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- JJay 21:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Um... what? Stifle 02:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Drn8 02:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no credible sources on which an article could be written redstucco 09:30, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 02:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sankum[edit]

Makes no sense to anyone who doesn't know the guy Brain69 18:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A7. Have tagged as such. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Dancing[edit]

Not notable. Seems to be practiced by a small number of Oxford students. Lots of google hits, all pointing to the generic term. Delete. --MisterHand 18:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A group of university students has made up a dance. The article is wholly unverifiable, there being no sources to document the purported dance's existence either cited in the article or otherwise locatable. (I note with amusement that using "shit of a lifetime" as a search phrase makes research very easy.) Ironically, there's a mention of "crazy dancing" (in its ordinary sense) in a student newspaper from that same university 1 year before the date that the students supposedly made up the idea. Delete. Uncle G 04:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NFT. Stifle 02:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've taken the s*** of a lifetime and I did not give my permission to use my story. Take that university students. BOOO YA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.0.142.29 (talk • contribs) }
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 19:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manhammers[edit]

  • non-notable vanity, they do get 379 hits on google but I don't think they're notable enough – ugen64 18:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Underscores, the real name of the clan is in fact a very popular gaming clan. Their unique style has made them popular in gaming communities and IRC game servers. http://www.hardgaming.com is one that comes to mind. Noteable enough to make the front page of HardOCP every once in a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.0.50.19 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, gaming clans are not encyclopedic. Gazpacho 18:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Team3D, Ninjas in Pyjammas, Schroot Kommandos etc. They're in...
    • Comment: I don't get an article hit for either of those last two. -Colin Kimbrell 22:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 50 unique Google hits and the poor vanity style of writing spells nuke it, as of now. The vast, vast majority of gaming clans are unencyclopedic. I can be convinced to change my vote if verifiable sources can be secured which assert this clan's encyclopedicity. FCYTravis 18:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You better delete the Team3D entry if you delete this one. Manhammers are a known clan, whether you like it or not. ~KP
  • Keep It's clear they have a history in the OGL league and they appear to have roots in their respictive (online)communities. It looks like they were even once sponsored by HardOCP.--Lucke 02:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC) (User's only edits are to this AfD page. FCYTravis 19:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)) (And that has... what significance? -UM)[reply]

norly delete.

  • Delete. Non-notable vandal vanity. -Silence 14:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not all gaming clans are necessarily non-notable and unencyclopedic, but I don't think this particular one is over the bar (which is pretty high for something with this level of granularity). If kept, the article needs actual citations and a big-time copyedit. -Colin Kimbrell 22:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete vanity, gamecruft, and questionable verifiability. Stifle 02:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep don't u bored to play always same game since years with his "i aim the feet/birds i head shot" ~MooKeTTe
  • Delete I don't understand how this group is notable. That it has many members does not make it notable.
  • Keep This is not the first I've heard of the Manhammers, I learned about them on the HardOCP forums about a year ago; they deserve a wiki!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 07:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hlavní město[edit]

Needs to be transwikied to wiktionary Fabhcún 18:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. See the article's Talk page: I created this article to fix a red link on the Prague Town Infobox, and add some useful information in the process. --IByte 22:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: perhaps it may be possible to fix the city box template? It was created by User:Caroig who may help here. (the pronunciation (in Dutch) is correct but I do not knwo IPA). Pavel Vozenilek 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hlavní město (pronounced "HLAV-nee MYESS-toe") is just the Czech word for "capital city." Wikipedia is not a foreign-language dictionary. -- Mwalcoff 23:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this isn't a term that WP needs to explain. Kappa 09:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Czech Wiktionary if it exists, delete from Wikipedia either way. Stifle 02:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The definition is in English, so it would belong in the English wiktionary. Kappa 02:48, 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 Speedied Hedley 03:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

72A[edit]

This is a complete and utter hoax. We've had a lot of similar crap, mainly from Trinity College students, inventing TV shows and presenters who just do not exist. Expect a meatpuppet filled AfD.

No such band exist. They aren't signed to Sony, Walsh isn't their manager. The members don't exist. Its all a hoax. Kiand 18:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Hoax RMoloney (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These people should contribute at uncyclopedia. Djegan 19:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 19:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - hoax. Unheard of here in Ireland. More Trinners nonsense, no doubt. - Ali-oops✍ 19:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, hoax. Demiurge 19:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, hoax. --Ryano 00:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (tagged) hoax/vandalism. Stifle 02:00, 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 Speedied. Hedley 03:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John McGillycuddy[edit]

Hoax member of hoax band 72A. Speedy deletion would be best except its too literate to qualify. Kiand 18:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Hoax RMoloney (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 19:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - hoax. Unheard of here in Ireland. More Trinners nonsense, no doubt. - Ali-oops✍ 19:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, hoax. Demiurge 19:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I removed the speedy tag because the article did make a claim to fame for the subject, but if the whole thing is a hoax, it is worthless. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-17 03:48:54Z
  • Speedy delete (tagged) hoax/vandalism. Stifle 01:59, 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 speedy delete by DavidWBrooks (hoax). howcheng {chat} 17:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Verling[edit]

Hoax member of hoax boyband 72A Kiand 18:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Hoax RMoloney (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 19:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - hoax. Unheard of here in Ireland. More Trinners nonsense, no doubt. - Ali-oops✍ 19:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - hoax. Demiurge 20:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (tagged) hoax/vandalism. Stifle 01:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy deleted it is. - DavidWBrooks 04:25, 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 Speedy delete (hoax). Hedley 03:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alan O'Neill[edit]

Hoax member of hoax boyband 72A Kiand 18:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Hoax RMoloney (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - hoax. Completely bogus. - Ali-oops✍ 19:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - hoax. Demiurge 20:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (tagged) hoax/vandalism. Stifle 01:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did Ancient Humans Have Knowledge of the Electromagnetic (EM) Spectrum?[edit]

This is personal essay that happens to draw from sources. It has several first-person remarks.

  • Delete original research. Gazpacho 18:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Semiautobiographial original research. What wasted effort! Chris the speller 19:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. — JIP | Talk 20:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I don't know if they did, but WP is not the place to find out  J\/\/estbrook       21:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR and speculation. ManoaChild 21:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All of the above, plus it's likely a copyright violation. This deserves a speedy demise. -Willmcw 23:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. Stifle 01:58, 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. I could not determine a consensus for a title should the article be moved, so please feel free to discuss on Talk:African American leftism. howcheng {chat} 17:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

African American leftism[edit]

Subject is not noteworthy in and of itself and material that might come here would be more appropriate in another article like Left-wing politics or some simialr page .TDC 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. TDC 19:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yes it is. --Revolución (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article makes the claim of notability, and I don't see why it wouldn't be. It's a stub, for sure, and needs expansion, but it's a good subject. rodii 20:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but find a better name if possible. There's no denying that African-Americans have been a significant bloc within liberal politics. Designation for this ethnic group is not arbitrary, given historical and cultural conditions within the United States. An article identifying these people is a research tool. A corresponding list of African-Americans in conservative politics would also be encyclopedic. Durova 22:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a better name than Black leftism in my opinion because it's less ambiguous about regions. This is about African Americans , however, if I were to call it black leftism it would also have to cover leftism in other parts of the world. Those that oppose this article should put black conservatism up for deletion because black leftism is way more common and deserves an article more. --Revolución (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's more the leftism that's problematic for me. Isn't the corollary to conservatism normally liberalism? Durova 23:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Liberalism is very ambiguous. I think "leftism" is more specific. --Revolución (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know that liberalism means different things in different parts of the world, but this is an article about African American liberals. Thus using liberalism in the American sense is fine. Move to African American liberalism, and if there isn't a companion article on African American conservatism, make one. "Leftist" is a snarl-term for many in the US. Firebug 04:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Leftist is a serious term for anyone on the left. I oppose a move to African American liberalism for the reason that Angela Davis and others on the list are more to the left than many "liberals". --Revolución (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Durova/Revolución, the meaning of "liberalism" depends on where you live and whether youre talking about social or economic matters. "Leftist" has connotations of "hard left" for me. Left-wingers/right-wingers would be non-ambiguous for all? Jameswilson 01:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds fine to me. Durova 03:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flipside (company)[edit]

  • Delete NN and spamvertising. Claims to be just starting to get serious about business. Chris the speller 19:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. Stifle 01:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chris the speller. -- DS1953 talk 06:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The website of their only client is not available, nn. Jussenadv 02:33, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Screaming Lemers[edit]

Non-notable band with no recorded music at all CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also G-Uppy, Marshall Blue-Eyes and J.D. Bautista CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:20, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Team XGEN[edit]

Sorry, this just isn't encyclopaedic (two entries on Google). It's also poorly written. Phlogistomania 20:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable gang. JamesBurns 07:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Non-notable. FreeWebs site. Computerjoe 19:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Billpg 20:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fictcruft. Stifle 01:57, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Idoima Recordings[edit]

Not submitter. User:199.111.230.195 just didn't finish deletion process. My feeling is that this is probably a non-notable record label. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - one sentence does not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 02:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete you'd think a 6 month old article would be more developed  J\/\/estbrook       21:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I'm not getting significant googles for either "idioma recordings" or "idoima recordings", but this certainly isn't my field of expertise. If this is kept, we need to figure out which one is actually correct. -Colin Kimbrell 22:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn record label. Stifle 01:57, 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. -Doc ask? 19:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aboolele[edit]

Two sections, one sounds like a hoax/urban legend and the other is a non-notable (as described) musician. RJFJR 18:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — Seems a bit cheesy and sparce, but keep the facts and remove obscurity, it could make a good article — Iandotcom 21:26, 21 December 2005
  • Delete — gets a few hits on google, but no indication of notability. — RJH 15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete agreed  J\/\/estbrook       21:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unencyclopedic. B.Wind 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably unverifiable. Stifle 01:57, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Bautista[edit]

Non-notable band member with no recorded music at all. See also G-Uppy, Marshall Blue-Eyes and Screaming Lemers CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 02:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all, speedily if possible - started by same editor, likely vanity. All articles POV and unencyclopedic in writing style. B.Wind 02:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't comply with WP:Music--Esprit15d 15:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 01:52, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Blue-Eyes[edit]

Non-notable band member with no recorded music at all. See also G-Uppy, J.D. Bautista and Screaming Lemers CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 02:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all, speedily if possible - started by same editor, likely vanity. All articles POV and unencyclopedic in writing style. B.Wind 02:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't comply with WP:Music--Esprit15d 15:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 01:52, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

G-Uppy[edit]

Non-notable band member with no recorded music at all. See also J.D. Bautista, Marshall Blue-Eyes and Screaming Lemers CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 02:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all, speedily if possible - started by same editor, likely vanity. All articles POV and unencyclopedic in writing style. B.Wind 02:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't comply with WP:Music--Esprit15d 15:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 01:52, 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. -Doc ask? 19:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Handle-bot[edit]

doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines for music notability Esprit15d 19:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation//SS[edit]

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. I bet their "tours" are just little trips to local places. Google also turns up little to nothing about the group. Delete --Spring Rubber 20:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Salvation//NN. Jasmol 02:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 01:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tisha[edit]

Non-notable - zero google hits for 'Esther Tandoh' -- Solipsist 21:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unverifiable, and non-notable given that she is "about to break into the music scene." ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack McGulcin[edit]

Neither the man or the Skull Sea are even mentioned in Google. It sounds like a rather poor hoax - Delete File Éireann 21:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. "The Pink Hippo" does not turn up relevant Google searches either. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete nonsense. Jasmol 02:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete per nom  J\/\/estbrook       21:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete your choice of G1 or A7. Stifle 01:51, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Porntipsguzzardo[edit]

Non-notable SimCity 2000 (Mac OS version) cheat code, contrary to what the article claims. ╫ 25 ring-a-ding 19:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC) ╫[reply]

  • Delete game trivia. Gazpacho 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I love this game, but you can find all of the tips with a 2 second Google search. Certainly no need for a listing for each one (if any of them) here. Jasmol 02:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or merge. Stifle 01:51, 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. -Doc ask? 19:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus (balance), Georgia[edit]

This article was created by Rambot with data from the 2000 census, but Bibb City has since been annexed by Columbus, Georgia. Therefore, there is no longer a need for a "balance" demographics page. --TantalumTelluride 21:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No need for redirect because no-one will look for Columbus (balance) Georgia. Capitalistroadster 20:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. Stifle 01:51, 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. -Doc ask? 19:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amerispanic/Temp[edit]

Delete - This page appears to be a copy of the creating user's page: User:Ramgarjun Epolk 19:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete defunct temp page and dicdef. Stifle 01:39, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fats in the cats[edit]

Sorry, guys, I'm a keen cyclist myself, but individual small cycling clubs don't meet the criteria for inclusion. No evidence of notability, widespread media coverage, substantial membership, all that jazz. Try Wikicities? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "a fun bunch of cyclists located in and around Kingston, New York" does not assert encyclopedic notability. Durova 20:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds very crufty. Stifle 01:39, 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 {chat} 17:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adesh Samaroo[edit]

The article, which is badly written, orphan and uncategorized, is a vanity pet project of a extremelly dedicated fan. Mecanismo | Talk 22:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:MUSIC, References, and Google results (I won't list everything, but the info is easy to find). This person seems to be a national success in his area of music, and has some following internationally abroad (though restricted to his ethnic group). Also, admittedly the article was (and still is) very poorly worded, but that can be addressed. I could understand the nomination, if the nominator indicated they looked at all this information, and felt he still failed WP:MUSIC (reasonable people can differ on that, as measuring success in a small country is trickier than measuring it for the US), but the nomination seems to be utterly oblivious to WP:MUSIC which is what we should be discussing. I may be wrong about the artist meeting WP:MUSIC but I'm certain WP:MUSIC should be the basis of discussion and not whether the article is/was "badly written, orphan and uncategorized". --Rob 14:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability threshold seems to be met, but the article is a mess. If it can't be cleaned up by the end of the AfD, then the article should be deleted and started anew. B.Wind 02:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. If somebody knowledgable/interested (e.g. familiar with this music scene) doesn't clean it up properly, then anybody can simply replace it quickly with a a 2-3 line stub, leaving behind the links, stub tag, and category. There's no need/purpose for deletion. Wikipedia:Deletion policy says we shouldn't delete because "Article needs a lot of improvement" (which is the obvious case here). --Rob 02:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 09:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Kappa; this could potentially be salvagable. -Colin Kimbrell 22:17, 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark and Light[edit]

Spam on a computer game which wasn't even launched. Mecanismo | Talk 22:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. DeathThoreau 23:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not a crystal ball. — JIP | Talk 20:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 20:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia isn't a crystal all. Stifle 01:39, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pivot(Animator)[edit]

Non-notable, advertising and/or vanity. Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:41, 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 keep. howcheng {chat} 17:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Sparks[edit]

Band vanity. Band was formed in 2005 and isn't listed in allmusic guide. Page is orphan and uncategorized Mecanismo | Talk 22:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable --Eeee 02:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:41, 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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Air - Rollercoaster[edit]

Article orphan and stubbed. Reads too much like spam and looks like it too. Mecanismo | Talk 23:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no context. If someone rewrites the article to include location and notability, I could be persuaded otherwise. B.Wind 02:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:41, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ayehow[edit]

Original research... see WP:NOR. Some theory about making sense of a Douglas Adams joke. No sources cited, probably aren't any [31] to cite anyway. --W.marsh 23:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:41, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Redd[edit]

The only information that checks out about this alleged hip hop artist (albeit only according to Google) is that someone named "Omega Redd" exists (see quote below). None of the other information I checked - about the robbery of Allen Strong, his radio singles, etc. - come up. His alleged altercation with high-profile hip hop artist Jay-Z is particularly suspect, as it would have appeared in the media.

The overall tone of this article is in equal parts self-laudatory and absurd. This article was first posted anonymously, and it's earliest versions are even more fraught with "gangster" mythology - Omega Redd's arrests for violent crime, penning lyrics while in prison, an arrest for murder and subsequent (short) bid in prison, release from prison and recording an album, arrest for grand larceny, etc.

Finally, the only on-line description I could find of Omega Redd, from norecordlabel.com [32]:Omega Redd and Rebelz Of Treble Recordz hail the grimey streets of Buffalo New York. A young cat with unmatchable flavor first set out at the early age of 9 to become an essential asset to the rap game. 7 years later, with his skill level highly developed, he takes on and tackles all forms of rap, from gangsta to battle, and crushes the competition. With enough said, let the music speak for itself. Danspalding 23:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The contributions of the author, 207.255.172.85, [33], show numerous examples of vandalism of existing pages, in the same vein: here and here. Bubamara 00:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. According to Allmusic.com, there was an outfit called Pakman and Omega Reed who released an album on their own label [34] which failed to chart. No other evidence of notability. Capitalistroadster 20:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, then redirect to the X-Men villain. -- Grev 14:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hip hop and rap music sends the wrong message to our youth. This article violates community standards. Bruce176
    • "Community standards" is not even a generally acceptable criteria for deletion, Bruce. --Apostrophe 01:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Bruce. So... it looks like we have a consensus for deletion. What happens next? Danspalding 01:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 01:31, 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 and move to AISPLB. howcheng {chat} 17:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aisplb[edit]

Spam article on obscure legal organization which reads like a site. Mecanismo | Talk 23:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Expand. -- JJay 18:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that a "look" doesn't constitute much of an evidence of factual information. An encyclopedia should be a vehicle of factual information and notable subject. If the only proof of the veracity or notability of a subject is the "look" and there is no factual information to coroborate that, then obviously the subject isn't worthy of an encyclopedia article --Mecanismo | Talk 13:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please try to give valid reasons when nominating on AfD. If you are not going to attempt to justify the case for deletion, I default to Keep. -- JJay 18:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you failed to read the AFD reason I stated above? I noticed you have a habit of casting mindless votes to some submittions without stating any reason. If you defend the need of give valid reasons, why don't you apply that principle to all your votes and submittions? --Mecanismo | Talk 23:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, it's your nom. It's up to you to explain why a Shia legal organization that is apparently the only one of its kind in India, with news coverage, etc should be deleted. If you have reasons for that please state them. You should know, however, that I do not believe we should be throwing out valuable information. Changing my vote now to Keep and Expand. -- JJay 23:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, cleanup and expand, and move to full name of organization. This gets a number of hits on Google News. I am sure there must have been news in other languages than English as well. u p p l a n d 19:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added five more external links. This has gotten international coverage including The American Muslim and the BBC. I wonder whether the nominator researched this before putting it up for deletion. Durova 19:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If kept, the article should be moved to AISPLB. — JIP | Talk 20:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 01:26, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Airborne Global Gaming[edit]

Vanity and vandalism article on obscure gaming community Mecanismo | Talk 23:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeLeTe FoR bEiNg ToTaLlY UnEnCycLoPaEdIc. Eddie.willers 05:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clancruft. Stifle 01:23, 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 NO CONSENSUS - I'm going to be very WP:BOLD and merge this. -Doc ask? 19:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Yoon-hyung[edit]

Although tragic, this biography's only claim to notability is that this is the daughter of a company executive. Durova 19:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The NY Times article referenced says:
    One of the wealthiest women in her native country, Ms. Lee was outgoing and once had her own Web site offering Koreans a glimpse into her life as a child of privilege. It became so popular, she had to shut it down. And at least one Web site about her was created by her admirers.
  • On that basis, it seems like she should be kept, but it was not mentioned why she was so popular. However, I don't see how she passes any of the criteria set in WP:BIO. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone edits this to meet WP:Bio I'll withdraw the nomination. Durova 03:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for mailure to meet WP:BIO as it stands - but agree with above comment. Eddie.willers 05:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then, since no one's improved it. Durova 20:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NY Times article quote. Kappa 09:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very notable: even I heard of her.  Grue  13:15, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Ronnlund[edit]

Seems rather unlikely, and "mia ronnlund" (actually rönnlund) only gets one Google hit. I first tagged it as nonsense, but the article claims notability and the author has contributed a number of other edits (back in July and August, see Special:Contributions/Skawave) which need to be checked if this is the hoax it looks like. u p p l a n d 19:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think this is completely irrelevant for the English Wikipedia, even if it isn't a hoax. JHMM13 (T | C) 19:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't pass the smell test. Her radio show was #1 in the world, then retitled "3rd Heaven Supernatural Encounters of El Elyon to the 4th dimension of the Zadok Priesthood Show" after her departure? Yeaaaah. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 01:23, 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 speedy revert to August version - porn actress version was vandalism. -- RHaworth 02:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abihail[edit]

Article void of content which is about an obscure porn actress. Only recently it was categorized. Mecanismo | Talk 22:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. JHMM13 (T | C) 19:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete per CSD nocontent/nn-bio  J\/\/estbrook       22:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia should not tolerate or promote obscenity. Bruce176
  • Comment I believe that is not the point. After all, "obscenity" is very subjective. Please vote on encyclopedic merit and precedents --Mecanismo | Talk 23:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment agreed, just because it is an article about a porn actress, means it still could be encyclopedic, but this specific article is obscure actress, with one line about her, which is not useful in Wikipedia  J\/\/estbrook       21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As it currently exists, there's no real info there. Possibly speedyable, though there's no harm sending it through an AFD. -Colin Kimbrell 22:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A1. Stifle 01:22, 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 redirect to swimmer's itch. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cercarial dermatitis[edit]

this page is redundant with respect to a recently created, more detailed page on swimmer's itch. Moreover, in its original form it erroneously stated that cercarial dermatitis to be a mild form of schistosomiasis. While, technically, "cercarial dermatitis" may refer to both the mild dermatological symptoms of an otherwise serious disease caused by parasites of humans (Schistosoma) and the benign, short-lived symptoms caused by other schistosomes that do not successfully infect humans, it is useful to reserve the term for only one of the conditions, which have distinct etiologies. Arga Warga 19:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, we don't need two articles, but I would redirect, not delete. But, if cercarial dermatitis is the medical term, should we merge the (vastly superior) swimmer's itch article here and create a redirect there, instead? -- Vary 20:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to swimmer's itch and redirect. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redundant duplicate article, did you say? Uncle G 04:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. A link/merge would do just as well. (I'm new here; still learning the ropes... now to check out Uncle G's link) Arga Warga 17:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to swimmer's itch. – ClockworkSoul 18:10, 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. howcheng {chat} 17:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bergsala[edit]

Nonsense article, possible a newbie test gone wrong. Mecanismo | Talk 19:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: These guys are Nintendo's oldest foreign distributor and sole importer for the Nordic countries. Would like an opinion from some of our Scandinavian editors. No vote for now. -- JJay 20:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wwwwolf and input from Finland. -- JJay 01:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on their official website [35], they're really an importer of Nintendo. The article is in serious need of expansion, though. — JIP | Talk 20:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep vote from Finland. Yep, Bergsala's a notable company, and definitely been the defining factor of Nordic Nintendo landscape for a long time. I expanded the thing to something that looks a bit more like a stub (basically, just reworded more or less what they say in their home page). Warrants some expansion though. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:37, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Famset[edit]

This article does not meet Wikipedia consensually accepted guidelines for music entries: Esprit15d 19:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Danza[edit]

Non-notable sandwich created by a chef in Nebraska. Only relevant Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. Tagged for cleanup since July with no improvement. Durova 20:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. This would be a compliment to the article on the Tony Danza (sex act) article. Jtmichcock 01:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could we get a third vote, please? Durova 20:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as a non-notable sandwich (?!) Stifle 01:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'll delete this one I think. There seem to be a number of people claiming to have invented a "Tony Danza sandwich" version, and I can see no reason to suggest that this one is any more notable than the various blog entries advertising the others - all with totally different recipes mind you. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:07, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dissemble (band)[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. No apparent albums. Nothing in news. No tour. etc.. --Durin 20:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete need a CSD category for non-notable bands  J\/\/estbrook       20:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the expanded A7? {{nn-band}} {{music-importance}} -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Punkmorten 23:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, need nn-band speedy. Jkelly 23:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and agree with Jwestbrook and Jkelly. Stifle 01:21, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Given[edit]

Non-notable

Non-notable, at best, vanity page at worst. Only was able to find one mention on google:[36]. A blogger? King of Mars might make him notable, though...--Rayc 18:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete NN Bio  J\/\/estbrook       21:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Was interrogated by Secret Service in 2001 after asking God to smite George W. Bush. Have referenced the article. Still not enough to make him notable in my book but saves him from being speedied. Capitalistroadster 00:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-bio (although not speediable). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7. Stifle 01:19, 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 Speedy Delete. The other article, Oliver Bayley, had the same comment and was deleted by BanyanTree with the summary "(hoax, only mention is in Wikipedia mirrors)". CSD G4 reads "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is in userspace, or undeleted per the undeletion policy" which does not, to me, imply an exception based on the concurrent existance of said articles from January 2 to November 30. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:38, Dec. 17, 2005

Oliver 'Memories' Bayley[edit]

the article Oliver Bayley was deleted with the same text

First time bringing up an AfD. Looks like a copy of Oliver Bayley that didn't get deleted the first time around. Seems like our mirrors still have the original, too.--Rayc 18:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as recreation/duplicate of deleted content. — JIP | Talk 20:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible speedy, definite delete as they were created at the same time. Not surprisingly, the claim that he is one of the world's most popular entertainers is not borne out by Google see [37]. Capitalistroadster 21:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy {{db-repost}} / CSD G4, as repost of Oliver Bayley. Jamie (talk/contribs) 03:10, 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 redir to Criticism of Christianity. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Christianity[edit]

Please read the article before responding.

This article is not only hopelessly POV, but the title is a neologism. Note that there are articles discussing Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of the Bible, and Christophobia(possibly mis-spelt). Clinkophonist 20:26, 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 DELETE. -Doc ask? 18:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity[edit]

Does not meet Wikipedia standards for music notability]] Esprit15d 20:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely untrue! Veracity was one of the most noteworthy up-and-coming New England bands over the past five years. They were featured in The Stamford Advocate newspaper and various other publications. More importantly, its members have gone on to even bigger and more famous projects (see The Pizza War, currently being made into a movie!) KeithAllen 20:32, 16 December 2005

Veracity is awesome, here at fordham they are HUGE! - Michael Riordan, Fordham

I know this band and they meet the requirements!!! Wilson and Petrower were featured on MUG Radio, the national radio station for GarageBand and iCompositions. - KeithPetrower, www.icompositions.com

  • Delete, per Music Notability and Music Guidelines. Tom Harrison (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not delete, because as stated above this band was featured on a national radio show AND members went on to bigger projects (a movie). For the record, the show was Lilichi's MUG Radio program. - Keith Petrower
  • Delete according to WP:NMG. According to the article, the band played locally but didn't record an album, have any charting records or have a national tour. National radio program appears to be on internet for Garage bands. Capitalistroadster 23:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failure to meet WP:MUSIC. Eddie.willers 05:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you will, Wikipedia, and I'll live with it. But in my opinion your "Music notability standers" hinder the very goal of this great site. Just because a band didn't appear on MTV, does that mean they didn't exist and have a legacy and impact in the music world? I think that is a very naive way to judge artists and it detracts from what this site could offer to the music community. -Keith

  • Delete per Capitalistroadster and due to repeated unsigned/unregistered votes. Stifle 01:18, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ExoGameCtl[edit]

497 Google count All results are from php script directoy listings. An uncommented upon php script. delete as unverifiable

Lotsofissues 20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unverifiable, and would be non-notable even if it existed. — JIP | Talk 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I see nothing notable in the article.NorseOdin 22:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable and unlikely to be notable. Stifle 01:18, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy's Method[edit]

Seems to be about a non-existent, or at any rate ungooglable, science-fiction novel. Flowerparty■ 20:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 21:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above Tom Harrison (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 20:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 01:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and more likely a self published (online) work. --Alf melmac 12:40, 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 Speedy renamed to Spy Game (soundtrack) Jamie (talk/contribs) 03:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Operation dinner out[edit]

Doesn't fit the wikipedia criteria for music notability. Look here Esprit15d 20:51, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unnatural Wave[edit]

Non-notable (no notability claims made) website / web forum. See also related AfD of Pole-Land Militia. Ifnord 21:09, 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. Harro5 03:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hester & Patel[edit]

Article about a small law firm created by User:Mayurpatel.

  • Delete vanity. Gazpacho 21:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Typical, unremarkable small law firm - their own web-page is still under construction, for corn's sake! BD2412 T 21:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete content at present consists primarily of just a link. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as {{db-nocontent}} / CSD A3
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Doc ask? 18:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Review[edit]

Very well-written article, but speaking as a Brown alum who attended during the years covered in the article (and actually tried to return the questionaires), I'm still not convinced it's notable enough outside of Brown to deserve its own entry. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but until then, delete. SarekOfVulcan 21:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; interesting idea; If it could be merged with something more general I'd be okay with that too. Tom Harrison (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 23:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is very well written and edited but nevertheless it is a student group project which reviews the university's courses based on student surveys. No extra-campus notability and therefore doesn't justify wikipedia entry --Mecanismo | Talk 12:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds that other schools have looked to the organization for assistance in establishing similar course evaluation systems, and therefore there is notability outside of Brown. NBS525 17:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should also note that I'm the primary author, so I'm biased in favor of keeping it, but I wanted to clarify why I thought the entry should exist in the first place. NBS525 17:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Computerjoe 17:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per its associations with the notable Ian Maxtone-Graham (and Google [38]). CanadianCaesar 01:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it possesses verifiable relevance beyond its home educational institution. Although not of equal significance to, say, the flagship student newspaper of the university, there are enough notable alumni, cross-institutional linkages, and generalized interest to merit a Wikipedia page, although for such a young publication its length seems a bit long. 07:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete irrelevant beyond the university. Stifle 01:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not paper. Dave (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas per nom.--nixie 02:01, 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 NO CONSENSUS, thus it is kept. Be bold and move, redirect, or merge it as you see fit. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:06, Dec. 17, 2005

9/11 conspiracy theories/September 11 researchers[edit]

Previously AfD'd; result was merge; merge delayed, since completed. Tom Harrison (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ingoolemo talk 19:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Yeah the 9/11 conspiracy theories bit at least recognises the Saddam Hussein theory. I said it was Saddam Hussein from the moment the planes flew in, and I don't get why people think its so hard to believe. The 9/11 one mentions it, whilst this other one doesn't. That theory should be expanded a fair bit though. Oh, also, I saw no mention of anti-globalisation terrorist group S11 being a theory. They were widely blamed, and the group was totally destroyed as a result. Oh and don't forget China. China had a motive to do it, so as to destroy the American economy to precipitate an invasion at a later date. After all, China was very annoyed at America then after they had shot down one of China's spy planes, and China is America's biggest challenge to world dominance, and the most likely country to take over control. These 2 theories do need to be mentioned. But since I personally believe the Saddam Hussein theory, I think that that needs to be explored an awful lot more than it is.Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually it was China that shot down an American spy plane, not the other way around Cynical 12:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Move! The results of the old VFD wasn't even a clear concensus, and the listings have grown and become a lot more detailed since then. For example, it now includes physicist Steven Jones. The 9/11 conspiracy theories article is way too long at 76 KB, so there's no good reason for the list not to be split off as a separate article (not a section or a subpage). I propose that it be moved to Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, as this is an NPOV title, and it also avoids the concerns that some had about the old "September 11 researchers" title. This title makes it clear that it's a listing of researchers with a common basic position about 9/11 which questions the official account. Blackcats 23:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, should never have been a sub namespace article, how about September 11 reappraisal or some such (if scope is larger than just a bio of the researchers themselves)? zen master T 23:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: The Wiki is all about dissemination of knowledge, not the suppression thereof. That said, the articlle title needs revision to delete the loaded term conspiracy, which in this case amounts to discounting the credibility of researcers. Ombudsman 00:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but modify - the researchers are not the notable part of this endeavor: their hypotheses and conjectures are. I'd strongly suggest replacing their biographies with their conclusions about 9/11 as the conclusions are much more relevant to the rest of the article. B.Wind 00:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment: That's exactly why the two articles never should have been merged, disingenuously, especially many months after a muddled debate. Ombudsman 03:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: After the original AfD resulted in merge, why was it not merged? Tom Harrison (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Presumably because no one did it. zen master T 06:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-amazingly refernced and well-formatted, however if this information is already inserted (ie.merged) into another article elsewhere, then delete. Still, it sould be noted with the thesis that this article is quite informative.-MegamanZero|Talk 20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given the fact that it's merged.Gator (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it is merged...use MOAB to complete deletion process.--MONGO 21:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm relisting this one to get more input. The previous VFD several months ago was interpreted as a vote to merge, but there was no definate concensus. Then nobody merged it until several months later - when the article was bigger and the article it was being merged into was bigger. Now the combined article is 76 KB - over twice the size as the suggested maximum. Blackcats
  • Delete if merged. Arkon 21:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge is done, goodbye fork. If the combined article is too big, trim it. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to wherever it got merged to. Note that to preserve authorship attribution under the GFDL, "merge and delete" is NOT an option. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Move I have to agree with an above comment that the 9/11 conspiracy theories article is too long at over 76 KB. I also think that the list should be split off as a separate article (not a section or a subpage). It seems inappropriate to have this list set into the middle of the article. I also think that it should be moved to Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, which is a good NPOV title. Everyday there are more researchers joining the 9/11 truth movement and getting the courage to speak up, particuarly academics, like Steven Jones. I would expect that this section on the researchers will only grow.Bov 07:46, 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 (clear consensus; closing per WP:IAR). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland steamer[edit]

  • Keep Article should be merged or moved to the sexual positions category, just like dirty sanchez. Omoo 01:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered my 8-year old daughter reading this page and giggling this afternoon. This article is both unencyclopediac and obscene, and is completely unsuitable for a reference library. Wikipedia was one of the few sites that I allow my children to visit, but with articles like this it will soon be added to the blocked list as well. Please remove this disgusting content at once so that my family may again make use of your valuable resource. Sincerely, Bruce Thompson Bruce176 21:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is not censored for content, and (unfortunately) this is a notable and well documented sex act (although perhaps only an urban legend). Have we set up a kid-safe sister project? BD2412 T 21:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This so-called "notable sex act" by your own admission does not even exist; it is nothing but a lascivious and pornographic fantasy. Also the article is obscene and violates community standards. Therefore it has no place in any sort of encyclopedia and should be deleted. By including pornography this site loses value as a research tool, which harms the very children who stand to learn the most from it. Bruce176
    • Dragons and vampires don't exist either, but we have articles on them. Our primary mission is to document everything that is notable in every field, including concepts expressed in popular culture. Besides, even if we delete marginal topics like this, what about clearly legitimate topics of anatomical, psychological, and sociological inquiry like coprophilia, autofellatio, cunnilingus, orgasms, ejaculation, and bestiality? How about Satanism and Nazi propaganda? NAMBLA? The GNAA? Once we exclude content for being objectionable, there is no effective drawing of the line. BD2412 T 22:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not censored. Rhobite 22:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - cleaning up obscene content is not censorship. If this encyclopedia is to aspire to compete with Britannica it will need to remove the gross-out articles first. Bruce176
    • I don't think you understand the meaning of censorship. Sexual acts are part of the human experience and must therefore be recorded in a encyclopedia that seeks to provide coverage of known facets of existence. Deleting something because of a subjective "gross-out" to it is silly in an enyclopedia that also aspires to be impartial. Keep. --Apostrophe 22:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- and KEEP your 8 year old off of the internet, if you are worried. Culturally relevant.
  • Strong keep with respect for the nominator and his legitimate concerns as a parent. From WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors." This is a case of inadequate parental monitoring. I recommend to Mr. Thompson that he check the official policies of all sites he allows his children to visit. Wikipedia posts this prominently as official policy. There are many articles on this site that I personally find disgusting. This is one. I exercise my right to avoid them. My personal standards of decency are not universal. Near the top of today's debate is another topic some people find indecent: Gay rights in Iraq. I am glad such articles exist. If I knew a gay person who planned to travel to one of these countries, these references might make the difference between a pleasant trip and criminal prosecution. It's a slippery slope. Parental control software exists to address specific family standards. Durova 22:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wiki is not censored and should never be. There are other similar terms as well, i.e. Donkey Punch.--Mayur 22:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Some content is simply inappropriate for this forum and detracts from the usefulness of the site. This page and many of the others cited fall into this category and should be purged. If any of you perverts are ever fortunate enough to find an adult female who is willing to sleep with you and bear your children (doubtful), you'll understand why it is so important that the internet's key resources remain free of obscene content and graphic depictions of sexual and bodily functions. Bruce176
    • Comment - Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Your statements above are in violation of both policies. FCYTravis 23:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Also, if you disagree with Wikipedia official policy per WP:NOT then the way to proceed is to propose a new policy, not to vote in violation of it on specific nominations. Durova 23:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Widespread pop culture references - mentioned in major Hollywood motion pictures and popular cartoons. Referenced in a Family Guy episode, Mr. Saturday Knight. In the DVD commentary, Seth MacFarlane admits he got the phrase through the FOX censors precisely because they didn't have a clue what it meant. FCYTravis 23:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- JJay 23:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Information of no value. CalJW 00:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What no one has asked here is how an 8-year-old would be aware of the term "Cleveland steamer". If it is in fact a case of someone stumbling onto it then I recommend the "What links here" be checked to make sure a vandal hasn't put a sneaky wikilink somewhere. 23skidoo 00:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Good thought, I double-checked the wikilinks and nothing out-of-the-ordinary pops up. Linked only where relevant. I suppose she could have clicked "Random article" and found it, though the odds are 1 in 868,488. More likely, she heard it on the schoolyard chatter, or she heard it from Family Guy, in which case I'd wonder what an 8-year-old would be doing watching that show. WP:NOT a nanny. We can't control what kids hear or look up. FCYTravis 00:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A simple search for the word "Cleveland" will find this page, as will "recent changes", "random page", etc. Randomly flipping to the middle of an encyclopedia, as a curious child may do, should NOT produce a prurient article with no redeeming value such as this one. Bruce176
    • A simple search for "Cleveland" in the search box redirects you to Cleveland, Ohio. That page didn't have a change on it since the 14th until you marked it for deletion, which makes it impossible for your daughter to have seen it this afternoon on Recent Changes, because it would have long since scrolled off. FCYTravis 00:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The chances of hitting this with a random article search are about 800,000 to 1. BD2412 T 00:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Censorship based on a desire to let one's eight-year old run wild and free on a free-edit site on the internet does not hold water. This entry is useful though perhaps revolting (as are most medical journals) and there is absolutely no reason to remove it. Attempting to impose your personal moral standards on the content of Wikipedia is in direct conflict with any sort of impartiality. As an aside, it is noteworthy that Wikipedia's ability to include even lowbrow slang terms amongst its entries may be an asset rather than a liability in its competition against more restricted encyclopediae (Britannica was mentioned).Epicurus13 20:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Well-documented/referenced act. I'm quite surprised inclusionist JJay is voting to delete this. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a somewhat surprising person Howcheng, my esteemed deletionist colleague. You may not believe this, but the mental wellbeing of children and young Wikipedia editors is one of the key factors that guides my voting. One glance at this excretory ode told me that delete was the only sensible response. Could I sleep at night knowing I was contributing to the future psychological trauma of legions of 8 year olds across the English speaking world? I think not. My conscience salved, I will now proceed in my tireless but lonely rearguard struggle for the Wikipedia rights of high schools, Yu-Gi-Oh cards, and Lists of fictional Elvis Imposters. -- JJay 01:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • MUST KEEP: Slang is an integral part of our lexicon. It fosters the evolution of our language. Without a recorded record of word explications and samples of usage, the word (expression) would cease to be used meaningfully and therefore corrupt the use of the English language into dialects meaningless, in this case, outside of Cinncinati.
  • Keep "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors." Jasmol 02:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obscenity is NOT a criterion for deletion. Verifiability is. So the real question is whether this is a real term, or a hoax made up out of whole cloth. Some quick googling finds that this appears to be real, if unusual, sex act. So I'd have to vote keep. Jamie (talk/contribs) 02:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should add that deleting this article, and even removing all others like it, would not protect the nominator's daughter from finding equally offensive content on this site. Wikipedia is an open edit project. For a few minutes yesterday the main AfD page was entirely covered with photographs of human feces. Many other encyclopedias already address the nominator's concerns. Wikipedia has a unique mission. Durova 03:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- notable and very well-known sexual urban legend. I'm sorry if Submitter doesn't like the page, but Wikipedia, as has been pointed out above, is not censored. Recommend sanction for submitter for disruption of process by badgering commenters. Haikupoet 06:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia is not censored to "protect" minors, and articles should not be deleted on the grounds that they offend people. Roman Soldier 20:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Wikipedia needs to enforce community standards on its site so as not to become a cesspool of obscenity and filth like much of the rest of the internet. If that means reviewing all additions and edits before they are live, so be it. Clearly, the project is large enough to afford the manpower needed to do so. Bruce176
    • Comment - Wikipedia does not have community standards of morality, because Wikipedia is not a community, it is an encyclopedia. "Community standards" are inherently WP:POV, thus violating the neutral point of view policy established for Wikipedia. If you wish to discuss a change to this policy, WP:AFD is not the place for it. I suggest you visit the village pump to discuss your ideas. FCYTravis 23:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment You only get one vote. Posting delete over and over again won't help. Tell your kids to use the less useful but "clean" Compton's Interactive or Brittanica. Also, would you like us to delete the article about toilets, too? Roman Soldier 23:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is very possible that Bruce is not even a parent; rather a bored teenager. Roman Soldier 06:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep "Censorship based on a desire to let one's eight-year old run wild and free on a free-edit site on the internet does not hold water. This entry is useful though perhaps revolting (as are most medical journals) and there is absolutely no reason to remove it. Attempting to impose your personal moral standards on the content of Wikipedia is in direct conflict with any sort of impartiality. As an aside, it is noteworthy that Wikipedia's ability to include even lowbrow slang terms amongst its entries may be an asset rather than a liability in its competition against more restricted encyclopediae (Britannica was mentioned)" I agree completely
  • Comment Looks like another victory over censorship. Would an administrator please close this discussion and remove the AfD tag from the article? Roman Soldier 03:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD's run five days - this can be closed on the 21st. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Stong Keep Article is very much a piece of our culture, and if you don't want your kids seeing it, then, BE A PARENT AND CENSOR YOUR CHILD - not everyone else. 12:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The act is obscene, the article is not. The original poster might be advised to have his censoring software block articles in the Sexual Acts category until his daughter matures. Of course, the existance of this term and others like it suggest to me that no one ever really grows up. —BenFrantzDale
  • Keep. Verifiable as a widespread rumored sexual practice, if not necessarily a real one. Notable as a cultural meme or uban legend. -Colin Kimbrell 22:43, 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. howcheng {chat} 17:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Humanure[edit]

Delete as a neologism - it even says so right in the article! Vanigo 21:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep and expand. Gets 67,000 Google hits. [39] A notable concept in human waste recycling/composting. Blackcats 21:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a well-known term. There is no rule which prohibits neologisms from Wikipedia. They just need to be properly cited. Rhobite 21:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. To get the real poop check the composting toilet article. Durova 23:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The concept of humanure and humanure composting is interesting and distinct from composting toilets in some notable ways. jsheffield
  • Weak delete, seems a bit jokey. Stifle 01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, although new this is a valid concept and an elegant description. 12:27, 21 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. FireFox 16:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flail (band)[edit]

A band that was started in late 2005 and is currenly writing songs for there first demo. Not even close to passing WP:MUSIC Delete. --Jaranda wat's sup 21:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Edsall is currently at work with hundreds of songs written in his notebooks. Kudos, Edsall...keep working. PJM 22:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nowhere close to meeting WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 23:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Come back when you have a record deal and a few albums. Stifle 01:15, 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. -Doc ask? 18:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serbophobia[edit]

Unfinished nomination. mikka (t) 21:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. According to the article, the word has been used twice. The article itself isn't terrible, though, and the useful information in it should probably go somewhere. Jkelly 23:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Looking at the history of this page, I suspect (and apologies if I'm wrong) that the nominator has a POV agenda. Jameswilson 03:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Dado nominated the article for deletion because "the side who started this article has not presented valid claims and/or answered the issues raised on the discussion page". However, he doesn't state what are the issues. Claim that serbophobia can not be characterized as psychological disorder (phobia) is answered by the fact that the article does not characterise it that way (see Talk:Serbophobia#Disputed). Claim that the term is not notable is answered by presenting some 1500 Google hits in various languages, and showing that, comparatively, it is used as much as russophobia (see Talk:Serbophobia#Not Notable / Neologism). Claim that there is no definition was answered by providing a source with a definition (see Talk:Serbophobia#Sources; definition referred to can be found f.e. in [40]). Claim that the term is neologism is answered by finding a reference to its use in 1986 (after the nomination, though I found the reference before; see Talk:Serbophobia#Neologism). Nikola 04:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See Talk:Serbophobia#Disputed. I have raised several issues and no one has responded to those issue. In fact few have outright ignored them by reverting suggested edits. In addition to my comments on the talk page, the claim "Serbian Writers Association also organized a meeting on February 28, 1989 with the theme of "Serbophobia" that discussed Croatian genocide of Serbs" fails to note that around same time Serbian nationalism (as other nationalisms) in the Balkans was on the rise and portraying Serbs as victims of phobia was one of the tools to raly Serbian nation into Yugoslav Wars that followed. In fact the article as it currently read does a very similar thing. Ironicaly, most victims of Serbophobia in last 20 years were non-Serbs. I don't see this article being able to overcome these problems while it is obvious that its purpose is to continue the politics of spreading fear among Serbian people and non-Serbs as a reflex to former, and as such presents an article of no value or even damaging to Wikipedia. --Dado 05:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dado makes a good point; but I am generally against deletion of articles. They should be, rather, improved. If we would delete every disputable article, there would be less than 10 wiki articles alltogether :))) HolyRomanEmperor 14:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you enumerate the issues? And, when you say that "Most victims of Serbophobia in last 20 years were non-Serbs", do you acknowledge that it exists or otherwise it couldn't have victims? Nikola 06:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This word does not deserve an article of its own, it’s a term devised for explicitly political purposes during the late 80s and early 90s. It can not be compared to "Russophobia" or "Islamophobia" because both of these deal with prevalent general social attitudes against ethnic and religious groups based on their culture and heritage. The term Serbophobia, on the other hand, is used virtually exclusively in a political context, in either an accusatory manner or as a justification. To say that it is "comparatively" as common as the term "Russophobia" is ridiculous, and based on some shady calculation certain users made involving army size and GDP. A simple Google search shows that the term "Russophobia" is far, far more common than "Serbophobia". Of the results that do show up on Google, I think they adequately manifest the nature of this term and exactly why it does not belong on Wikipedia. Of the initial 10 results that come up on the first page:
The #1 result is the respective Wikipedia article
2 come from a radical right political site
6 of them come from the same two Serbian political writers and analysts.
1 comes from a book on Serbian propaganda efforts during the late 80s and early 90s
If this all wasn't enough, the single legitimate source provided has been completely misinterpreted. The quote reads as follows: "Furthering this incipient nation-fever was the extraordinary memorandum issued to the public in 1986 by the prestigious Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, condemning the perceived presence of "Serbophobia" in the central government of Yugoslavia." The use of this as a reference for some traditional use of the term would be fine and dandy if the word wasn’t placed in quotes; but it is. This is because the author views the term with skepticism and questions its validity, implying (just as Dado mentioned) that the word was used by Serb officials to drum up support amongst the populace for their nationalist policies. I challenge any neutral observer to read the context of the word, notice the tone of the passage, read the preceding paragraphs, and not reach the same conclusion as I did[41]. Asim Led 06:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
    • Asim, you are trying to mislead people. The quote was given as evidence that the word was used in 1986 and so is not a neologism, not as evidence that it is valid.
    • For use of the word in various contexts by non-Serbian authors you may refer to Serbophobia#Use in various languages. Nikola 10:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. HolyRomanEmperor 14:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Should we have articles about words that don't really exist and are only (rarely) used by pro-Serb political commentators? Thats what the source you provided argues, and I have to say no. A delete is favorable at this point. Asim Led 18:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Asim Led makes a good point here; and if not for my general disliking of plain deletion of articles; I would most definately vote "Strong delete". It is to my opinion that articles have to be improved rather. Additionally; this article should belong to the wiki dictionary, rather then here if it's nothing more then a term... HolyRomanEmperor 12:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I think, this is a pathetic "article" based on well-known Serb nationalistic propaganda. The word "serbofobia" or similar word constructions were used by Serb war criminals to justify their war crimes during the war in Yugoslavia e.g. Ratko Mladić, Biljana Plavšić, Slobodan Milošević...--Emir Arven 09:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you point to a quote by any of them where they do so? Regardless, why would such use of the word justify deletion of the article from Wikipedia? Isn't such use something worth informing the readers about? Nikola 10:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you want me to start. Maybe at the trial: 31 August - 1 September: President Milosevic makes his historic 'opening speech' accusing Germany, Vatican and USA for the break-up of Yugoslavia, tragedy of its peoples, alliance with terrorists, occupation of Serbia and persecution of Serbian freedom fighters. The main tools of this aggression are NATO and ICTY. Crime against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed. Read it here --Emir Arven 15:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And again the same story; why does everything have to do with politics. Any subject started beginning from, duh, let's say clay ends up with ethnic cleansing and ICTY. Geez. In any case, what does the upper-mentioned have anything to do with an ethnic hatred (maybe with a part of the article, but why outright deletion?) HolyRomanEmperor 17:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Emir, you too want to mislead people. The page you gave link to doesn't mention the term "serbophobia" anywhere. Furthermore, Milosevic doesn't admit that he committed any war crimes, so he surely won't justify them in any way. Nikola 22:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I dont discuss with people who lied about my contribution. --Emir Arven 15:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And obviously (since I directed to you) I do :) HolyRomanEmperor 17:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
cliché... HolyRomanEmperor 17:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - this is pure politically-motivated absurdity; the term is not in current usage anywhere, including Serbia. Instead it emanated from Serbian propagandists atempting to cover up the Serbian poitical establishment's disregard for international law, human rights and human dignity. The simpple test is: do the authors really believe that people would go out of their way to criticise or oppose Serbian politics if it did not engage in genocide, ethnic cleansing and racism? I think not. This kind of article represents a mis-use of wikipedia as it has no practical informational or educational benefit.
    • Note: the comment was made by anon editor, 81.86.117.89 who had (possibly) three contributions before. Nikola 22:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this is serbophob attack on the term. At least three persons here are spreading anti-Serbian propaganda, which can be seen in their edits, as well as from their explanation for this deletion. If anyone knows what is phobia agains one people, Jews know it and one Jew said that there is a phobia against Serbs. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 12:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That Jew is Slavko Goldstein, one of the 20% Yugoslav Jews that survived the Holocaust. HolyRomanEmperor 13:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is pathetic that you are trying to involve Jews here. If anyone knows about Serb propaganda and mytholog it is Tilman Zülch. "Serbofobia" is just another Serb myth, based on Vojislav Šešelj and Slobodan Milošević accusations against the rest of the world (and Vatican?!)--Emir Arven 16:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think its absolutely pathetic that you resort to accusations of "Serbophobia" to defend the term. Do you know any of us personally? Do you know if any of us have Serb relatives, by any chance? Friends? Co-workers? I used to have a high opinion of you as a wikipedia editor; one whose quality contributions transcended the lines of nationality that so often marred input from our region. Now I see that you're little more than Smolenski's virtual sock-puppet, subject to the whims of general nationalist outrage among your less-credible peers. Asim Led 23:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You should understand two things: (Greater) Serbian nationalist propaganda and Serbophobia. Whether anyone liked it or not; both exist deeply.
This is the first time that I hear about profession of "humanrightist"... Why is Tilman so special? Nikola 22:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - The article is a stub, not wikified and has several other issues; but they are bound to improve one way or another... By the way, if its just about a term, it belongs to the wiki dictionary. HolyRomanEmperor 13:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I live that everyday --Cécilou 14:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak to normal keep - per Millosh, but I'm not interested in politics. --Dungo (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - No reason whatsoever to delete it. True, article should be expanded, but that is exactly an argument against deletion -- Obradović Goran (talk 18:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Nobody is afraid of Serbs. People are afraid of dictators that may be head of state in every country not only in Serbia.--Epirus 21:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this is serbophob attack on the term. See Millosh's comment. --M. Pokrajac 22:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - as per Millosh, Pokrajac and others. This is a bizarre, entirely unfounded serbofob attack. What this term was used to justify in the near history is a topic for the talk page of this article and not an argument for deletion. Whether somebody is afraid of Serbs, just hates them for no reason or perhaps both, is again their own psychological issue and a topic for this article rather than a reason to delete an article about this term. For a very nice example of this still well and alive, enjoy this homepage http://www.thompson.hr of a man who still draws tens of thousands of youths who get ecstatic every time Serbs are mentioned in one of the many very unpleasantly peculiar ways. --Dzordzm 22:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: the comment was made by an editor who had no non-interwiki or talk page edits before. Asim Led 23:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As well as the person is notable member of community on Serbian Wikipedia as well as he has PhD from one big University from USA. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately, completely irrelevent. Wikipedia policy is that the votes of users who dont have a certain number of edits prior to their casting will not be counted in matters such as these. End of story.
          • Which Wikipedia policy? This user has a couple of thousands of edits on Wikipedia. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • The same Wikipedia policy employed when calculating votes on the Macedonian Slavs/Macedonians issue several weeks back. Asim Led 00:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • This was a local rule for this voting, introduced by ChrisO before the voting process started. Please, find some official rule on English Wikipedia which says that only English Wikipedia user edits are counted for votes for deletion. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • In that case I ask for the relevance of User Smolenski's earlier comment. Asim Led 00:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • There are some differences between anonymous user with three edits and user who has a couple of thousands of edits on Wikipedia. Or you think there are no differences? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • No, I see no difference. In both cases one's credibility is questioned while their argument is untouched. The anonymous user's point is quite valid and well-put - no less valid or well-put than your comrades point just above. Asim Led 04:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I don't see any problem for accepting the vote of any registered user. Voting is still open and the user can register her/himself and verify vote. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I am perfectly fine with my vote not being counted despite my bureaucrat status and 1000+ edits on Wiki. At least I never contaminated the English Wikipedia with poor language, semi-truths, images violating copyright, and nationalistic deletion votes like some others. I would rather see Mr. Asim Led attempt to refute my argument. To claim that Serbophobia does not exist is plain comical.--Dzordzm 00:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                          • My "poor language, semi-truths, images violating copyright, and nationalistic deletion votes" have gotten my articles featured status on the front page. I admire your spirited participation in this debate (though you fail to overcome your colleagues' glaring hypocrisy) but I would appreciate it if you refrained from scouring my talk-page and edits list for minor grammatical errors and ancient rookie mistakes to use as fodder for your unfounded personal attacks. Thank you. Asim Led 00:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                            • This was not a comment directed against you, rather a description of things I myself have refrained from doing. I also refrain from checking other editors' edit list, a virtue not shared by all.--Dzordzm 00:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                            • (The copyvio comment was in particular motivated by the image showing Ratko Mladić in Srebrenica, which was uploaded by user Edvin with no source information at all and who could never be bothered to answer my question about the source so that I could perhaps use the image on Serbian wiki.) As there is another user voting for deletion in the same status as me, I think we can close this discussion about voting rights as irrelevant. Please continue to contribute to the English and other Wikipedias as the active netizens of these respective projects see fit and worthy of their praise.--Dzordzm 00:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Valid and well-put? "The term is not in current usage anywhere" - except in Junge Welt, El Pais, Segodnya and various other media. "It emanated from Serbian propagandists" - says who? "Serbian poitical establishment's disregard for international law" - it actually has more regard than most establishments. Even if the anon would have been a registered user, his comment is false and invalid. Nikola 05:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep See Millosh's comment --Jovanvb 06:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See Dado's comments. Also, so called Serbophobia is created by same minds in Serbia who planned Greater Serbia, genocide in Bosnia, Srebrenica Massacre, just to mention some of the many attrocities done or planned by Serbia in the 1990's. Some groups in Serbia really cannot deal with the facts of the wars in the 90's, but sure they can make the victims out of themselves, arguing "everybody's against us!". No, nobody's against a common Serb, but the Serbian people must face their own history and recent "doings" of their state/government, just like the Germans did after the WWII. When they do that, they will throw the ugly nationalism away that poisons not only the society in Serbia, but the neighbouring countries, as well (this goes for these countries, too).

Anyway, the article should at least have these facts included. --(Nidurhaf) 10:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: the comment was made by an editor who had no user page. --M. Pokrajac 11:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: But who is also a significant contributor on another language version of wikipedia, much like Dzordzm. Asim Led 18:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If someone is significant contributor on another Wikipedia, I don't see any problem for accepting the vote. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • However, when such a contributor votes, someone should say so, just so that others know it. Nikola 05:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Manojlo. Agree with Milosh.
  • Strong keep, see Millosh's comment. --Djordjes 20:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis that the population of Serbia have a particular belief (whether it be right or wrong) that they are unfairly treated. A bit of NPOVing would be timely. David | Talk 20:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - you can't say that there aren't people who don't like Serbs, there are many of those. Just like Russophobia (many Americans don't like Russians), or Anti-Semitism. --Djordje D. Bozovic 20:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have used triple negative. Could you clarify your comment. Also can someone answer me following questions as this is quickly becoming a sort of a current issue and this term (which is being disputed may I remind) is now being used on this page to attack users who are merely posting their comments. The same accusations are being used to gather defensive or "politically correct" support by others. Some perhaps think that if they apply this emotionally charged word in a real situation, such as in their minds is this situation, that it will justify the common use of the term and as a result the article on Wikipedia: Following questions should be the only guideline to settle this issue: 1.Who are people that hate Serbs 2.Why do they hate them 3.What specifically have they done that can be caratherised as phobic behaviour towards Serbs.4. If so how can such behaviour be caratherised as phobic. Thank You --Dado 04:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1. The members of the Ustaša movement and their supporters (quite a mass), perhaps? 2. Because of the Serbs' domination of the Kingdom, I think 3. caused the death (directly and indirectly) of over 1,000,000 Serbs and 4. you got me there :) HolyRomanEmperor 18:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's that in Serbian: "ne mozes reci da nema ljudi koji ne vole Srbe" - hope it's clearer. As to your questions: 1. a lot of various people hate Serbs; 2. for various reasons; some, because some Serbs did something bad to them, some because some Serbs did something bad to someone else, most because of anti-Serbian propaganda they've been exposed to; 3. various things, for example, started the First World War, created concentration camps for Serbs, or bombed Serbia; 4. as is written in the article, The term is used in a non-clinical sense, as a political accusation. Nikola 05:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not dispute that there actually may be a social fenomena in today's society that is similar to "serbophobia", but this is though not scientifically proved and there are no real signs of it yet, therefore the article may be something confusing. Damir Mišić 21:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would you vote strong delete on the basis that the article may be "something confusing"? Wouldn't that rather be weak keep or weak delete? Nikola 05:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you noticed that Dado, who is a Bosniak, voted strong delete, and Damir Misic, who is a Croat, voted strong delete, too. Now that's Serbophobia! :) --213.244.208.152 14:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would ask anonimous user above to refrain from personal attacks. Also your uneducated presumtion of my (and Damir's) identity has been noted. --Dado 14:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now that is just not fear, I am referring to the comment laid out by the anonymous user above. I am accused by him/her of being serbophobic, which is absolutely not true. I do not in any way condone judgement of people based on their ethnicity, religion, color and so on. The way I see it the actual nationalpobic person here is the anonymous user himself, by judging my voting, based on my ethnic background, just shows how much croatophobic he is. Damir Mišić 15:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is that u HolyRomanEmperor hiding behind IP? --Emir Arven 15:47, 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 speedy delete by Pablo-flores (empty article). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vineet karunakaran[edit]

Vulgarity, personal attack Ian Pitchford 21:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Gunns (sales director)[edit]

non-notable 24 year old who works for his father's non-notable produce company TMS63112 21:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 22:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TMS63112. --Ian Pitchford 22:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletel per nom. --Mayur 22:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7. Have tagged it as such. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:48, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pcdestiny[edit]

Alexa: 450k delete

Lotsofissues 22:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Successor to notable web site Suprnova.org. Failing a keep, probably should be merged into the other article. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete external link is dead end  J\/\/estbrook       22:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 01:15, 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. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge and redirect as the mood strikes them. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 19:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missi Romero[edit]

NN bio. Only claim to notability is she once dated a (now married) rock star. Content borders on attack page. keepsleeping say what 21:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 22:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per 23skiddoo. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missi Romero is frequently talked about in Manson's autobiography and formed a key part of the early years. He mentions her as the first person he ever loved Just because she was only Manson's girlfriend does not warrant deletion. If this rule applied to all articles then a number of people would be deleted. Having said that, the article indeed needs brushing up. LuciferMorgan

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Post_Post_Modernism[edit]

I'm leaning toward Patent Nonsense, but I'll let others decide. Definition is spurious. Not a real field of critical theory or actually useful term. Chadamir 22:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. 458 google entries, <50% are invalid hits. Some are informal hyperbole. [42] [43] --Interiot 23:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism and original research. If this somehow survives AfD I'll create sister articles Neopostmodernism and Aprés-Neopostmodernism. Durova 23:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neo-post-modernism (88 google hits), post-post-post-modernism (68 hits), neo-post-post-modernism (4 hits), Post-neo-post-modernism (1 hit). --Interiot 02:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a possible BJAODN per nom. Stifle 01:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete' and not funny enough for BJAODN. --Fastfission 01:51, 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 wasSPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 02:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moti Daniel[edit]

Non-notable Mayur 21:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A7. Have tagged as such. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:23, 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. The consensus is clear here, so I'm following Stevevertigo's suggestion and closing this early.--Sean|Black 19:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy assassination theories[edit]

This page simply offers a target for vandals and kooks to engage in character assassination Fred Bauder 22:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: While I agree with the nom.'s objections; I think we would be best served to keep the article, for without it there would be greater emphasis on inserting these things into other articles. Besides I just spent over an hour rebutting this thing, just to have it deleted. That's just bad mojo. - RoyBoy 800 22:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. George W. Bush gets vandalized a lot. Want to AfD that? CanadianCaesar 22:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - hardly a good reason to delete a page. Both JFK and his assassination are reasonably encyclopedic topics about one of the more prominent politicians in the last century and how he died. Stemming from that are the various theories about how it came about, and its not original research to point out what the various points of view are. Because the 'official version' does not have very broad support, NPOV requires that the various other theories be explained, albeit in a general and condensed way. Are these theories "conspiratorial" theories? Of course, and this should be explained, albeit in a way which does not rely on a pejorative interpretation of the term "conspiracy." I do agree however that 'vandals and kooks' would feel more at home on some Wikipedia fork. ;) -Ste|vertigo 22:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep encyclopedic. Durova 22:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At times "alternative" theories have seemed reasonable. They are also a cultural phenomonon worth documenting. Rich Farmbrough 22:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The Kennedy assassination has one of the largest set of "alternate theories" of any major case, and it's definitely encyclopedic to document them. Certainly no less encyclopedic than, say, 9/11 conspiracy theories, which nobody has listed for deletion. --Delirium 23:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, with a side-order of "ew, this sucks" - it's arguably an encyclopaedic topic, but this version of the article is batshit and is arguably not in any way an improvement on a blank edit box. It will need some SERIOUS NPOVing and absolutely hard-arsed referencing to make a good article on this topic at this title. If we know any non-insane JFK assassination experts on the wiki, please get them on the case - if they can at least reasonably commit to making it a good article and keeping the nutters out, that'll make it worth not shooting in disgust - David Gerard 23:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The article itself is encyclopaedic, but (almost) everything in the article which is not sourced should be removed. Garion96 (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with User:David Gerard, and urge people voting keep to read the article carefully. This is pretty damn awful and ought to be replaced with a one paragraph stub, and then built up, insisting on references for new stuf. No or little content here is reusable. I'm not sure this justifies deleting it from the page history, so I'm not voting, but I'd be interested to see if anyone actually thinks this is good content, rather than that we need an article here. Morwen - Talk 00:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There was a time in the mid-1970s when the United States congress passed a resolution calling the Warren Commission inaccurate. That was done on the basis of evidence that has since been disproven, yet the subject is far too well known to ignore. Durova 00:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and yes I have read the article. Needs clean up, so if some wants to be bold they're welcome to it. Otherwise the subject matter is extremely notable from both an historical and a pop culture perspective. 23skidoo 00:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic. Unbehagen 00:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Noteworthy topic. And deleting it would probably be deemed part of the conspiracy. Jtmichcock 01:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not anywhere near a good reason to delete an article. We can write a good article about this subject, and it it certainly worthy of having one written about it. If the existing article sucks, the answer is to edit it. Bryan 02:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But completely revamp the page. The Kennedy assassination has resulted in the "official" theory of who killed Kennedy and why. The problem is that very few people believe the "official" theory. There are highly committed people on both sides of the issue of "lone gunman" versus "multiple gunman" causing the tone of the discussion to become highly agitated.
But, this should be a factor for keeping the coverage expansive--not limiting it.The two alternative theories seem to be:
1) The "official" assassin, Oswald, was working with one or more other persons; or
2) The "official" assassin was framed by others who actually assassinated Kennedy.
One way of handling this is to merely document the fundamental flaws that plague the "official" theory, and the historical reasons those in control of the investigation claimed it was necessary that the public be convinced that Oswald committed the crime and did so alone.
Another way is to document the the most accepted alternative theories to the :official" theory.
Right now the article is a mess.
RPJ 07:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and cleanup this significant topic. Why isn't Seigenthaler mentioned anywhere in the article? :) Gazpacho 09:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Many books and films on the subject. (Gazpcho: or at least an external link to [44] :)
  • Keep and improve, the topic is important. --Petros471 15:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Un-AFD[edit]

I am un-AFD'ing this under the snowball's chance clause. Current voting (after Petros471) is 13 keep, 3 neutral, with 0 deletes. -Ste|vertigo 18:47, 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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HOM (Mens Underwear)[edit]

Copy/Paste from http://www.hom-fashion.co.uk/pages.php?pageid=5 MNewnham 22:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talark[edit]

Article about a high school gang/secret society/roleplaying game(?). This was nominated for deletion before, and only got 2 votes (1 delete, 1 merge), so I'm re-listing it here. The previous merge vote suggested merging into Vandread, but there is no content suitable for merging, hence Delete as unverifiable, original research. MegamiX 22:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. From the article: "members were trained in militaristic spy-group called the Eastern Alliance early in Grade Four". Sure they were. Delete. Unverifiable. Unencyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect with Vandread the parent anime series. Durova 23:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starblind and Megamix are right. Durova is wrong. In Vandread, Talark is a planet (see this explanation, for example), one populated exclusively by men, moreover; whereas this article is all about a purported school society founded in 2001 that contains, as per the article, at least four girls. The purported society is unverifiable (I found the aforementioned explanation when looking for sources.), and Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, as mentioned. At the very best this is a redirect to Vandread, per WP:FICT (even though, as the cause of the confusion last time around, that article doesn't even bother to explain this very basic facet of the series — Merging this content would only serve to make the article even more confusing, uninformative, and incomprehensible.) Delete the unverifiable content beforehand according to taste. Uncle G 05:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. Stifle 01:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable; close to patent nonsense. Madman 06:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable; I know I have no place to talk here... but.. I happen to be an avid Vandread fan, and this garbage has NOTHING to do with Vandread...OverlordSmurf 09:57, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Odin (Band)[edit]

Non-notable band. The webpage in a .tk webspace is a good indicator. Harro5 22:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity. 302 Google hits, several unrelated. CanadianCaesar 22:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Canadian Caesar. Punkmorten 23:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 01:14, 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. -Doc ask? 18:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Herfst[edit]

Band vanity page per Wikipedia's guidelines. Herfst does not show up on Allmusic.com and their claims read more like crystal ballery than notability. Google doesn't help because Herfst is a foreign word. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 22:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does all this basically mean Herfst isn't good enough to be on Wikipedia? Herfst is an awesome band, they're from Belgium, so of course their name is going to be foreign. Herfst means autumn. I like finding new bands and learning about them, I also like showing other people those bands. If I can't do that in wikipedia, then this place is worthless. Isn't this place meant for that kind of thing? ~yilduz
    • If you can cite sources that this band meets WP:MUSIC guidelines, it can be kept. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Gazpacho 11:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 01:07, 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 Speedy delete for nn-bio. Enochlau 11:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madhab paul[edit]

Vanity page + poorly formatted Ian Pitchford 22:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - perhaps speedy? Rich Farmbrough 22:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a nn bio and non-article. Resume dumps are not assertions of notability by my understanding. Gazpacho 09:15, 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 wasSPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 02:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

South Side Gang[edit]

Non-notable gang from Sydney. I quote the author on the talk page: "It only has 30 members, in Sydney..." Harro5 22:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as attack article. Names a supposed leader who is probably a minor and gives a physical description of the person. Also claims, "Although the gang makes large amounts of money through the sale of illegal drugs and goods as well as money laundering, the main source of cash flow is finaced by a Chinese businessman by the name of Easy Ho." Durova 23:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final Authority (Band)[edit]

High school garage band MNewnham 22:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nowhere close to meeting WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 23:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, come back when you have a record deal and a couple of albums. Stifle 01:06, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzFlood[edit]

Non-notable subject matter and vanity. This organization has been around for two years and has made nary a significant effect on anything. If you look in the history, it was formed mainly as a vanity article for the founders of the group and professors who notably support it. Not to mention, it seems as a non-encyclopedic advertisement. They're branding on Wikipedia now. TheDakPAC 22:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete For reasons specified above. It is far from the primary news-source at Dartmouth, and has no notoriety beyond that campus. TheDakPAC 22:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above --Petros471 00:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, Insignificant college student organization. Not encyclopedic. Vanity.--Luckynumbernine 10:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slowly, per nom. Stifle 01:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete NN, vanity, per nom. --AaronS 02:06, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Balloonism[edit]

Non-notable, not suitable for an encyclopedia. Delete Petros471 23:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm, this reeks of Truthism, but at least that guy was kind of funny. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 23:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- non-notable joke religion. And may His Noodly Appendage have mercy on your soul. Haikupoet 06:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN, Agnte 12:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN, obviously. Stifle 01:06, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Kohn[edit]

Delete We generally delete losing candidates and 3rd party candidates in particular, and the article makes no other claim of notability for this guy. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless any good reasons for keep are given soon. --Petros471 23:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in spite of the spoonerism. NatusRoma 06:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, Wikipedia is not censored. Bruce176
  • Delete due to past precedent on similar articles, unless additional grounds for notability are added. -Colin Kimbrell 22:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. Stifle 01:05, 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. -Doc ask? 18:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Bouakadakis[edit]

Non-notable cast member of a barely notable radio show. Google's showing me 27 hits for this person and the article shows a hint of being written by the subject or a friend of her. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 23:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Autumn Bouakadakis is a well-known radio personality in Austin, Texas. I believe this page does not warrent deletion. Remieng
    • Then please add sufficient information, citing sources, to the article to demonstrate that she satisfies our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. At the moment, all that the article tells us is her school history, her hopes and her aspirations, and that she works as a producer at a radio station. Please cite some biographies, news coverage, books, in depth magazine articles, and suchlike that are about this woman. Indeed, please cite anything, apart from Autumn herself or someone quoting her, that verifies the first sentence of the biography in article (that she was "conceived in a trailer"). Uncle G 06:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hopefully speedy as nn-bio. Stifle 01:04, 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 'Speedy delete' under CSD:A7. Owen× ☎ 23:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cockerham[edit]

Vanity? Nonsence? Not any where close to being in a encyclopedia. Banana04131 23:14, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Home Again Microchip[edit]

Advertisment Ian Pitchford 23:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Croat Canuck 23:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 20:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert possible copyio. Stifle 01:01, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yaumaclaus[edit]

Besides being misspelled by any sane criteria, this is ridiculous fancruft from The O.C. that wouldn't have a place in the main article. delete GTBacchus(talk) 23:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nominator. FCYTravis 00:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 20:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn fancruft. Stifle 01:01, 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. -Doc ask? 18:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red China Magazine[edit]

An article on a magazine that has not been published. Vanity. Hurricane111 23:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A 'magazine that has not been published?' If it is a magazine then it goes without saying that it has been published. It is a non-profit corporation with a significant readership and a print version for sale. You jump the gun, sir. I would urge you to do your research. --Jon500 00:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I retract the statement that it has not been published. However, I still assert that it is not notable - unless you can demonstrate your statment regarding significant readership. --Hurricane111 00:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Red China Magazine currently has over 300 subscribers. It's online version receives between 200 and 900 hits a day, and receives hits in the tens of thousands per month. --68.161.132.86 23:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable magazine. Stifle 01:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Significant readership has been established. I should ask that you google the magazine and see what turns up: It is linked to by leading print and internet magazines. It is reviewed and rated and appears in most major literary magazine listing sites. Do you still go so far to say that the magazine is not notable? By what standards? Indeed, would you argue that the contributors themselves, prominent and emerging artists in their fields, are non-notable. Please explain yourself, as opposed to casting a throw-away vote.--68.161.99.74 23:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - they have had 4 issues so far, which is not a lot of issues. Whilst I don't know the rules for number of subscribers, I imagine it is probably similar to the magical 5,000 number for forum members - hence 300 is somewhat too few. With only 4 issues so far, it is too new to have established significant notoriety. I could find no google news articles on the magazine. Whilst Alexa might not directly apply in this case (as it is a magazine rather than just a web site), Alexa doesn't recognise it. Since it is an "online magazine", Alexa probably does apply. I am sorry, but it has no claims to notoriety, beyond existing. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete exactly per Zordrac. -feydey 23:40, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Paradox 2[edit]

Non-notable, unreleased game. To wit, there are two search results for "The Paradox 2 - The Zone" and searching for "The Paradox 2" alone produces irrelevant results. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:57, Dec. 16, 2005

  • Delete per nomination. Durova 20:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 01:00, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Anything, Everything, Etc.'[edit]

Non-notable EP that have 0 hits in allmusic and Amazon.com Hurricane111 23:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I wish stuff like this should was speedyable. Jasmol 02:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is speedyable, actually - two other vanity articles by this user were speedied earlier today. Note the name of the artist, and the editor's username. -- Vary 03:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedily or otherwise. Stifle 01:00, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cybarcafe[edit]

Advert, with link to site R!ch 23:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following by mistake added to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 16 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_16&oldid=1081091847"