Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 16 December 18 >

Purge server cache

December 17[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 16:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Action game[edit]

Incoherent text Ben Epsilon 00:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Action-adventure game. There is no significant content there now, but the title itself is okay. Tom Harrison (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Action-adventure game as per above, OR consider moving Action-Adv game to action game... - Naif 05:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and also have Adventure game as a separate category. Historically, Action and Adventure are different categories. Adventure games came first, and were text-only games - they don't exist anymore (at least not commercially). Some free games exist that are text only though, like Angband (game) - THAT is adventure. Action game has graphics. Adventure game doesn't. Not historically. They are totally different games. I realise that some genres have combined, and so forth, but the fact that many gaming sites have 1 category for Action and a completely different category for Adventure suggests that they should be separate. Whether we should keep Action-adventure game is another matter. I would dispute that article's existence, not this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Adventure game already exists as a category. Action game should too. Get rid of Action-adventure game. Simple. They are totally different categories. Oh, and Roguelike should be a sub category of Adventure game. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this, keep action-adventure as a separate article. This isn't a very good article at the moment, but they're definitely not the same genre and even though the term action game was more popular in the past, it's still used ([1]). And yes, action-adventure games are a completely separate genre from action games and adventure games. - Bobet 13:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article. An action game is something along the lines of Gradius or Final Fight. An action-adventure is something like Zelda. Two completely disparate but important genres deserve two different articles. Mo0[talk] 18:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the topic should have its own article and the current text is not too bad.--Bkwillwm 18:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve Jcuk 22:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Mo0. —Brim 06:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs work. --King of All the Franks 04:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 19:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - thanks everyone for pointing out to me that action-adventure is its own category. I had just thought that it was a lazy way to describe adventure type games or action type games without giving them their own categories, since nowadays there are so few action games or adventure games. By the way, is there consensus that roguelike should be a sub-category of adventure? I personally can't see how it can be considered to be action. Does it really deserve its own category? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:18, 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus and the joggers[edit]

"One day at Kabalammy's house, they did a jam with Sammy on the keyboard and E-Bill playing bass. It is now legendary, as it is brilliant and heartwarming." Label? Tours? The band name seems improperly formatted in the title of this piece. Help us out, please. Hamster Sandwich 23:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonsense. Alr 01:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above Tom Harrison (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above Billbrock 03:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable band bio. xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC--MONGO 04:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article poorly writen and cannot find any info to backup article. Bananas21ca 17:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is pure nonsense - (Erebus555 18:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. As for nonsense, it could be the author just doesnt speak good English....I have no doubt if I wrote an article in French, someone would say it was nonsense!!Jcuk 22:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This article was obviously written by one of the band members or someone close to them, yet it says "no one knows any of the members real names". --Metropolitan90 23:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Brim 06:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above —Onlyemarie 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 21:39, 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fern Ridge High School[edit]

A poorly written and trivia-laden article on a school. Doesn't assert notability. Cmdrjameson 00:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but needs massive cleanup, probably a total rewrite. I was almost certain this thing was some sort of hoax (especially the Blow Pop part) but to my amazement, it's true! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Appears to be an acutal high school in Missouri. [2] Durova 00:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, should be cleaned up. In the absence of material that would warrant a seperate article, I vote to merge with Parkway School District. Keep Well done to the editors who cleaned it up. Capitalistroadster 00:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep <remove person attack>. Kurt Weber 02:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a High School. Message to nom- use cleanup tag next time instead. -- JJay 02:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cleanup or Delete in it's current form it deserves to be deleted, but if someone cleans it up some it could be an ok stub. xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Changed vote to Keep, as it's been cleaned up signifigantly. xaosflux Talk/CVU 16:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep high schools are notable--MONGO 04:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as we will almost certainly have a good article sooner that way. CalJW 05:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - real school. Good enough for me. And what's this about a hoax? [3] seems to suggest its real. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, alternative schools are underrepresented in wikipedia. Kappa 08:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SCH as this has the required amount of non-generic information about the school, and is expandable. It's well worthy of its own article, as its far from a typical school. Also note, that virtually all of the original content is now gone, so this is pretty much a new article. --Rob 08:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom --Mecanismo | Talk 12:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not quite sure how you can "Delete as nom". The nomination was based on this, which was changed to this. Essentially, the old article is completely gone, along with the problems it had. Notice below, the nominator is keeping the revised/cleaned-up version. Now you're vote came *after* the cleanup. So, please explain what is wrong with the revised article, as I would be happy to address any remaining problems if it's possible to do so. --Rob 20:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A nice cleanup: it's much clearer why the school is of interest. Cmdrjameson 18:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - NO (real) schools should be deleted. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 21:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Real School, good enough....Jcuk 23:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in accordance with WP:SCH criteria. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete School are not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia --Bucephalus 12:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High Schools. — RJH 21:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Can't sleep. —Brim 06:59, 19 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» 03:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep please this is a notable high school no sense to erasing it Yuckfoo 07:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no credible sources on which an article could be written redstucco 09:32, 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earjo[edit]

Article is a hoax. No references could be found to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spookfish (talk • contribs)

  • Delete for want of verification. Gazpacho 11:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since it's just a random piece of fiction with no context to be found. - Bobet 13:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom +/- original research. Ifnord 15:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Bollocks! (or unverifiable if you prefer) Jcuk 23:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 19:38, 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.

21 KEEPS, 11 Deletes --Nearly a 2 to 1 vote to keep. Travb 04:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The result of the debate was KEEP . mikka (t) 04:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945[edit]

  • Delete This may become a controversial nomination. Was nominated before in May 2004 with no consensus. The article has undergone substantial changes but remains poorly sourced. I nominate on the grounds that this subject is ill suited to list format. Its focus inherently excludes most beneficial aspects of United States foreign policy. From the contentious talk page: "Wise.. you're so naif, yes all US interventions have only one goal: US own wealth... and that's not only true since 1945... that's quite older (at least Gen. Butler sayd that).. you said: "But the United States introduced the world to free elections and democratic constitutions."... please read about the world, FoxNews and CNN are not telling you the truth... US never cares about if ther is or not free elections and constitutions." I encourage other editors to scan the talk page as well as the article to set this in context. This article is definitionally skewed to exclude counterexamples to that opinion. Jimmy Carter's Nobel Prize winning efforts in support of human rights and free elections cannot fit into this list, nor can the many instances of political asylum granted to students from Tienanmen Square and other freedom movements. I don't mean to whitewash United States history. Both sides deserve attention. Only a narrative format can treat the subject fairly. Durova 00:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important topic. Just because it's a bad article isn't reason for a delete. Work on making it better. Unbehagen 00:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can one make it better when most of the facts that would correct the POV problem fall outside the scope of the list? Economic pressure on South Africa to dismantle Apartheid was a process, not an event, and was not a military action. Durova 01:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The title of the article/list doesn't indicate that it's strictly about military action, and foreign intervention can be a process. 23skidoo 04:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought the common definition of "intervention" meant military or espionage action. If that's too narrow then how broad shall we go? If former United States President Jimmy Carter oversees a free election as a private citizen, is that a foreign intervention? When private universities in the United States divest their holdings in a country's industries for ethical reasons, is that foreign intervention? Is humanitarian foreign aid intervention? Do we count private donations as well as governmental ones? When members of the United States military on foreign deployment perform community service work overseas, is that foreign intervention? If so, do we confine this to major disasters like the East Asian tsunami or include smaller command sponsored projects? How about when a United States Navy ship on routine patrol saves the lives of a hundred Ecuadorians? When the United States grants asylum to one African woman who would otherwise be subject to clitoridectomy, is that a foreign intervention? Does it become foreign intervention when the number of refugees is greater? If so, what's the magic number? Durova 05:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Intervention: "To interfere, usually through force or threat of force, in the affairs of another nation."
All of Durova examples do not fall within the dictionary term of foreign interventions:
President Jimmy Carter, community service work overseas, private donations, East Asian tsunami,United States Navy ship save lives, grants asylum
I suggest, if Durova wants to focus on all of the beneficial foreign policy of America, he create a page himself, and then add a "see also" to List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945. His list does not fall within the dictionary definition of "Intervention".
Even if Durova examples do fall within the dictionary term of foreign interventions, Durova is welcome to use the communication process established by wikipedia, to add this information to this article, including but not limited too mediation then arbitration. Ask yourself: has Durova or any of those who vote for deletion attempted mediation or arbitration? Travb 00:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Already covered in Foreign relations of the United States. Capitalistroadster 00:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Items not mentioned in that article include the Bay of Pigs, operation PBSUCCESS, the Afghan-Soviet war, and the US invasion of Afghanistan. This list goes beyond that article and is too long to be merged into it. Gazpacho 10:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Capitalistroadster appears not to have considered the "merge" option. Would he accept the "merge" option, and if not, why? Travb 00:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Foreign relations of the United States covers this well and provides context and not just a list. Jtmichcock 01:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jtmichcock appears not to have considered the "merge" option. Would he accept the "merge" option, and if not, why? Travb 00:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notwithstanding the nominator's heartfelt argument, I have to vote keep for reasons similar to those of Unbehagen. -- JJay 02:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Some of the inane comments on the page make me feel that Durova may have a point. However, this is a completely empty gesture as it's fairly obvious the page will be kept. -- JJay 18:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a good example of a helpful chronological list. Separate purpose from Foreign relations of the United States. It should be linked from relevant articles. Ashibaka tock 03:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination. This is inherently unsuited to a list format. Tom Harrison (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This information is already contained in Foreign relations of the United States and History of United States Imperialism. Movementarian 04:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Movementarian appears not to have considered the "merge" option. Would he accept the "merge" option, and if not, why? Travb 00:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to reduce redundancy--MONGO 04:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • MONGO appears not to have considered the "merge" option. Would he accept the "merge" option, and if not, why? Travb 00:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Unbehagen. 23skidoo 04:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extraordinarily strong keep - I will probably never vote for a stronger keep in my life. USA is the most hated country in the world, and this is the main reason why they are hated. Listing all of them and documenting them can provide a rational way to describe it, and hence Americans can be viewed accurately, rather than with irrational hatred. Americans especially should want this to remain. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being serious here? -- JJay 06:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. is the most hated country in the world because everyone has a different reason to hate them. If they do not interfere they are criticised for doing nothing. If they step in then they are criticised for stepping in. Like it or not the U.S. will never be able to please the world and that is not likely to change, but that is hardly a reason to keep a redundant list. Movementarian 06:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding for why US is the most hated country in the world is because it is the most powerful country in the world. At any time in history the most powerful country was also the most hated (except in times when there were 2 or 3 of roughly equal power, in which case they shared the hatred). I believe that that is the main reason. Romans were hated during their empire, Russians during theirs (which they shared with USA), Egyptians (just have a look at the bible!), British, French, you name it. However, the *reasons* differ. Egyptians were hated for their slave trade, Romans for their orgies, Portugese for their piracy, British for their religious conversion, and so forth. But let's not forget that USA really are the most hated country in the world. No other country engenders such hatred. Are they also the most loved? I don't know. We could perhaps do a poll on that one. Might be. But its not just Arabs that hate USA. Something in the order of 90% of the world hates Americans. Just that Arabs hate them a lot worse than say Canadians. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Romans for their orgies, Portugese for their piracy, British for their religious conversion- yeah, that's it, thanks for illuminating me -- JJay 18:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zordrac your comments are inflamatory, irrational, and illogical and actually hurt the argument you are attempting to vote keep for. If I didn't look at your talk page[4], I would think this: One type of sock puppet is sometimes referred to as a "straw man sock puppet." They are created by users with one point of view, but act as though they have an opposing point of view, in order to make that point of view look bad, or to act as an online agent provocateur.
Are you a sockpuppet? absolutly not I cannot stress this enough.
Is your argument so weak it has the characterisitcs of a "straw man" argument, which "makes that point of view look bad" absolutly. Please Zordrac, your "help" actually hurts, it does not help.Travb 01:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indifferent keep. Given the votes so far, this will obviously be kept, either by actual consensus or at least by lack of consensus. And the list seems reasonable enough in annotated with some care. Mostly I just want to chime in in Zordrac's defense on his above vote (I've had some disagreements with him utterly unrelated to this, so take it as a gesture of good will): his argument about US being hated as most powerful country seems perfectly reasonable, and not dissimulative at all. I'm not sure that I actually agree with his position, but there's no reason to suppose he's setting up any kind of straw man, or anything else insincere. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extraordinarily weak keep. I think reducing each event into one line in a list, boiling them down to a soundbyte form, does a disservice to the complexity of international politics. --Agamemnon2 08:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful way to make information accessible. Kappa 09:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but maybe divide up into military ops and covert ops. People who claim that Foreign relations of the United States already covers this, I believe, have not looked at both articles. Gazpacho 09:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Material is not a duplicate of other articles mentioned, and a chronological list is a good way to present many distinct episodes. It has now been divided into military and covert, and there's an 'other interventions' section linking to development aid, intl loans, sanctions, etc.--Squiddy 11:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Movementarian and MONGO.--Mecanismo | Talk 12:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is certainly an important topic, and not the most difficult one in terms of finding the balance of opinions. Deleting it won't achieve anything. It should be improved instead. Flyboy Will 18:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as above --Petros471 20:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "poorly sourced" is an argument for cleanup, not deletion. Turnstep 22:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The political motivations of editors are irrelevant as long as the article itself is NPOV. -- Mwalcoff 22:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's an important topic. -- Mihail Vasiliev 22:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but it needs cleaning up as seems POV.Jcuk 23:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Invalid AfD criteria. Article topic is encyclopedic. — RJH 21:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The assertion that a list is inherently POV is a legitimate reason for nomination. Durova 00:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it? I thought that was what the POV tags were for? Only if it can never stop being POV is it worthy of AFD nomination. I can't see how this has to be POV. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The keyword is "inherently". Kappa 22:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV listcruft.Gateman1997 18:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "since 1945"? List of U.S. foreign interventions should cover all of them.  Grue  15:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • SorryGuy appears not to have considered the "merge" option. Would he accept the "merge" option, and if not, why? Travb 00:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Details are not nessasary. It is covered eslewhere. SorryGuy 22:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • SorryGuy appears not to have considered the "merge" option. Would he accept the "merge" option, and if not, why? Travb 00:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have worse articles--Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz 06:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extraordinarily strong keep Durova, who initiated this recent deletion, states the following five reasons for deleting the article:
  • FIRST:"The article has undergone substantial changes but remains poorly sourced"
  • SECOND: "Its focus inherently excludes most beneficial aspects of United States foreign policy...This article is definitionally skewed to exclude counterexamples to that opinion."
  • THIRD: "Only a narrative format can treat the subject fairly."
  • FOURTH: "Jimmy Carter's Nobel Prize winning efforts...instances of political asylum granted to students from Tienanmen Square and other freedom movements...cannot fit into this list"
  • FIFTH: "I nominate on the grounds that this subject is ill suited to list format." (Same argument as User:Tom harrison)
These five arguments for deletion can all be satisfied without deleting the article. Through editing and communication, all five arguments can be resolved. If communication fails, then as a last resort, mediation then arbitration can be attempted. Ask yourself: has Durova or any of those who vote for deletion attempted mediation or arbitration? Deletion should always be a last resort, not a first one.Travb 00:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. factual article. notable and verifiable topic. mikka (t) 06:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep who'd have thought it - me voting keep on a list? But yes, this list has definite merit. It is noe of the few I have come across which is, in and of itself, encyclopaedic. I'd like to see a bit more context, but actually it is not bad as it stands. The nomination is not without merit, but I believe the criticisms can be fixed. In the end this provides context to a situation whch baffles many Americans of my acquiaintance: with all the good work the US does, why is it not more popular? This list provides a good answer. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WAS 4.250 00:38, 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 NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drug education addicts (band)[edit]

No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Few Google hits. Punkmorten 00:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Alr 00:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep <remove personal attack>. The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of inclusion. Kurt Weber 02:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you check the sole source? Unless I'm missing something it's a broken link. So we have zero verifiability. --Last Malthusian 13:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC --Jaranda wat's sup 03:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and utter lack of information. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:33, Dec. 17, 2005
  • Delete unless someone can create an encyclopedic article out of it.--MONGO 04:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without even getting to the issue of notability, the only source is the band's page (which is not a reliable source) and it's a broken link anyway. --Last Malthusian 13:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Petros471 20:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Delete - Am personally not a deletionist, but I think this has to go....verifiability does it for meJcuk 23:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC User:Zoe|(talk) 01:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, no assertion of notability. --Stormie 02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:02, 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda's bane[edit]

No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. 24 Google hits when excluding Wikipedia mirrors. Punkmorten 00:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Alr 01:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep <remove personal attack>. The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of inclusion. Kurt Weber 02:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it doesn't. Delete Reyk 10:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The big toe of my left foot exists but I shouldn't write an article about it. Unfortunately, little verifiable information exists about this band and there is no evidence that they meet WP:NMG. Capitalistroadster 02:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as part of the fight against inclusionist vandalism. The mere fact that my Internet forum exists does not make it worthy of inclusion. Ashibaka tock 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC --Jaranda wat's sup 03:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication that they've even made a demo tape. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:34, Dec. 17, 2005
  • Delete per Kurt Weber being exactly 100% wrong. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn--MONGO 04:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not seem notable. novacatz 10:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if a band can't make it in the real world, they can't make it here. Wikipedia should not be used as a blog site for wannabe bands; the number of bands and groups nominated for deletion each day suggests a much stronger force must strike down on those who think they can mis-use the music policy. doktorb | words 18:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sorry if I'm a "deletionist vandal" (*snort*). --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 21:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Quote from WP:MUSIC. "This page gives some rough guidelines which we MIGHT use to decide if a musical topic is notable. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does NOT mean an article must be deleted."

caps mine. Jcuk 23:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • However, I think it should be assumed that a band failing WP:MUSIC must have a pretty bloody good reason if they want to be kept, per the variety of other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Saberwyn 22:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we have established multiple precedents with the use of WP:MUSIC. there is absolutely no need to rebuild the wheel. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, furthermore no assertion of notability. --Stormie 02:37, 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sakintek[edit]

No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. 19 Google hits when excluding Wikipedia mirrors. Punkmorten 00:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Alr 00:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep <remove personal attack>. The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of inclusion. Kurt Weber 02:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as part of the fight against inclusionist vandalism. The mere fact that my Internet forum exists does not make it worthy of inclusion. Ashibaka tock 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC --Jaranda wat's sup 03:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this non-notable band. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:35, Dec. 17, 2005
  • Delete nn, vanity link only.--MONGO 04:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novacatz (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Quote from WP:MUSIC. "This page gives some rough guidelines which we MIGHT use to decide if a musical topic is notable. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does NOT mean an article must be deleted."

caps mine. Jcuk 23:36, 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ping (bicycle)[edit]

Possible hoax / neologism. QQ 00:45, 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant power system[edit]

This page just explains the significance of the color of a LED on a certain model of Cisco switch. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. It is possible that a useful article could be written on this topic, but a new article could just as easily be written from scratch. ManoaChild 00:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete below the radar of Wikibooks. Durova 01:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As far as I can tell, this is a few lines from an instruction manual. Jtmichcock 01:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Alr 01:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This could even be a copyvio. xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely useless. novacatz 10:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. It's written so poorly that it is nearly nonsense. --Descendall 23:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable, possible copyvio Jcuk 23:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 19:40, 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel B Swoverland[edit]

Article is pure fantasy. Supposedly invented "LawnMoradio", which didn't generate any Google hits. Also, was a member of Led Zeppelin, found an early hominid named Lucy (the skeleton was helpfully labelled with this name), and landed on the moon. I tried to speedy it (under A7), but it is obvious this article is not about a real person so here it is. Delete. Sliggy 00:56, 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 as hoax. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:22, Dec. 27, 2005

Pam Provis[edit]

Appears to be primarily nonsense. While the two external links do indeed go to things written by someone of this name, most of the rest appears to be false. I can't find any proof that Iqaluit State University exists, that Provis wrote a paper called Latin Americans in Canada: A Chance to Develop the North (supposedly about Mexicans living in the far north of Canada), that it was later the basis for a government study, that there's a company called Provis and Sons Drilling Ltd, and so forth. I suspect someone has invented a fictional biography, borrowing the name to give it a sense of credibility. Vardion 01:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a hoax. Alr 01:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Durova 01:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All I can find on this woman is a comment she made to a BBC website. [5]
  • Keep. I was a colleague of Provis' at Carleton University. The article seems to have a few minor inaccuracies, but is not a fictional biography. I'll try to get in contact with Provis to fix the errors. Jruta 07:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Iqaluit is a city, not a state. It's also in Canada which doesn't have states but provinces and territories. The section on unpaid library fines seem to point to an inside joke. Ifnord 15:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.I was just told about this from a friend who works with Pam through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I am not sure why this would be deleted. Besides two factual errors such as the Iqualuit State, should be Iqualuit City University. Besides that the only other error is that Provis and Sons Drilling Ltd was sold a few years back to Petro Canada. Ms. Provis’ work have been extremely important and influentional inside the department as well as in the Northern Development academic community.Powerinputreset 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I can't find a single mention of "Iqualuit City University", either — or indeed, any organisation which has both "Iqualuit" and "University" in its name. And even if "Provis and Sons" was sold "a few years back", there should still be mention of it somewhere. It certainly isn't mentioned in Petro Canada's historical overview, which mentions all manner of other aquisitions. And you'd think that someone who had been "extremely important and influentional" in an academic field would be referenced somewhere on the internet in relation to that field, but she isn't. Given that both Keep votes here have been made by new users with no contributions anywhere else, I'd consider it probable that they're both the hoaxer in disguise. (And anyway - even if all this content is all true, it hasn't meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Verifiability, so should be removed unless reputable sources can be found.) -- Vardion 23:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, Iqualuit City University is not a separate institution. It is subunit of Nunavut Arctic College in which is in its first year of operation and is able to grant degrees through Brandon University. On the issue of the Petro Canada sale, Ill be honest I don’t know much about her husbands business, I just knows Pam Provis. Pam is in fact going to be presenting a paper at this years Aboriginal Policy Research Conference in which she is the keynote presenter. She has published multiple articles in the Journal of Indigenous Development and the International Migrant Development Journal.Powerinputreset 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Odd, then, that the Nunavut Arctic College's website doesn't mention it. The Brandon University website doesn't mention any connection, either. (Someone has since changed the article to refer to the University of the Arctic, an institution in Finland — but their website doesn't mention Inqalit either). As for the journals — I can't find any evidence that either of them exist. (There's one reference to something called the World Journal of Indigenous Development, which was planned to be launched in Australia at the beginning of this year, but no subsequent mention of it.) Nor can I find anything connecting this "keynote speaker" to the Aboriginal Policy Research Conference, either at the next conference (not "this year", but in 2006) or the last conference (2002). (And this is still ignoring all the other problems, such as any mention of her supposed "bestseller" about Latin Americans in the Arctic.) -- Vardion 01:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well as I stated it’s a first year project so it might not be one their website yet. As to both those journals, since I am the editor of International Migrant Development Journal can tell you that exists. Pam is in fact going to have another article published in our first issue of the 2006, “Conclave Electoral Process: A Concept for the Inuit”. Powerinputreset 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I still can't find any evidence whatsoever that this journal exists. Perhaps, since you say you edit it, you could point us to some? -- Vardion 02:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
University of the Arctic is an umbrella institution that links small, unknown institutions and allows University education in the North. Don't forget, in the Arctic, some campus' insitutions might only be temporary or count in the 10s of people, due to small populations. So the University of the Arctic comment shouldn't be used as leverage against this person's article.Lewis Murphy 23:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced, and with the unsupported 'Controversy' section it verges on an attack page. --Last Malthusian 12:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, she seems to exist, but she also seems to be the very definition of an 'average academic', and we generally delete those. --Last Malthusian 09:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are some sources. I think maybe the article needs to have more sources but fully deleting it is hurting the broad content of Wikipedia from smaller regions like the north. --Ahsan, pronounced "Essen" 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also say delete, there is a few major factual errors which makes this unworthy of wikipedia. Firstly, here thesis was not titled Latin Americans in Canada: A Chance to Develop the North but in fact called Inuit and Mexicans: Development Opportunities in Nunavut. Secondly her husband is not a oil barron, he is a senior partner in a diamond drilling company Cumberland Resources Ltd. Although the library fines issue is actually extremely accurate, her PHD and MA degrees have been called into question.Lenwilkens 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Can't find any evidence of "Inuit and Mexicans: Development Opportunities in Nunavut", either. Nor can I find any evidence of a "Mr. Provis" having anything to do with Cumberland Resources. -- Vardion 02:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverified and obviously a hoax. And sockpuppets ahoy! Of the above voters:

--Calton | Talk 02:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I can't imagine that every article is perfect from the time it is written. Through the help of several users here, the article appears to be much more credible and is worth keeping. Sully 19 December 2005 (UTC)
But how is the new information any more credible than the old? No evidence whatsoever exists for either — we know that this person exists, but that's about all. (And all the "new users" who suddenly appeared to provide the revised claims could easily just be different incarnations of the original author, anyway.) Even if most of the article happens to be true (highly doubtful), we still need proof of that — and none has been given. -- Vardion 02:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Amusing that Ms Provis is described as "a frequent commentator for the BBC on regional issues" on the strength of a comment from her on the bottom of a BBC article. Those comments are basically 'reader mail', of a slightly lower order of notability than getting a letter printed in The Times, and to describe her as a 'frequent commentator' is nonsense. (Interestingly, the quote is taken completely out of context in the 'Controversy' section. Either there are indeed several different associates of Ms Provis writing this, or one schizophrenic.) --Last Malthusian 09:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clear hoax. Besides the above criticisms, the article claims Ms.Provis is an academic at 2 universities and an "important theorist regarding bicameralism in the subnational Canadian context". Then the article points you to a BBC article which Ms.Provis submitted a comment for, in which she states that she is "studying development policy in university". A professor who is at the "forefront" of her specific field would not claim to be studying general development policy when giving their opinion.Spanky 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Adunar 05:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified and probable hoax. So many supporters should have been able to come up with some hard evidence if this were real. -- JimR 05:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable or another childish hoax. --King of All the Franks 19:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, even if I count User:Jcuk. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude2cinema[edit]

Advertising for possible nn company, created by a user with the same name. QQ 01:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. Tom Harrison (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Thesquire 06:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bkwillwm 07:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and improve. nn is not wiki policy, and even if it were, 21,200 hits for the company and 1,560 for the man on Google seem pretty noticable to me.Jcuk 00:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counting Google hits is not research. If your Google search turned up something that demonstrates that this company satisfies the WP:CORP criteria, please tell us what it is. Uncle G 18:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Non-notable" is shorthand for "is not notable enough to be encyclopaedic". WP:NOT an infodump. Please put more effort into your arguments, if this one is representative of what you plan on coming out with in the future. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jcuk. -- JJay 19:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP --Jaranda wat's sup 06:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Romance of the Knight of Kagasto[edit]

Hoax. 0 Google, somewhat racist overtones BadSeed 01:22, 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knight of Kagasto[edit]

Hoax, relating to Romance of the Knight of KagastoDelete --BadSeed 01:25, 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DMJC[edit]

Hoax, related to Romance of the Knight of Kagasto Delete --BadSeed 01:28, 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrozzai Bridge[edit]

Hoax. Relating to Romance of the Knight of Kagasto delete --BadSeed 01:30, 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tal-Haddis[edit]

see above --BadSeed 01:36, 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Strudel Noodles[edit]

Non-notable music ensemble achieving 20 search results [6], the first of which is Myspace.com. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 01:38, Dec. 17, 2005

  • Delete per nom. Alr 01:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- p_b1999 (Talk|Contribution) 02:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep <remove personal attack>. The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of inclusion. Kurt Weber 02:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as part of the fight against inclusionist vandalism. The mere fact that my Internet forum exists does not make it worthy of inclusion. Ashibaka tock 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC --Jaranda wat's sup 03:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Please take care in accusing editors of vandalism when they are following established voting guidelines. Also note WP:Point. Durova 03:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:MUSIC and WP:NOR. —Slicing (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This band fails to meet any criteria in WP:MUSIC. Movementarian 04:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am an inclusionist. To me it doesn't mean that we never delete anything. It means that we tend to keep more things than people described as deletionists. Obviously things with no notability, which this group has, for all intents an purposes, should not be in an encyclopedia. Logophile 09:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, fails notability standards. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zoe really did write that Uncle G 19:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, yes, was there some question? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, saying "keep this because it fails to meet my standards" is a little odd. It's the sort of thing you more often expect to see because someone has edited other peoples' comments and replaced "delete" with "keep". --Stormie 05:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, no assertion of notability. --Stormie 02:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zoe. -- JJay 19:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - waste of bits (actual policyesque reasons for deletion already stated by others). -- Cyrius|✎ 19:54, 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Castle Hassenban[edit]

There's more! --BadSeed 01:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Thank you for unearthing all this nonsense. Durova 03:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Movementarian 04:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Jamie (talk/contribs) 05:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 19:50, 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Troopers[edit]

and another one BadSeed 01:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

125th Batallion[edit]

Last one for now! BadSeed 01:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Durova 03:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Movementarian 04:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Jamie (talk/contribs) 05:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 19:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with regard to the parallel AfD discussions on this hoax. Barneyboo (Talk) 19:53, 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 03:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PRO-Tector[edit]

Non-notable copy-prevention software, non-encyclopedic content, reads like advertising, allegedly copied off of manufacturer's website - discussion on Talk: page recommends deletion. Superiority 01:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advert for NN company. Alr 01:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nn company spam  J\/\/estbrook       20:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, as above. --Petros471 20:54, 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 09:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Movie[edit]

Vanity/spoof; putting for AfD rather than speedying since I'm not quite sure. NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no questions asked. Alr 01:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity -- p_b1999 (Talk|Contribution) 02:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny, I came across this, did a double-take, came about || that close to putting it up here myself. I can't verify it and it's not sourced. Delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are "films" that have never been shown in a cinema. Neither notable nor verifiable. Capitalistroadster 09:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete this article although the Fight Movies aren't big Hollywood films they do have a audience among indepedent film makers. Deleting this article will be like sending a message to all non-Hollywood film makers that just because the films weren't multimillion dollars hits they don't exist. I believe that all films regardless of how much money they make should be recognized.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The providers[edit]

article is about a band and does not specify why it is notable per WP:MUSIC. Delete. delldot | talk 01:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, since it gives no information as of now. It might or might not be this band [7], but there's no way to find out with the info on the article, and the band in the amg link isn't notable by WP:MUSIC anyway. - Bobet 13:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom +/- vanity. Ifnord 15:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unverifiable Jcuk 00:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SorryGuy 22:31, 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 keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kok-Yangak[edit]

Appears to violate WP:NOR. Delete. I knew it was a real place, with even an existing link to it (Kurmanbek Bakiyev). I just didn't want to try to do a legitimate article. Keep Bikeable's rewrite (could be speedy keep). JamesMLane 02:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This articles doesn't make any sense, is it about a place, or a creature? xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as rewritten, looks like an OK stub now. xaosflux Talk/CVU 16:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- "I have researched" is always bad. Or just write an article about the city in Kyrgyzstan Kusma (討論) 04:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Violates WP:NOR per the creator's admission. Durova 05:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious OR, as noted above. PJM 06:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (rewritten). This is a real town, and as such is clearly notable. I rewrote the article from the previous OR nonsense to a stub about the real place, about which little information is available to me. I think that any town of that size definitely deserves an article. Bikeable 06:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and kudos to Bikeable. -- JJay 07:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done, Bikeable before I proceed to speedy keep. Capitalistroadster 16:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or speedy keep Bikeable's rewrite if everyone agrees. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Designieure[edit]

The term appears to have been invented by the website designieure.com, and is not in widespread use Matthewmayer 02:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not encyclopedic based on the definition given by the article itself. And it's an ad. This article's been around since january, and since the word still hasn't caught on, it's pretty unlikely that it ever will. - Bobet 13:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, as per nom. --Petros471 20:56, 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:26, Dec. 27, 2005

The Class Hyosung[edit]

A grammatically flawed article about some local car dealership in South Korea. --ApolloBoy 02:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Alr 03:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete local business. Gazpacho 11:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. --Petros471 20:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. rewrite and expand. A real company. Jcuk 00:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete - get rid of advertising. Madman 15:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what do you people have against south korean car dealerships anyway--Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz 06:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By the way, User:Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz has just been vandalizing pages inserting random comments about john stewart. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment they're not random, they are true and notable facts, to the best of my knowledge anyway--Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz 07:06, 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:31, Dec. 27, 2005

Hansung Motor Company[edit]

Yet another article about a local South Korean car dealership. --ApolloBoy 03:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete local business. Gazpacho 11:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete --Petros471 20:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. rewrite and expand. A real company. Jcuk 00:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • But it is a non-notable company.--ApolloBoy 07:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no credible sources on which an article could be written redstucco 09:32, 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. The consensus is very marginal at best, but I looked at the three links Kappa provided, and the first couldn't be found, and the second was a local Korean newspaper. I don't think this company is that much internationally notable. — JIP | Talk 18:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gojin Motors[edit]

Another article about a non-notable South Korean car dealership. --ApolloBoy 03:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete local business. Gazpacho 11:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. --Petros471 20:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. rewrite and expand. A real company. Jcuk 00:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - get rid of advertising. Madman 15:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not advertising, gets mentions in national and international newspapers [8] [9] [10] Kappa 23:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. —Cleared as filed. 05:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So how come a "non-notable" car dealership gets international coverage? Kappa 05:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Wald[edit]

Wikipedia doesn't even have an entry for this series; Google doesn't seem to know about it either. Anabanana459 03:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smaskens[edit]

Wikipedian User:Smaskens. Full length-photo of himself, clothed, with Christmas ornament hanging off his belt and hanging in front of his crotch. Self admitted alcoholic. His looks into the camera and his eyes say: Do me! -- Fplay 03:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. I marked this as db-bio, and left a talk message for the poster, suggesting they move it to their userpage. xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also note that it has been that since March 2005 . -- Fplay 04:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete!! Smaskens, Schmaskens - being non-notably Swedish is NO EXCUSE! Eddie.willers 05:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. PJM 06:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. How the f**k has this survived for so long? We really need a way to keep garbage out of public view before it has been reviewed by someone. u p p l a n d 08:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per CSD A7. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 08:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles J. McCarthy III[edit]

Vanity page. Cuchullain 03:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete self promotion/advertising. Bjelleklang 03:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. nn bio, marked for CSD. xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Movementarian 04:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Clearly nn-bio. PJM 06:17, 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 09:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EMaxHealth[edit]

Advertisement for a website. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam. xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam/ad, doesn't even try to sound like an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Vary 03:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definately advertisement James084 03:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samual L. Overland[edit]

The creator of this article (User:Cheerio (talk · contribs)) has only created this article and linked it to List of Victoria Cross recipients by Name - O. As the Victoria Cross recipients after the Falklands War are very well known, and this man is not, I have reason to believe that this is either a vanity article, or a hoax article. In addition, the sources provided in this article make no mention of this man. Deathphoenix 04:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. Alr 04:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax and a disgrace (I realise that is not offical policy, but it is a disgrace). Overland is not listed here List of Victoria Cross recipients by Name - O or here or here List of Falklands War Victoria Cross recipients. Movementarian 04:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable probable hoax. 19 Google hits for "Samuel Overland" none verifying any of this [11]. Capitalistroadster 04:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:Complete Bollocks. Where to start? The British military land forces are NOT the 'Royal Army' but the plain old 'British Army. No army enlistee is automatically given a commissioned rank because of his 'background' without attending Sandhurst military academy... etc, etc etc... Eddie.willers 05:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Some 20 days back there was Samuel Overland, who got Nobel prize for literature, confidant of Nelson Mandela, friend of Mother Teresa etc. etc. - some details at Talk:Mother Teresa. Give the creator of this article, some company with Willy-on-wheels gallery of rogues and block the IP permanently if possible. --Gurubrahma 16:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block IP permanently if poss. Deliberate garbage. Moriori 19:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block IP per above. Turnstep 22:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you guys are talking about 67.188.240.163 (talk • contribs)? The IP, belonging to Comcast Cable Communications, has been in touch with me regarding my reversions, and has mentioned the class action lawsuit in an attempt to intimidate me into reverting back. If a block is appropriate, it shouldn't be too long (as that IP might be dynamic), and I don't think AfD is the place for it. If the IP continues with threats or intimidation, I'll try and report it to the appropriate place. --Deathphoenix 03:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Gentlemen and Ladies:

I understand that this page is in conflict with your regulations. Remove it if you must. I understand that Dr. Overland has not yet been accepted by the international community. You have my assurance that no more posting on the matter will come from me. My future editing will be pallatable to the Wikipedia community.

--67.188.240.163 05:13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaider[edit]

NN forum. As the article says; 10.000 posts in 900 threads which in my opinion isn't large enough. Bjelleklang 04:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doubt if it meets WP:WEB. Doesn't appear on first page of Google search for the word see [12]. A search of Australian newspapers for Adelaider forum found nothing at all. Delete. Capitalistroadster 05:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Comment/addition: Criterias from WP:WEB:

  • A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community;
  • Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better (...)

Alexa doesn't rank the forum amongst it's top 100.000, and as a little comparison, vg.transact.no is listed at around 40.000-50.000th place, and has <2,6 million posts, and ~168.000 threads, compared to 10.000/900 for Adelaider.com. Bjelleklang 05:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 17:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tee productions[edit]

NN record label (from WP:NEG) Jamie (talk/contribs) 04:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep until notability further verified. I get 14,200 Google hits, they appear to relate to this company. I'll change my vote if proven otherwise, but they appear notable enough. Ifnord 15:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep also apparent owner survived AFD while back Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Tee  J\/\/estbrook       20:44, 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 (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vatolaivy[edit]

NN village in Madagascar; bare stub. (From WP:NEG) Is this worth keeping? Jamie (talk/contribs) 04:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. Rapid check on google shows village may have some significance. [13] -- JJay 04:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Have cleaned it up although it is still pretty basic. Capitalistroadster 05:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clean up, and expand...as per above. PJM 06:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real village. Kappa 09:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real place, villages are not nn. Counter systemic bias. Punkmorten 11:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Punkmorten Jameswilson 00:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or speedy keep if everyone agrees to. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (from nominator). Jamie (talk/contribs) 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Starblind Jamie (talk/contribs) 05:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Radwan[edit]

Really not relevant to anything could be nn-bio --Adam (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete and now tagged as CSD. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied by me, classic speedy candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:24, 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 redirect to Doug's 1st Movie. howcheng {chat} 17:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doug: The Movie[edit]

Sub-stub with only three edits, to which nothing links, about a film which already has an article. Boxclocke - "!" 04:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Doug's 1st Movie. Movementarian 04:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. 23skidoo 04:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Firebug 04:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no problem with a redirect, and would have just done so in the first place, but "Doug: The Movie" returns <1000 google results, and very few of those seem to be instances of title confusion about this specific film. "Doug's 1st movie", however, returns >34,000 google results. Boxclocke - "!" 05:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Doug's 1st Movie. Capitalistroadster 06:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect--I think that the google count would tend to undercount this error--people writing about Doug's 1st Movie on the web are likely more knowledgeable than the average person seeking info on it. Meelar (talk) 07:01, 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 all. howcheng {chat} 08:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony & Brian Toro and Chelsey & Kahley Cuff and Erin & Ramona Richter[edit]

NN child actors. Jamie (talk/contribs) 04:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: these three are part of a much larger set of twins contributed by User:62.16.202.204. Some of these will have been notable, and some not. If the consensus on these turns out to be delete we should check the others to see which ones also merit a listing here. Jamie (talk/contribs) 05:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I'm probably one of the more inclusionist voters when it comes to actors, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Let's face it, anyone who appears on TV at age 2 or younger is basically more of a prop than an "actor" per se anyway. Anthony & Brian Toro is especially bad, since they seem to have only appeared in one episode (the pilot), and somebody else took over for the actual series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nomination and Andrew Lenahan. --Metropolitan90 23:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Toro twins Keep the restJcuk
  • Delete Andrew, Keep Brian My reasoning is obvious. Love live Brian Toro! God 02:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC) (the preceding comment is by 147.9.49.51 (talk · contribs), not God. 147.9.49.51 has 8 edits, all to AFD discussions.)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. I note that the only keep vote was "contingent on a rewrite/stub", which has not occurred in the two weeks since the article was nominated for deletion. Mindmatrix 20:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble era[edit]

although interesting reading,...appears to lack tangible data to support what appears to be someone's theory...Ariele 04:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • We obviously require an article on the bubble-era, because the term is important and very widely used as a synonym for the 90s. The problem is that this article needs to be mashed down to a stub from where it might blossom correctly. Nevertheless, I'm inclined to vote Keep contingent on a rewrite/stub. -- JJay 07:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. Delete unless sourced. Dlyons493 Talk 02:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is original research. 70.237.242.241 14:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take Back The Base![edit]

Non-notable neologism from a computer game. Google gives 643 hits, none of the first 20 relate to this article. Klaw ¡digame! 04:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Thesquire 07:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Computerjoe 14:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And just for the record, I coined the phrase "Delete this article!". I'm the famous internet personel and gamer, Nezu Chiza, so it must be true! Right? :P Nezu Chiza 06:06, 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 druidcruft (I like that word). - ulayiti (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Roggeman[edit]

Non-notable druid. "hans roggeman roma aeternae" has three Google hits. Delete druidcruft. Kusma (討論) 04:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge to Shoe fetishism. - ulayiti (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe dangling[edit]

funny article but a dangling shoe on a lady's foot is not only odious but also not very sexy. Is the dangling shoe the wearer's foot fetish or the observer's foot fetish?Ariele 05:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Real (but odd) fetish, or perhaps more accurately a subcategory of Shoe fetishism and probably should be merged there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Andrew Lenahan. Eddie.willers 05:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if there is some verification or something. -- JJay 07:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Dic.def. —Brim 07:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to merge or delete
Why? <<cheers>>,,,Ariele 02:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if there's a need to, but I think this article can stand by itself, if merged, it should merge with foot fetishism or shoe fetishism--Cuperdon 21:06, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Lucas[edit]

Afd: lacks notability, vanity page Hirudo 05:07, 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 if you squint a bit and sorta close one eye, it almost looks kinda like a delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaga Bryan[edit]

Not notable, vanity. Xtra 05:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Velvet cream and Velvet-Cream redirects to this page and should be deleted too[reply]

  • Delete for being entirely non-notable and unverifiable. No hits from Google or Incywincy on 'Kaga Oscar Bryan' or variations. Eddie.willers 05:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. --Daveb 05:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. PJM 06:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability shows up. novacatz 09:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Creator of this page (User:210.185.71.82) was responsible for some borderline vandal edits before creation of this article. novacatz 10:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Here's your verification from the Epicentre Theatre Company
http://www.epicentretheatre.org.au/bios/biosB.html#Kaga_Bryan
If you're not in town or in the industry..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckye (talk • contribs) 17 December 2005
Comment: Bio page is from a listing of hundreds of actors in a amatuer local theatre company. Still nn in my eyes. novacatz 10:18, 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 09:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle Kung Fu[edit]

It's a joke,,,,ha ha ha ha ha....Ariele 05:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 05:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: from the same author, User:128.235.249.80, we have: Eagle Kung Fu, Golden Snake Kung Fu, Lion Kung Fu, Rat Kung Fu, Snake Kung Fu and Turtle Kung Fu. Of these, some look like real articles, and some look like junk. Perhaps a martial arts expert can tell us which ones are real? We currently have two Kung Fu articles on todays AfD. Jamie (talk/contribs) 05:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So obscure that even most devotees of Kung fu don't know about it. Even if it is a real but extremely obscure variant, is it something many people would want to look up in an encyclopedia? Not in my book. Chris the speller 17:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if real, it is vanishingly non-notable. There are no schools for this style that I have ever heard of, either in China or the West. While the turtle is an important animal in Taoist imagery, the article cites no sources for its assertions. --Fire Star 21:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article's kung fu is weak. —Brim 07:06, 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 09:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield Effect[edit]

Hypothesis about all towns named "Springfield" are "linked" to each other. Invented by User:Acb -- Fplay 05:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Original research, no verifiability, and a hoax. --Apostrophe 05:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Durova 06:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as surrealist joke ie hoax. Capitalistroadster 06:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at least he likes The Simpsons. Croat Canuck 06:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I'm pretty sure this is a joke. Reyk 11:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was at first unsure about this article. It sounded like a pure hoax, but a search on Google provided a few hits that predated this article. However there were only a dozen or so hits. I would chalk this up as unverifiable and not notable. —Brim 07:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 19:52, 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 09:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben hale[edit]

Minor author of one book, published by a small press, and languishing in the hinterlands of Amazon's book rankings. The small press in question smells like a vanity press, though I can find no conclusive evidence one way or the other. Geogre's Law also applies. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 05:30, 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 09:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Insert (band)[edit]

Non-notable band, possible vanity entry. No Allmusic entry. Article starts "Insert is a mostly unknown band..." Klaw ¡digame! 05:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 06:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, released one demo. Punkmorten 11:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With a little more fame, they will still be wretchedly obscure Chris the speller 17:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete band vanity  J\/\/estbrook       20:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 19:52, 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 09:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Insert Demo Here[edit]

Non-notable demo tape by nn band Insert (band) also up for deletion. No Allmusic entry for band or record. Klaw ¡digame! 05:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 06:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is nothing but a track listing of a demo tape. xaosflux Talk/CVU 16:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet-Cream[edit]

Copy of nominated-for-deletion article Kaga Bryan. Daveb 05:33, 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. howcheng {chat} 08:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Kung Fu[edit]

interesting...however doubtful branch of Kung Fu...animal imagery typical in the art of Kung Fu but this article wasn't written that way. Ariele 05:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.,,,I'm browsing at the Wikipedia backlog of articles submitted for verification. I'm by far NOT a martial art expert, but I've had some exposure to Judo, Karate, and a little bit of Tai Chi Chuan. Animal imagery is commonly used however, the articles were written in such a way to suggest those are branches of Kung Fu...maybe they can be merged into the main Kung Fu article?...,,,Ariele 06:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if real, it is vanishingly non-notable. There are no schools for this style that I have ever heard of. The article cites no sources for its assertions. --Fire Star 21:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lions and tigers and bears, oh my--Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz 06:49, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kings College Society of Performing Ukuleles[edit]

College interest group. Established precedent that these are not verifiable and should be deleted

Lotsofissues 05:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only web presence is Wikipedia and its mirrors. Durova 05:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Durova. -- JJay 09:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no credible sources on which an article could be written redstucco 09:33, 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 redirect to Hernia. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Compound hernia[edit]

This article is pointless and contains advertising. -- King of Hearts 05:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Hernia. Jamie (talk/contribs) 05:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; seems pointless. PJM 06:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the advertising, but this is a non notable neologism. xaosflux Talk/CVU 16:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the advertising, sorry. I looked it up after seeing that commercial and I figured others probably would too, so I added this entry to save others the trouble of researching it. The term is used here and there on the Internet too. I'm new to editing, so if this entry is considered unaccepatble, then so be it. 24.155.65.23 23:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reading that article gave me a compound hernia--Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz 06:51, 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. —Cleared as filed. 05:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Folly (Band)[edit]

Is a brief history into a popular local band that will grow in notability as the band does Gijhorne 15:21 17 December 2005

Lacks notability Hirudo 05:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zippies[edit]

See NY Times Op-Ed "Meet the Zippies" It would appear that Wikipedia's Zippie was created as a prank and a sophisticated form of vandalism,,,Ariele 05:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should rewrite to reflect the correct usage of the term. Jamie (talk/contribs) 05:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I got 547 Google hits for "Fraser Clark" in connection to "Zippies," including a Wired.com article. Let's not rush to judgment. This is probably a cleanup project. Durova 06:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following up It's too late at night for me to dig into this properly. Here's the Wired.com article citing Fraser Clark and his use of the term. Apparently his use goes back to 1987. According to [ http://rdues.uce.ac.uk/neologisms.shtml Research and Development Unit for English Studies, UCE Birmingham] Zippies were also a quasi-political faction led by Tom Forcade that broke off from the hippies. Top Google hits for Zippies now refer to young technical professionals from India. Somebody else revise this, please. Durova 06:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. I had heard of the hippies in the 60's. There is this sense as in Wired and there is the Indian tech movement which Tom Friedman has written about. Capitalistroadster 06:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Definitely a real term that was a buzzword in the British media for 15 minutes or so in the early 90s. IIRC, Fraser Clark also established the Megatripolis club night which was like a festival in a nightclub, and which was documented on a 3 CD set. Part of the new age/techno hippy movement of that time. --kingboyk 14:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep title, obliterate content. The text is complete nonsense, but the term is real, Thomas "Tin-earred Neologism Machine" Friedman notwithstanding: I remember the embarassing Wired magazine cover and their attempt at surfing the zeitgeist. I may even have a copy in a box somewhere.
    • Wait, of course it's online. --Calton | Talk 02:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Takes me back a bit! Anyway, there's the evidence I say :-) --kingboyk 10:18, 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 Speedied by User:Meelar Jamie (talk/contribs) 06:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Evans[edit]

Only the claim of a novel redeems this from being drivel. The novel+author gets no google hits. On the offchance that there is some truth I sent it here rather than speedy deletion. DJ Clayworth 06:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged as speedy {{nn-bio}} / CSD A7. The article doesn't even claim notability. (One "ill received" book and some bogus religious movement named after himself...) Jamie (talk/contribs) 06:36, 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 (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

United States 2010 Census[edit]

While this isn't crystal ball per se (it is a scheduled event), this article just consists of a statement of fact (specifically, the article just says it's an event that happens every 10 years). It's way too early to say anything about this yet. Additional: I would support redirect as per Daykart. Nomination withdrawn per rewrite by JJay (good work). 23skidoo 06:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Redirect per Movementarian. Thesquire 07:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 2010 is only four years away. The census requires a great deal of planning, so I'm sure there is a lot we can say. -- JJay 07:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Google gives +65,000 hits for "2010 census" [15] -- JJay 17:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if someone can add more to this article than just "it happens every 10 years so it will happen in 2010" then I'm willing to withdraw my nomination, otherwise we could just as well have a United States 2020 Census article created, etc. 23skidoo 17:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a few quick facts. There's a ton more out there, included current spending and budget negotiations. From what I understand, the Census Bureau has already started gathering data in some areas. -- JJay 18:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better. The original version wasn't much different than saying "the sun will rise next week" but the revised version actually has some meat now. Nomination withdrawn. 23skidoo 19:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. -- JJay 19:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
actually theres no guarentee the sun will rise next week......— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcuk (talk • contribs) 00:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Four years until 2006, this is article has viability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.19.130 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it has a bunch of legitimate inbound links so it would only be recreated if deleted. Kappa 09:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major event and currently the closest U.S. census. Choalbaton 10:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United States Census and as the event gets closer and details are released, undo the redirect and recreate the article. I think 4 years is a bit too far out to create this article. Movementarian 10:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and rewrite after the release of the results Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Mecanismo | Talk 12:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United States Census, Unless someone can hypothesize about what sort of information will be added to the article during the next year. Daykart 16:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Movementarian. xaosflux Talk/CVU 16:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are already a few verifiable facts here which are specific to 2010, and "crystal ball" (in my view) is more to prevent creation of topics which may later turn out not to exist. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — probably about as predictable event as their can be five years down the road. — RJH 21:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Each census is a massive undertaking. Some facts about the planning of the census are presented. This article can be expanded substantially, even before the actual census takes place. —Brim 07:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually withdrew the nomination a couple days ago (the article was suitably expanded), but I don't know how to close this vote. If another admin wants to do so, please feel free. Thanks! 23skidoo 15:56, 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 09:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zadok Morgan[edit]

Google Yields only hits from wikimirrors (this article has been untouched for a year). Since there isn't any info on him and the article itself lacks any life details delete as unverifiable. Lotsofissues 06:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: article is not referenced by any others, appears to be vanity for someone's ancestor. Thesquire 07:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seems to be a list of people he's related to (who probably aren't very notable either). TimBentley 02:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability in subject. If his relatives are notable, they should have their own articles. --Squiddy 10:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to West Bloomfield High School and cleanup. —Cleared as filed. 05:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instructional Project Design[edit]

Non-notable course program at a single high school with a fancy name and a list of participants; delete. MCB 06:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but Rename and use as stub for the high school. -- JJay 07:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to a stub for that school, there do tend to be many references on the web to IPD, but they are not all specific to this program. xaosflux Talk/CVU 16:52, 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, as the dissenting vote below is User:Popstock's first edit, and as I have no idea who "Chi Peng" is. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:45, Dec. 27, 2005

Bumbishop[edit]

Article about a web page that has no Alexa rank and is currently dead (its creator has stopped updating). Only 1440 googles, many on the first page not relevant--I don't think this site was notable even when it was being maintained. Meelar (talk) 06:56, 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 09:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James E. Peace[edit]

Community college instructor, nothing published according to Amazon. delete

Lotsofissues 07:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. --Squiddy 11:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN. --Petros471 21:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Memorial with no valid claim to notability. Dlyons493 Talk 02:31, 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 then create a disambiguation page for various Zachs. —Cleared as filed. 05:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zach[edit]

This page was created by a vandal as a joke. Then another vandal blanked it. This should be an imidiate delete. Tobyk777 07:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This isn't a joke. The New York Times did a story on this Tennessee teenager who was forced by his parents to attend a camp to cure his homosexuality. For this reason, it shouldn't be speedied. However, there are concerns about privacy given that it identifies the guy's personal journal and would obviously allow him to be identified. I suspect that this is the reason that the article has been blanked. I don't think that the notability of Zach outweighs privacy concerns so Delete. Capitalistroadster 08:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Ex-gay, which covers the Zach "controversy" in great detail (I don't think privacy is an issue here). -- JJay 08:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the redirect doesn't sound like it'd be very useful. --Agamemnon2 09:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It helps prevent rebirth of the same page and steers people to info on Zach. -- JJay 09:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per User:JJay. Durova 10:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Zach" is a bad title for this, as most first names are disambiguation pages (see Fred for a model). At best this should be one entry in a dab page on the name, with a link to Ex-gay per above. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then turn into a disambig. --Apostrophe 03:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pope ZachariasDelete and create {{disambig}} page of fellows whose first name is "Zach"/"Zack". — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:49, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kasuki[edit]

Delete - Spam Vanigo 07:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Doubt it meets WP:WEB. Has 886 hits most of which aren't for this forum see [16]. No Google News hits so hasn't generated much meda interest. A newspaper search for Australian newspapers generates no hits at all. Capitalistroadster 09:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertising. Web site appears to be indirect marketing for a T-shirt range. Humansdorpie 15:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Roisterer 08:27, 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 (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Johnson-Powell[edit]

Non-notable bio. I almost speedied it, but thought it wise to double-check via AfD Cnwb 07:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. Bio as it stands does not seem NN to me. However, google check shows she was/is a civil rights activist, the first black female psychiatrist tenured at Harvard Med, published author, national health care authority, role model, etc. Probably also a good example of why speedies should be rolled back. -- JJay 08:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks JJay. Looks like I slipped up. Cnwb 08:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if I seemed direct. I was just making a general comment, not directed at your nom -- JJay 08:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken JJay... all in a day's work, eh? Cnwb 08:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have expanded it somewhat. Don't worry Cnwb - you did the right thing in bringing it here. Capitalistroadster 08:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Kudos to Capitalistroadster for addition of bibliography. Ifnord 15:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (I wasn't entirely certain how to add to this page, so I hope that this is the correct method). Thanks to all of you for your helpful suggestions and advice on how to strengthen this article -- in particular to Capitalistroadster for taking the trouble to create the bibliography which demonstrates Dr. Johnson-Powell's importance as an author and critical thinker. I have added a few edits and have re-written parts of the article -- I am wondering what else you would require to prevent this page from being deleted? Regards, Classicfilms.
  • Don't worry, this won't get deleted. Thanks for submitting the info on this important lady and for your other contributions to the site. -- JJay 22:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks JJay! I appreciate the fact that this page will remain as Dr. Johnson-Powell is a remarkable woman -- glad to be of help. Regards, Classicfilms. 17 December 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete per consensus (with no implied disapproval of creating a new, valid article at this title). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:59, Dec. 27, 2005

Posterior nucleus[edit]

There is no "posterior nucleus" of the thalamus. There is a grouping known as "posterior nuclei", but that would be a different page. The information provided on this page is incorrect, as well. It refers to secretion of ADH and oxytocin, which are secreted by the posterior lobe of the hypothalamus— an entirely different strcuture. Semiconscious 07:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would have said redirect to Posterior nuclei if there was such an article but since there's not, delete. Reyk 22:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point was that this article was confusing the posterior lobe of the hypothalamus with the posterior nuclei of the thalamus. The information presented was mixed combination of both topics. Semiconscious 23:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 22:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I really think they meant the hypothalamus, in which case it should be called posterior nucleus of the hypothalamus. This article contains no useful information, and should be deleted. It refers to a non-existent brain region. Nrets 01:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Billbrock 05:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is misnamed, and the content is covered (and more in-depth) in the properly-named article posterior pituitary. No sense in merging, since it's an incorrect name. —Brim 07:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I just realized that hypothalamus links to this page posterior nucleus, so this article should be about the posterior nucleus of the hypothalamus, which does exist, as Nrets already pointed out. There is no posterior nucleus of the thalamus. I will rewrite this into a new stub article about the correct structure, and I change my vote to Keep. —Brim 07:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: But many things can be called posterior nucleus. I suggest we delete and change the stub to Posterior nucleus (hypothalamus). I'll change the link in hypothalamus. Nrets 16:35, 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 (count on talk page) karmafist 19:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

709 Brown[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion. I moved it here. Appears to be a non-notable residence hall, with possible test edits at the bottom. I recommend Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:19, Dec. 17, 2005

  • Delete. Not about the residence hall, but rather a suite in the dorm. -- JJay 08:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully this page won't be deleted, I'm planning on adding more sections and filling them out, I wanted a place to chronicle the past of the suite. There is alot of information I was planning on adding, I'm new to Wikipedia and hadn't thouroughly read the policies but I can see how it could possibly qualify for deletion under the vanity rule. I didn't think of it at the names atime I started writing it because I wasn't doing it for myself, I've been asked by a lot of people to put a page for 709 so that there would be an easily accesible collection of all the information in one place. Please tell me if it will be deleted or not, I don't really want to write anymore if it is going to be deleted. -- Teknofreak642
  • Probably good odds that it gets deleted. Publish it on a blog site -- JJay 09:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopaedic partycruft. Eddie.willers 13:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Inside jokes. Ifnord 15:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Consider userfying? (ESkog)(Talk) 19:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For what it's worth, the suite (and members of it) have completely changed the physical appearance of the living area in question, influenced university policy from alcohol regulations to standards of behavior, and had a constant and resounding influence in all aspects of the dorm over the course of the last five years. Certainly they deserve as much of a right to existence as, say, Wikipedia's fraternity entries. Regarding the university's social life/community activities, you'd be hard pressed to find any group on campus with a more illustrious history. -PaxilFoley
  • I noticed that one of the reasons for vanity entries not being allowed is that besides the first person, they are rarely contributed to by others. I decided that I would try and undertake the mission of documenting the 709 history, but I don't even come close to knowing everything about the suite and its history, I can gaurantee that if the 709 entree remains, numerous people will contribute to the entree. Teknofreak642 12:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, unverifiable. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A single suite in a dorm is too specific a topic to warrant a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 22:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This entry should not be deleted!! The 709 suite has single handledly changed the perception of the sylvan living area at UMass. It's gone from a perception of a group of suicidals to party animals in 3 years!! Props to the forefathers for changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.237.38 (talk • contribs)
  • In order to comply with the guidlines about no orginal research, I am currently working on getting copies of the daily Collegian which has done a profile of how 709 has changed the Sylvan living area, also in the daily collegian is a comic strip about 709 which I am also working on getting to post on the entree. In addition to these, I have posted the letter regarding a pool party, and am getting maintenance logs concerning the suite. Teknofreak642 12:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't delete it! If the minigame 'Defense of the Ancients' in Warcraft 3 is worthy of "encyclopediac" notice, then this is DEFINATELY worthy of being on Wikipedia. 709 has changed lives!
  • Keep. This entry should absolutely not be deleted. Even though 709 is just one suite inside a building, the suite also represents the heart and soul of the building and the area. Everyone who lives or has lived in sylvan over the last 3 years knows 709. It is the one place you can go to take the edge off an otherwise meagre college existence. I give props to all those with the foresight to create something out of nothing and the fact that what they started has continued to a second generation is testament to their genius.
  • Nuke it from orbit, then salt the earth. It's the only way to be sure that this semi-finalist candidate for the Least Useful Wikipedia Article Ever goes away for good. --Calton | Talk 03:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If sincere, then Keep. TeknoFreak642 has yet to post what interim restriction was whipped on them. How about names and pix of janitors who sucked up the water in the foyer? Did the residents deal with the tarps and pool or did that get dumped on maintenance too? If TeknoFreak642 won't cough up, then insincere, in which case: delete. 207.172.134.175 04:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have posted information regarding details that you asked for, as well as a picture from the party showing the pool in the common room. Teknofreak642 12:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you did. K E E P Life at Amherst in the form of 709 Brown. Nice shot by Cate, and the janitors needed to do nothing. I hope you get away with it. Metarhyme 01:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. Though notable to the residents of the suite and the dorm, it is not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. # of relevant Google hits (UMASS "Brown 709") = 0. Should every individual chapter of a college fraternity/sorority get a page if they can provide pictures and describe their activities? I vote "NO". ERcheck 03:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • you say it is not notable enough for a wikipedia entry and yet, I feel as though that is the very nature of wikipedia. A repository for the largest ever collection of human knowledge, with no piece of information too small to be included. It makes me sad to think that certain things may be deemed too small, unimportant, or irrellevent for what I consider the greatest human achievment ever. Teknofreak642 04:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just in case this wasn't made real clear above, you COULD always reproduce the article on your userpage, should you so desire. --InShaneee 04:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ridiculous vanity CDC (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Calton. Ambi 15:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JJay. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 15:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It quite clearly exists; thus, it deserves an article. Kurt Weber 15:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless the article can be improved to sound less like someone who lives there wrote it. --Iten 09:32, 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 no consensus (default to keep). - ulayiti (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The City Drive[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC - A band with no releases Cnwb 08:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain Note that their official site claims to have a song in "Yours, Mine & Ours", a mainstream movie with Quaid and Russo; if that can be verified, I think it qualifies the article. Chris the speller 16:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand The website does say that they have a song in a movie, which I believe should qualify as a release. Also, they have been performing at mainstream venues. Their site history claims that "In March 2004, The City Drive performed on the opening night of the SXSW (South by Southwest) Festival in Austin, Texas, alongside such bands as The Killers, Franz Ferdinand, NOFX and Alkaline Trio. In June, they joined the Nokia Core Tour." I believe that the article is qualified based on these terms and if they can be proven. Sure, the article needs to be expanded, so that is why it has been marked as a stub.--ArgentAngel 19:43, 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 keep as Movementarian has discovered a legitimate topic buried in the article history. Bravo. (note that I have moved the article to SAETA as it is an acronym.) — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:43, Dec. 17, 2005

Saeta[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion. Appears to be a non-notable band, but has more than average content, and asserts marginal notability. Abstain. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:32, Dec. 17, 2005

  • Speedy? On what basis? Saeta's CDs are sold through Amazon. However, looks also to be a copyvio from the band's site [17]. Keep pending outcome with copyvio-- JJay 09:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert. This page was started for Sociedad Anonima Ecuatoriana de Transportes Aereos (SAETA), an airline in Equador. As the info here is an apparent copyvio and was written over the previous article on 15 December, I recommend going back to this version [[18]] and ending this AfD. Movementarian 10:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert as Movementarian. Good call, Movementarian! --Mecanismo | Talk 12:37, 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 no consensus... I think it should be merged. - ulayiti (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World Audience[edit]

Shameless vanity. Read it for a good laugh. Lotsofissues 08:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. M. Stefan Strozier is an American-born writer, whose one-time pen name, Mila Strictzer, will generate many hits on any search engine but not, it seems, at the Library Of Congress. Eddie.willers 13:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note A play can be very real, very popular, very notable, very googlable, but not show up in the Library of Congress; it simply means that the author did not register it. His choice — it only limits his ability to collect damages in case of copyright infringement.
    • Comment. I retract my deletion vote based on this being a hoax, as simple reasearch (other than LoC) shows it is not. However, the article still needs cleanup and merge as per Chris the speller. Eddie.willers 20:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with M. Stefan Strozier. He appears to be a real playwright, whose works are being performed, at least around New York City. The articles overlap to a large degree. Please clean up the Strozier article while you're at it. Chris the speller
  • He generate 180 hits only. delete both entries as vanity
  • Delete vanity. Xoloz 19:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into M. Stefan Strozier and cleanup that article if possible. I have added an {{importance}} tag to that article, so we can review that and possibly take it to AfD if it doesn't improve. - N (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scythe: the bounty hunter[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion as {{db-repost}}, but appears not to be the same content as was previously deleted per the discussion here. In my opinion it does not appear to be a notable topic. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:35, Dec. 17, 2005

  • Delete. Non-notable Flash animation spawned from "the popular book series" that Google doesn't get a single hit on. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Several errors in original post, no Google hits at all, reposted. nneonneo 03:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as before. I don't even see a real assertion of notability. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:05, 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 09:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The STD Dances[edit]

"The band are yet to record and are still gigging in their local town of Geelong.". No google hits or evidence of media coverage, delete per WP:V. See also WP:MUSIC. Kappa 08:52, 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 09:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neosophy[edit]

Appears to be link spam disguised as a dicdef. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:42, Dec. 17, 2005

  • How about take the links out? Is neosophy not a valid term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.181.83 (talk • contribs) 17 December 2005
    • Comment: if it is a valid term, it should be posted at Wiktionary unless there is potential for encyclopedic expansion. Hopefully we will find out one way or the other in the course of this discussion. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:53, Dec. 17, 2005
  • Delete. --Daveb 11:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not in the Oxford English Dictionary or OneLook ∴ not a real word. —Caesura(t) 15:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. --Fire Star 21:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider further. A word is not a word only because it exits in the Oxford English Dictionary or OneLook, or Websters or CNN. We create with words and we creaate words for those things we wish to explore but have no language yet developed, but developing. Words are sound, pictogram, spelling, meaning, socially applied knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Johnenz (talk • contribs) 19 December 2005
    • Neosophy is a word. It is a Greek compound proper noun. It should be capitalized. It has lineage with two schools of thought from the early 20th Century.Theosophy and Anthroposophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Johnenz (talk • contribs) 19 December 2005
      • Neither is it in the Encarta World English Dictionary. --Fire Star 06:12, 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. BTW Lotsofissues, immediately delete is also known as speedy deletion. :) - Mailer Diablo 09:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Minnig[edit]

I present to you the first decisive success story of the new Wikipedia:Neglected articles

After searching the archives of 1600+ newspapers, I can confirm he was the official go between in negotations, but there is nothing to corroberate consort with terrorists. Another Seigenthaler has been caught. immediately delete

Lotsofissues 09:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination and HUZZAH for the ladies and gents at Wikipedia:Neglected articles. Movementarian 10:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might be worth keeping and rewriting if we had enough material. Red Cross negotiator. At the moment though there is a one line article left after the false statement is removed so Delete. Capitalistroadster 10:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per above if the flase statments are removed this article is not notable. Dalf | Talk 05:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost a personal attack, it is, to leave an accusation like that as the only text herein. Xoloz 19:41, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Simurda[edit]

Totally non-notable. Even her myspace page, which is linked, doesn't mention her band. Descendall 09:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete forthwith. I would have nominated for speedy, but the claim of a band affiliation prevents that in my opinion. Fails to meet criteria in WP:BIO. Movementarian 10:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. LEad singer of a neo-folk hip-hop orchestra (covering all of the bases). Plays exclusively at Blockbuster, possibly to people who don't return their videos on time. Capitalistroadster 10:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also note that I nominated this because it appears that it started as a vanity page. Before it was edited for POV it started by saying that Robin "Is perhaps the most beautiful and talented person you will ever meet." That's why I vote delete. --Descendall 23:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nomination. Non-notable. Gaius Cornelius 17:38, 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 09:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paris streets-list[edit]

Several reasons. Do we really need a street listing? Wikipedia is not a directory of any sort. Also, the page is over 300K. Just a pointless list. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per nominator. All (except one) are red links anyway. «LordViD» 11:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that's partly a function of the naming system. Just to emphasise I've edited Rue de Rivoli to point to the pre-existing article. Dlyons493 Talk 11:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks like this will be a no consensus. If it is, please rename the article "List of streets in Paris, France" to match the format of other list articles. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another non-encyclopaedic list. --Daveb 11:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice list, could be useful. -- JJay 19:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Changing only because list has now been redone, making this version redundant. -- JJay 21:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing back to Keep, as other lists have now been nominated. Suggest everyone return to their original votes. -- JJay 04:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This has obvious utility in a number of areas of work. Sjc 19:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Delete now refactor is done, much better. Sjc 14:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Honestly if this is kept, we should just check notability out the door. It's so big that it literally crashes my FireFox. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 22:50, 17 December 2005

(UTC)

  • Strong delete Lets nip this idea in the bud right now - otherwise every city will want a similar list Jameswilson 01:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Every city is not Paris. Delete voters should know that this is part of wikipedia's Portal:Paris project. -- JJay 01:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • JJay, I still dont see it frankly. List of noteworthy hotels, museums, parks, streets, whatever, but not each and every hotel, museum, park or street. Otherwise youre saying the notability criterion can be ignored just because its a project. Jameswilson 01:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point, but the list seems very useful + many of the streets would make good articles, or tie into existing articles. Maybe it could go into the travel section.-- JJay 02:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, as ThePromenader said he had compiled it for his own use. TimBentley 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite Needs breakdown e.g. by arrondissement. Only justified for the handful of global cities. If not reduced in size to standard wiki recommendations during Afd then delete it. Delete I've broken the original down into sublists - see discussion page. Dlyons493 Talk 02:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would breaking it down by arrondissement make it smaller, since many of these streets run through multiple arrondissements? -- JJay 02:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a way I feel bad voting for the deletion of something that must have taken a lot of work to produce but I can just see it spreading. Diyons493 says its only justified for a handful of world cities, but there are at least twenty cities bigger than Paris, and maybe thirty-plus, depending on what measure you take. so you'd have no reason not to allow those for a start. Jameswilson 03:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant global city in the sense of Global city rather than mere size. Personally I'd stop at Alpha 12 point but a case could be made for the 10 pointers. Wiki is not paper to coin a phrase. Dlyons493 Talk 11:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT a directory. Pilatus 03:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly useless list, a undigested data dump of a Paris street atlas' index, a sea of red links that will never, ever be blue. A list of famous streets -- ones which have or deserve articles -- yes, but not this bloated, unnavigable mess. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete umaintainable, unnavigable, and violates WP:NOT. Gateman1997 21:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator redstucco 09:35, 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 deleted as short article lacking context. Capitalistroadster 11:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naked_Women[edit]

This is not an encyclopedic entry. Tompsci 10:39, 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 09:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Ingredients Studio Catering[edit]

I don't really know the criteria for notability of companies on WP, but this looks like an advert JW 11:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. This is also borderline advertising for Heatherden Hall. Eddie.willers 13:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's even written as an ad; "They will be your first point of conatct". This is not encyclopedic. Chris the speller 16:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:CORP. Please check to see whether this company satisfies any of the criteria. Uncle G 20:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 19:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Okay, technically you might say that "delete" got more "votes", and that with twice as many deletes that's what I should go with. But then, technically, you'd be pretty silly. "Redirect" is a much more sensible option, so there. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D.N.S.[edit]

D.N.S. was deleted from the German Wikipedia. Seemingly they have released one single on a little known label. Punkmorten 10:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - if it's not encyclopedic for the German Wikipedia, it's not encyclopedic for here. B.Wind 02:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Domain Name System (which is where DNS redirects to). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:02, 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. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cele Kula (band)[edit]

Defunct band with one four-song release. 587 Google hits when excluding Wikipedia mirrors indicate no substantial following. Punkmorten 10:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete band vanity  J\/\/estbrook       20:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one sentence does not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is not band vanity. I made the article when I was researching on Skull Tower and found it interesting that a band used its name. I'm not sure what are criteria for band notability, but I thought a published album is enough. Nikola 15:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two albums according to WP:MUSIC. Or any other signs of notability and substantial following. This band seems to lack this, and a four-song release is not an album anyway. In addition, the information may be kept in the disambig page Cele Kula, but it does not warrant a separate article. Punkmorten 19:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, band is not listed on Allmusic, fails WP:MUSIC by a nice, wide margin.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 19:11, 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 as a db-band (no notability asserted) and as db-nocontext for expansion. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:11, Dec. 27, 2005

Paranoid (band)[edit]

Seven-word article, no AllMusic, impossible to Google search. Punkmorten 11:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN. Karol 12:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one sentence does not an article make... and this sentence says very little. B.Wind 02:39, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Half-cut[edit]

I suspect this is a hoax. The link doesn't work. I can find a production company called Half-cut but no band. The Renegades band was also a hoax from what I can see. If they aren't hoaxes, definitely nn. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Similar research results. NN, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC so half-cut it out. Budgiekiller 11:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article does not even contain claims of meeting WP:MUSIC. - Liberatore(T) 14:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte band vanity. Formed at a 6th-form = a high-school band. Unsigned, unpopular, unencyclopedic.— Haeleth Talk 18:55, 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 merge and redirect to Haughton Green. howcheng {chat} 17:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Village News[edit]

This periodical is not notable in any way Budgiekiller 11:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sweet, but appears nn. --Daveb 11:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Worthwhile cause but not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Pdean 16:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepor Merge pertinent info. -- JJay 19:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with what? Budgiekiller 20:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Haughton Green. -- JJay 20:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm, perhaps merge as an external link. It is highly non-notable though... If you linked all local periodicals with all villages, the place would be swamped... Budgiekiller 20:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems very notable to me. It's the only newspaper in the village and edited by children. -- JJay 20:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, cool. The merge should only involve adding a few lines to the vilage article. I won't tell the kids is was you who nominated. -- JJay 22:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Haughton Green. Capitalistroadster 20:57, 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. —Cryptic (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ichtus[edit]

Fails the Music notability guidelines. Miserably. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination, though I hope Zoey enjoys her birthday party. --Ian Pitchford 11:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — RJH 21:17, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swish basketball[edit]

Dictionary definition that is already included in the Wiktionary entry. —Caesura(t) 11:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. xaosflux Talk/CVU 16:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Brim 07:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 19:57, 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 transwiki, then delete. The redirect has been deleted. Mindmatrix 20:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Chocolate Cheese Pie[edit]

Is a recipe, not an encyclopedia article. Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook. Also delete Chocolate Cheese Pie. jnothman talk 12:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malthusian Selection[edit]

This is a vanity article by Dacoutts (talk · contribs) aka David Coutts (talk · contribs) about an article he wrote in humanist magazine. Putting my evolutionary biologist hat on, it's patent nonsense. It has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, it has not become accepted as part of any sociological theory, and constitutes original research by the author. — Dunc|☺ 12:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heliovore[edit]

More vanity/original research by David Coutts (talk · contribs) and Dacoutts (talk · contribs). — Dunc|☺ 12:07, 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 09:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nanosphere[edit]

More vanity/original research by dacoutts (talk · contribs)/David Coutts (talk · contribs) — Dunc|☺ 12:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete or rename I may have seen the term used before in reference to future speculative events. But, I have just done a quick search and found a different description (of nanospheres as they are now rather than the far future)>> "Polymeric nanospheres can be simply defined as latex particles in nanoscale that are synthesized by polymerization or emulsification process. They have very uniform diameters in the range of 1 to 100 nm and extensive surface areas due to the small particle size in spite of their non-porosity. Although the technique to synthesis nanosphere has not long developing history, many works have been achieved in various fields." source: What is a nanosphere? - max rspct leave a message 15:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the original research from Mr. Coutts; I was going to give him a few days to find a real source before nominating this series myself. Note that beyond the 5 articles nominated today, he wrote Differential replication and Exponentialist, both of which are now redirects to Darwinism and Exponentialism, respectively. I have no problem with a rewrite on latex nanobeads. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 15:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete OR vanity about communicty of hypothetical futuristic lifeforms. Pete.Hurd 17:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nanosphere seems to be most well known as the name of a technology company per google [19]. So unless someone wants to rewrite the whole article to be about that, then delete it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NOR. Stifle 02:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet cream[edit]

Started life as yet another redirect to Kaga Bryan. Now just redirects to Macquarie University, to which it has no special relationship. Note that both Kaga Bryan and Velvet-Cream are listed for AFD. Daveb 12:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above. --Daveb 12:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although shouldn't this be at Redirects for Deletion. Capitalistroadster 16:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Probably should be- I am not an expert in the afd process so please feel free to do whatever is required. Cheers,--Daveb 03:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete R1. Stifle 02:35, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Couttsian Growth Model[edit]

VAIN, OR. — Dunc|☺ 12:12, 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 changed to Redirect by original afd nominator. Bobet 17:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New York and Atlantic[edit]

Orphaned & duplicate article, everything is covered in New York and Atlantic Railway Agnte 12:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect, as above Tom Harrison (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Redirect. You can just change articles like this to redirect by yourself. There's no reason to bring it to afd, since if someone disagrees with a redirect, they can just revert it. - Bobet 16:24, 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. Yeah, I'm not counting the anons who just breezed in to complain about their website not getting an article. How'd you guess? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee Lounge Forums[edit]

nn forum site novacatz 12:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a discussion forum which has a certain amount of history, even in its short lifespan, that would mean it is appropriate for it to have a Wikipedia entry. It complies with the Wikipedia merits of allowed entry. Anon User 12:03, 18th December 2005 (AEDST)

Note guidelines in WP:WEB. The forum does not seem notable enough to meet those guidelines for inclusion. novacatz 14:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; not notable, as per above. A website advertising itself via wikipedia. 10:29, 19 December 2005 (AEDST)

This article shouldn't be deleted, because its relation to Whirlpool and the incidents that resulted in the creation of the site are very noteworthy. However in it's current form this article is horrible. The current article just looks like an add for the site. But a page about the whole fight between the whirlpool mods and travey leading to the creation of this website would be very notable -(unknownsoldier)--138.217.42.127 04:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Nobody cares who argued with who to create somebody's forum. Forum politics are generally boring, stupid and hopelessly unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 07:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - Saying Nobody cares who argued with who, IS an ignorant comment to make, especially when it may come from someone who is not even a member of Whirlpool Australian Broadband Discussion forums or even Coffee Lounge forums. Whirlpool used to include a coffee lounge and the Coffee Lounge Forums website is a spawn from many members of Whirlpool. The website eventually gained the permission from Simon Wright and the point of the entry is that this site became news when it was on the verge of being sued for copyright infringement. It was only through public discussion that the Coffee Lounge Forums website remains and it also remains a part of the extended Whirlpool Community.- AusLeo (Whirlpool Member)

Do Not Delete - Wikipedia is a world thing, not just an american website, therefore it should have entries about websites based in other countries allowed on it without people who have no idea about the website or history of it saying it shouldnt be on here because no one cares. Whirlpool who is the main webforum which Coffee Lounge Forums is a off topic part of it is the main website Australians use to find the best internet service for them. Whirlpool is also in the Australian media a lot as well. And I think for someone to say "nobody cares" who doesnt even know either website or what they are about is a little obnoxious dont you think? Ok sure the entry needs to be written in a more constructive manner and also with correct grammar and spelling and so on, but has no one ever heard the saying work in progress?-(toiletduck)-

  • Delete unexeceptional website.--nixie 03:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge at the very most, possibly as an addendum to Whirlpool (website) or the like. Has some amount of history, so I'm reluctant to flat-out delete it, though in its current state it is definitely not up to Wikipedia standards. --Hotchy 07:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB, influenced by the sackload of sock puppet/unsigned votes. Stifle 02:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though merging with the site mentioned by Hotchy would be OK if someone cares enough to do it. Halcatalyst 22:35, 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 keep. Note only does the delete side not have the numbers, but they don't have much of an argument, either: "aww, c'mon, he's not notable, surely?". Yeah, not happening. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Niilo Paasivirta[edit]

This is an article about some guy with a web site. There are other guys with web sites who have heard of him, but he is absolutely nonnotable if you step outside the echo chamber. Nandesuka 12:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check out the Enter-magazine. It sure has his columns. So he definitely is not just an Internet nobody. --Easyas12c 21:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll start us off with delete for non-notability and a healthy dose of WP:V; all the information sources within are effectively circular. Nandesuka 13:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Tom Harrison (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'd say he's definitely notable in Finland, but not necessarily quite as much to the English-speaking audience. I think just about every roleplayer has read the Game of Satan/Love Thy Neighbor thing (which are notable enough if we're discussing RPG politics) and ones who haven't, definitely should. I believe the entry in Finnish Wikipedia definitely should stay though =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upon further consideration (on Easyas12c's comments), just Keep. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agreeing with arguments Wwwwolf stated abowe. Should stay in both English and Finnish wikipedia. This is English wikipedia. Not England wikipedia or US wikipedia. --Easyas12c 21:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep come on, this is the guy behing "AD&D - Game Of Satan"!  Grue  16:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete seems non-notable. Stifle 02:37, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Dufton[edit]

Article was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Zunaid as follows: {{db|Article seems to be a hoax. Google search for "david dufton" +"alexander pope" brings 0 hits, as does "david dufton" +"selwyn college"}}. Author came back and provided a book reference, thus asserting that Mr. Dufton is not a hoax. I retagged at as {{afd}} to generate possible input from somebody familiar with the topic and, hopefully, a consensus. Abstain. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 13:07, Dec. 17, 2005

  • Delete as probable hoax. The British Library has no 'David Dufton' listed in any of its catalogues. Eddie.willers 13:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete The article referenced exists but on p1-19 of the journal . This is a hoax. Dlyons493 Talk 02:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. David Dufton's actually a first-year natsci student... --Dave ~ (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. Stifle 02:37, 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. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Feldman[edit]

This is non-notable. The page is written to sound impressive, but as an a cappella person I can tell you that none of that is terribly noteworthy stuff. Sorry Freddie: Delete. JDoorjam 13:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless some type of citation can be given to prove notability,--Hraefen 14:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. Stifle 02:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'To go' in Romance languages[edit]

WP:NOT a dictionary. I can't see any obvious potential for an encyclopedia article on such a specific and limited subject. — Haeleth Talk 13:59, 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 09:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Death and Taxes[edit]

blatant advertising of an entity with no obvious claim to inclusion in Wikipedia Gareth McCaughan 14:07, 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 09:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Link[edit]

blatant advertising of a non-notable individual Gareth McCaughan 14:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for advertising and non-notability. "Jay Link" is not known to allmusic.com; neither is his band "Death and Taxes", also the subject of an adverticle by the same anonymous user. No documentation of any notability here (vague reference to Internet radio stations' charts does not count). Gareth McCaughan 14:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN artist. Bjelleklang 18:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 02:33, 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 (3/2). --Terence Ong Talk 12:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prince George’s Park Residences[edit]

Delete based on non-importance (only 95 hits on Google, most of which are for conferences which are billeted at PGPR), possible vanity, possible advert. Madman 15:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kjelsås j91[edit]

Article about a local basketball team in Oslo for 14 year old girls. I'm sure it is great fun, but my vote is that they are not notable enough for Wikipedia, so delete. Egil 15:06, 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 09:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Googler (expert searcher)[edit]

Bad dictionary definition. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:08, 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, as "Transwiki" appears not to be a valid option with zero sources. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:18, Dec. 27, 2005

Oktoberfest Punch[edit]

As a receipe, it's not suitable for an encyclopedia. In addition, I cannot find any verification that this is more than the creator's drink so merging or redirecting isn't valid. -- JLaTondre 15:18, 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 (12d/5k/1redirect). Additionally, the arguments in favour of deletion were quite strong. A more valid List of medical controversies merits inclusion in Wikipedia, though. Mindmatrix 21:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Medical controversies[edit]

Turn into a real list of current, serious controversies or delete - as it stands, it's useless. QEDquid 15:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but allow a new page to be created with same name. Alternately, Rewrite article to be a list of actual medical controversies (for example, include mention of the Angel of death) Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is a stub, but with potential. Expand it! --JWSchmidt 17:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: A hub for sorting through the breadth of such articles is needed. Ombudsman 19:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rewrite into article format. A list cannot do the subject justice. Durova 20:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Needs to be rewritten to be useful and has the potential to be a magnet for original research. Capitalistroadster 21:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The controversies listed aren't even real, just pseudoscience cruft. This is just a vehicle for POV-pushing. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 21:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the article as it stands is not worth much, this topic has the potential to become an interesting and informative list as the focal point, or a kind of directory for many other topics, such as MMR vaccine, homeopathy, and even acupuncture. This article should probably be a List of... type article, simply pointing to all of the associated articles, where the associated topics are more thoroughly discussed. No more than a brief description of each topic would be required on this page. •DanMS 23:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: impossible to maintan relevant and unbiased content over time. If such articles are intented as honey pot for warriors I am all for it, otherwise get rid of it. Pavel Vozenilek 00:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "controversies" is not useful for categorization. Billbrock 05:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is about external attacks on the current medical paradigm, not the numerous controversies within medical science. It is already becoming a list of pseudocontroversies. JFW | T@lk 12:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A real Pandora's box, so great to take the lid off. Scary for the physicians. john 16:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it will be used as a vehicle for promoting quackery and pseudoscience, not for talking about real controversies such as euthanasia or medical cannabis.--CDN99 17:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "The belief that HIV doesn't exist, let alone cause AIDS" may certainly be worthy of study from the POV of the social sciences (why do people have a certain set of strange beliefs?), but it's emphatically not a MEDICAL controversy. Emphatically repeat my call for deletion of psuedoscience Billbrock 06:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on the comment Of course there are real medical controversies. But is this a useful list? Scientific controversies are distinct from cultural controversies, which in turn may be distinct from political (funding) controversies.... Billbrock 19:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on the comment on the comment: well, let's start with the famous controversy whether hemolytic uremic syndrome and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura are one disease, a continuum, two different diseases with identical treatment or two diseases with radically different treatment. That is a medical controversy, not the attacks of higher superstition. JFW | T@lk 20:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nothing noteworthy controversial in the article right now. --WS 17:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alternative medicine. (Or merge and redirect if distinct content is identified.)--Arcadian 18:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that it has a lot of potential as a list. I think that it's a huge topic with many different aspects to explore. Right now, the vaccine controversy and controversies in autism links offload the discussion from the primary pages and allow them to remain readable. I think that there could easily be homeopathic medicine controversy, chiropractic controversy, etc. This list could include links to the individual articles. Otherwise, I think that an ideal article which adequately addresses the many controversies in medicine would be many, many pages long. Basically, if we do it right it will have to be a list to accomodate the many necessary discussions. We might as well plan from the beginning! InvictaHOG 21:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment2: I don't think homeopathy and chiropractic need their own controversy pages, because they are dangerous by nature (that needs to be in the main article). The article was started by Whaleto whose separate website promotes very dangerous pseudoscience/quackery, so this article will reflect that website. After reading JFW's comment above, I now know what a medical controversy is, as opposed to a sociomedical controversy; this article will definitely not talk about real controversies. --CDN99 12:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per JFW, these are not the controversies within medicine, but the sociopolitical/media speculation/ignorance/rejection of EBM and the scientific process. If a drug on more detailed analysis proves to have a hitherto unrecognised side effect, its not a 'controversy' but scientific development. If people would value a page on 'Cultural Controversies re Health' (aka misbeliefs/scaremongering/quackery) then good - probably quite an interesting sociological topic.
    • P.S. In the article 'Several high-profile cases have called into question the efficiency of the current evidence-based approach to deciding the value of medical practices' - is untrue, the issue is not the 'current evidence-based approach' (vs what, andecdotes or guess-work ?) but rather whether it is accurately performed without bias (unintension or intensional): re issue of recent events & COX-II, the suggestion was that some evidence may not have been disclosed, resulting in a failure to apply an 'evidence-based approach'.
    • P.P.S. further investigation is hinting that the COX-II in question may not have any greater risk that other COX-II or even the older group of NSAIDs (they might all have some small risks, but what else is one to give people in chronic immobilising pain?). The issue is under ongoing investigation - which is a fact, not a 'medical controversy'. David Ruben 01:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs time to develop. -- JJay 02:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no content developed enough to keep. It's like a list of 5 medical topics about which someone has criticized a doctor or doctors or a drug company or a medical system or... You could retitle it "random grumbling from a hospital waiting room." The problem is that not a single topic is developed into anything interesting and they have virtually nothing else in common. If the author actually put some work into developing any one of the topics as a separate article it would probably be worth keeping, but right now it is like a handfull of random gripes by someone who doesn't know very much about them, hasn't thought them through, and hasn't taken the trouble to understand both sides of any one of them. alteripse 08:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After consideration, I don't think that there's anything here that could not be resurrected were someone to want to create a list of medical controversies. As it is, there's not much of note - InvictaHOG 13:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darin herrick[edit]

Vanity page. Google brings up a zillion pages, but all are him reviewing stuff on Amazon.com and the like. A quick look didn't reveal any pages actually talking about him. NickelShoe 15:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity Madman 15:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in case you are confused he is not an author. His claim to fame is that he regularly writes reviews on books he has read and submits them to Amazon.com. So, in other words, he reads a lot of books. VERY non notable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete verifiable vanity Melaen 17:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, misses CSD:A7 but not by much. Stifle 02:31, 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 as advertisement. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:27, Dec. 27, 2005

Damansara Perdana[edit]

Is it an ad? Is it spam? Is it notable? Pick one and delete. Ifnord 15:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, looks like an ad to me; google shows mostly promotional pages Tom Harrison (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - its a set of property and google hits [20], all 19,700, are telling me that. It has 14,500 houses with a population of 50,000 people [21]. That makes it a place, and a big place at that. That makes it, for all intents and purposes, a city. Now, are we going to go around deleting cities? I think not. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this paricular page as promotional material by the developer. PJ seems to be Petaling Jaya and obviously no reason why someone shouldnt create a more objective page about this suburb which by my reckoning is about 10% of the town. Jameswilson 01:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 02:31, 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 Speedily deleted (it's the same guys) Broken S 17:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Afflicted Quarter[edit]

Not notable, vanity. See previous debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afflicted Quarter. Can be speedied if the content of the article is substantially the same as before, but since I'm not an admin, I can't check this. —Caesura(t) 15:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, since it was deleted before and there's still no claim of notability (per WP:MUSIC). The article might have more text but I seriously doubt any of it makes it more encyclopedic. The article clearly states that they've not been signed, they haven't published anything, and have just barely played anywhere. - Bobet 16:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I loved this quote (at the bottom) Currently the band are searching for a record label to sign them.. Well, don't expect Wikipedia to sign you! Go to a radio station or something. That's where you go. Also note recreation of previously deleted content: [22]. So unless its a totally different article, its a candidate for speedy. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no doubt these guys will get signed because of their hard rock attitudes! beeeeeooo Ralphredimix 17:09, 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 09:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drake Furnish[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as a nn-bio/hoax. No google results for "Drake Furnish" and the article has no useful content (beyond telling that jello biafra moonlights as mudvayne's frontman). The creator's only other contributions were vandalizing 3 other articles. - Bobet 15:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Jello Biafra was in the Dead Kennedys, not Mudvayne. So I guess there is no useful content. --Descendall 02:52, 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 09:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Barry (teacher)[edit]

Completely non-notable teacher. The article contains two apparent claims of notability: a claim that he won the Order of Canada, which appears to be a hoax, because I can't find a source for it, and a note that he is a member of the OFSAA hall of fame. While this appears to be true, a glance at the list of members comes up with a few hundred names; hardly an elite club. I fully expect the student jokers who have been replacing the journalist article at Paul Barry with an attack page version of this article for the last few weeks to meatpuppet this vote in droves, but it'd be nice to be rid of this once and for all. Ambi 01:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by MGM (CSD A1 -- no context). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spells (album)[edit]

plus Doll Doll Doll, Find Candace and indeed anything else by Godwithgun that has not been speedied. added -- RHaworth 09:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Album listing from nn artist Firexit fast deleted MNewnham 21:24, 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 keep per general consensus that high schools are notable. howcheng {chat} 17:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stuarts Draft High School[edit]

Non-notable subject matter. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand — It is listed as a stub, and it just needs expansion. I suggest Wikipedia's school project take a look at this. --D-Day 16:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 800 kids = notable. That's a pretty big school. Bigger than 10 of the 11 schools I went to. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per D-Day. Bjelleklang 18:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. No reason given to delete. -- JJay 19:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't delete high schools, so there is no reason to nominate them other than as to make a protest against consensus. CalJW 19:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's no point in nominating high schools or porn stars. Neither are going away. Although I imagine the latter group adds to Wikipedia's popularity for the former. Durova 20:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Porn stars do get deleted once in a while. -- JJay 20:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have consistently voted to keep all school-related articles. This is no different. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 21:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid High Schools. — RJH 21:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd really love to keep and expand this article if at all possible Tigeriz 02:15, 20 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. Additionally, reevaluate practice of having bot link orphaned AFD's vs. having bot delete orphaned AFDs. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please and zodrac did you really go to 12 different schools that is alot Yuckfoo 07:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no credible sources on which an article could be written redstucco 09:46, 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 KEEP by virtue of 5 MERGE votes vs. the nominator's implied delete vote. mergeto tag is forthcoming. Mo0[talk] 23:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vantage Magazine[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Crystal Springs Uplands School. The article's about a school magazine and doesn't hold much interest to someone outside the specific school, but won't really hurt to be included with the school in question. - Bobet 15:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Bobet. Mind you, I did notice that Google is telling me about quite a few other magazines called Vantage as well, so perhaps this title should remain open for one of them. RSA security has one [25], Darwin online has one [26], Odeo has one [27] and there's likely others. Not sure how many of the others are notable (if any) but it seems like a popular name for a magazine. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Bobet. Not notable enough to claim its own article. Bjelleklang 18:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Bobet. Excellent magazine.
  • Transfer. For those who don't know Vantage, it's hard to understand exactly why it's important for this to be independent. Putting it on the school's wikipedia entry means that the student magazine (independent -- and sometimes critical -- of administrators) is significantly undermined in the sense of truly representing the student viewpoint. Why it is being reviewed for vandalism I don't know. However, it would make sense to transfer the page to something like "Vantage Student Magazine" or "CSUS Vantage Magazine" because of the other Vantage's noted prior. In response to Bjelleklang, this magazine truly is quite notable. We have interviewed major corporate and technology figures (Macromedia Chairman, Apple's Executive Vice President for Design, etc.), and are planning to interview a major political figure. It is a 28 page glossy publication, with a supplementing website, etc. And we are working to supplement the page (it was actually written by a student, not the Editorial Board). Thus, it is worthy of its own page. Taylor F, Editor-in-Chief.
I'm not so sure I agree. Interviewing some major figures does not automatically make you notable, and should IMO not be reason for inclusion. The magazine could be included on the entry of the school, which states that it is independent of the school administration, and that it has no limitations in regard of criticism towards the administration. I don't think that the magazine is notable enough to pass WP:WEB, and it has no Alexa ratings, so my opinion is that it is not notable enough to have it's own article. Coulde be mentioned on a disambiguation page of course, but should be included in the article about Crystal Springs Uplands School Bjelleklang - talk 01:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge as per Bobet. I would also suggest making it a subpage of the school article, if appropriate. Algebra 03:13, 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 JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 15:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


XSB[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it's about a single fantasy football league with no claims of notability (and I don't even know how a fantasy sports league could be notable). Only google results are from wikipedia mirrors. - Bobet 15:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - so let me get this straight. They set up a fantasy football league, with a whopping great 10 teams, and then think its Wikipedia worthy? Well, listen, I've been running a football tipping competition since 1991 and we've had up to 40 people involved. We even put money in and you can win quite a lot if you win (note: this is legal where I live, so don't worry about that), and the way that we do it is unique as our scoring system is different and profound etc etc. Wait on, think I should make a Wikipedia article about that? I'd be shocked if anyone voted keep on this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn league, sport & participants. Bjelleklang 18:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable all around. Mo0[talk] 18:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia really needs a warning page on creating new articles. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 21:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An imaginary league with imaginary players, with no apparent reach beyond roughly ten people. The article is kind of amusing in its earnestness, though. Sawney 14:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 15:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hilarious. This should stay around just for kicks. Lighten up and have a sense of humor. It sounds factually accurate, and kind of interesting. Personally, I want to see who will win season 4. BarryManil0w 01:25, 22 December 2005 (EST)
Discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 15:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page has been on Wikipedia long enough that it should just stay. Besides, this league sounds far more fascinating than the PAC 10. SnyGuy 18:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 15:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 08:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andem[edit]

nnsurname. I hail from Andhra Pradesh and I can vouch that it is not notable. Also, it does not have much of useful information. While Google gives 159,000 hits, the first 10 are not abt this context (have a heart guys, can't go through all the links, :) right?) Gurubrahma 16:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm getting way too many google hits. Adding in India gives me 15,300, while adding in name gives me 25,100. Adding both gives me 369. But given that a surname is a bit hard to track down using Google, I'd say its got enough to be worth an article. But perhaps we need a few examples of famous people to give who have a surname of Andem? In a similar way to Schmuck (which IMO should be about the Yiddish word, not about the German last name). But I don't know what the criteria is for surnames, so until that's pointed out to me, this looks as notable as the Schmuck surname, so should be in here. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you include both, you get 369 hits but none in the first page is about the surname. If you replace India with Andhra (as it is a surname from Andhra as claimed in the article) [28], you get 20 hits of which hardly 5 have the surname. (btw, I did it for my surname for the same string and got 251 hits. My actual name alone within quotes gives 20 hits of which 18 are about me.) In a state that has 60 million people, "Andem" is but a spurious surname. --Gurubrahma 17:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely Vikram Reddy Andem is notable, but Andem as a surname is not. William Andem is not even from India, so that Andem is different. btw, from the gogle search, it looks like ANDEM is a popular acronym. So, this article with this content should go and probly some other article on this name can come. --Gurubrahma 05:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very unlikely to grow beyond the existing one line. --Vyzasatya 22:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete surnames are nn.  Grue  16:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ganeshk 22:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. If anyone wants to tackle the merge, go for it. howcheng {chat} 17:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist terrorism[edit]

There are no sources and no references. IMHO, though definitely not NPOV, "Propoganda of the Deed" is so far removed from what we would today call terrorism that including the terrorism template makes absolutely no sense. Daykart 16:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, important part of history of anarchism. Edit/remove template/merge to anarchism if you like, but no reason to delete. Kusma (討論) 16:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but keep the tags there, clean it up and so forth. Its obviously real. And that should be the only reason to nominate it for deletion - whether its a hoax or not. Its real, so keep it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per merge tag. This looks supiciously like a POV fork, it's certainly a fork in a mature and well-covered topic. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reference. Notable phenomenon. Capitalistroadster 17:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per merge tag. No reason to keep. --AaronS 21:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the page to be merged to is already long and difficult to read. Why clutter it? This article itself could use some improvement, but that applies to many articles. FrozenPurpleCube 05:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. Stifle 02:27, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cupcaking[edit]

Dicdef of minor slang term, no evidence of widespread currency (might be in Viz somewhere I suppose). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn term. Bjelleklang 18:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as well as being incredibly juvenile. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 21:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense or someone trying to start a fad by getting it into the Wikipedia. •DanMS 23:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. This is legit in the midwest and is also known as "Buttercupping". Popular amongst men and boys alike, wives and girlfriends have dreaded the buttercup since the dawn of time. I can personally vouch for its effectiveness and believe it has a place in wiki.
  • Comment buttercupping is an even less known word according to google, with only smaller sites/forums appearing with the context expressed in the article. Bjelleklang - talk 17:49, 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 09:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MPEG Search[edit]

Non-notable download site. Very few Google refs (-site%3Ampegsearch.com&btnG=Google Search), no Alexa ranking at all. Garden-variety spam, cue the vikings... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • mpeg search is a great website for free music. KEEP --Maoririder 16:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete adsite. Also nn, not many results from google, and does not pass WP:WEB! Bjelleklang 17:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no point in it. There are many more sites like this on the net with better ratings. Chances are the site will be shutdown soon anyway. Delete Bananas21ca 17:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam Ashibaka tock 17:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 21:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete empty. Stifle 02:27, 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.

http://mpeg-search.com/

I would like to say real site.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 | @ ---- 15:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


INautix[edit]

Advert Computerjoe 16:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - spam. The telephone number gives it away. B.Wind 02:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. I'm starting to think these articles need a speedy category. Stifle 02:27, 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 keep. howcheng {chat} 17:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Songz[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion, but asserts a bit of notability. Abstain. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:10, Dec. 17, 2005

  • Keep per WP:MUSIC. Kappa 17:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Released album, charting single, meets WP:MUSIC Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Major-label artist with issued album and charting singles. --FuriousFreddy 18:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This is not a speedy keep. A speedy keep can only arise if the nominator requests it or if the nomination was in bad faith or disruptive. Stifle 02:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC - you need two albums, not one. Stifle 02:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drakian order[edit]

Probable hoax (zero Google hits for a "long-established" even if minor religion is unlikely). Claim of membership unverified. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unverifiable. Kappa 17:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. Seems to be hoax religion day on WP... --W.marsh
  • Delete not ready for public release. Drakian Order details not intended for public release. This is a growing relgion which will be back.

19:05, 18 December 2005 (EST)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Bcorr Jamie (talk/contribs) 00:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS4[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Originally contained speculation, an unsourced screenshot and wild speculation. Now contains only speculation... Given that the PS3 is not yet released, I'd say this is testing the old crystal ball to the limits! Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not confirmed, not official, and no PS3 yet. Bjelleklang 17:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC) http://lib3.store.yahoo.co.jp/lib/wich/playstation-4.jpg[reply]

Really long link yes Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maoririder (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nom. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There is also a redirect to this page at Ps4. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: that redirect has already been deleted. xaosflux Talk/CVU 22:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Apostrophe 18:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough information known. Mark272 21:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although I'm kind of hesitant, because this page will probably need to be created again in the future. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 21:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i think PS4 will be in the 2006 or 7

Comment: Even if there will be a PS4, chances are that it will not be available until after 2010. The reason for this: Playstation shipped in 1995, PS2 in 2000, and PS3 i supposed to ship next year. Bjelleklang - talk 21:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for obvious reasons. android79 21:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Put up for CSD, as It is an empty or very short article providing little or no context. xaosflux Talk/CVU 22:18, 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 09:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colbyism[edit]

Alleged cult/religion. Unverifiable... cites no sources and I can't find any myself. Any of the scarce uses of the term Colbyism seem to be incidental and unrelated (or WP mirrors). This is a hoax/joke article. W.marsh 17:42, 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 09:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Project dynamic[edit]

Appears to be the page creator's own project - see User talk:Flatmax - and I can find no external verification. Delete on grounds of WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Tearlach 17:43, 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 09:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Project jumbled[edit]

Appears to be the page creator's own project - see User talk:Flatmax - and I can find no external verification. Delete on grounds of WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Tearlach 17:46, 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 delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 15:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Tim Meehan[edit]

Not notable. Merely being a candidate does not satisfy WP:BIO. Delete. Skeezix1000 13:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn candidate. Eusebeus 17:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO standards yet. feydey 21:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ifnord 23:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain, TM passes several tests for inclusion, see here StrangerInParadise 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not edit the nomination or other people's comments - thanks. Skeezix1000 17:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain, subject is notworthy, jameskpolka (added on his behalf by StrangerInParadise, see below)
  • Retain, Subject is a well known figure among a growing demographic of drug policy reformers across the globe. His contributions both on the political front and within the reform movement are certainly noteworthy today and will be even more so a hundred years from now. Considering the current criminalization of drugs has just reached its 91st anniversary, it's clearly an issue that has long term interest and consequences for the public and researchers in the future will find the biographical information on this candidate of great value. (added by Libby Spencer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.79.132 (talk • contribs)
  • Retain, subject is well-known in the worldwide drug policy reform community as being president and frequent public spokesman of NORML.CA, as well as an active participant on many drug policy reform lists and sites in Canada and the U.S. (added by J. Lebowitz 17:04, 17 December 2005, UTC).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackl2400 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom --Quasipalm 18:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for retaining article Tim Meehan from StrangerInParadise

  • Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events
    • TM is a well-known figure within an emerging area of political endevor, specifically pro-cannabis Canadian politics.
  • Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more
    • Repeatedly published and mentioned in various Canadian newspapers
  • Verifiability -- Can all information in the article be independently verified now? (some say) 10 years from now?
    • Yes on both counts.
  • Expandability -- Will the article ever be more than a stub? Could the perfect article be written on this subject?
    • Tim is still active in Canadian pro-cannabis activism, an area where developments are on-going.
    • Once prohibition of cannabis is repealed, who knows?
  • 100 year test -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?
    • Anyone interested in the early history of the pro-cannabis movement in Canada, which presently is itself in a key point of struggle due to its proximity and historic ties with the United States, the principal driver in the global war on cannabis. Also, Ontario ranks just after BC in regards to principal areas in which the struggle to repeal the prohibition of cannabis has taken place.
  • Autobiography -- Has this been written by the subject or someone closely involved with the subject?
    • Not by the subject, though he has updated it. The objectivity and neutrality of the article makes the question irrelevant, though I believe the answer to be no.
  • Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?
    • Yes.

StrangerInParadise 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TM and his political and social work fundamentally pass the Hundred-Year test. While the last several Canadian federal governments have equivocated over both the decriminalization of marijuana for recreational use and the federal commitment to making marijuana legal and available for medical use, the direction of Canadian history and the will of the Canadian people are clear and obvious. The controversy here over including/deleting a TM article rests on TM's being five to ten years ahead of when the rest of the Canadian body politic will reach his same conclusions. But they will. The Wikipedia community would do well to recognize a political prophet and visionary now, thus educating the public now about a figure whose ideas will be mainstream ten years from now.

posted by jameskpolka/USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.2.202 (talk • contribs)


Relisting this to generate more discussion. Skeezix1000 18:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The above arguments seem to be that: If cannabis reform comes to fruition, then an early activist for that reform will be notable. The Wikipedia community would do well to recognize a political prophet and visionary now, thus educating the public now about a figure whose ideas will be mainstream ten years from now. Is certainly not notability, it's pure conjecture. DeathThoreau 19:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per DeathThoreau. Otherwise we may create an article on me, in case 10 years from now I became the Space Pope Ultimus the 1st. Flyboy Will 19:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete As Director of communications National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws in Canada he might be notable. Eighteen of the top twenty items on the writings link merely reproduce his letters to the editor. The other two are short Canadian news stories that mention him in passing. The people who created this page should be improving it, not spamming the discussion with bids to keep. Link directly to his most important appearances in respected newspapers, leave out his letters, and list his achievements with your organization. Then maybe we can tell if he's notable. So far from what I've seen, he's not. Durova 19:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The proponents of the article would be better off showing how he is notable through verifiable evidence, such as mention in newspapers, magazines and books. Then I and others could be persuaded to change our minds. Capitalistroadster 21:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, along with all other MPC candidates, into Marijuana Party of Canada or somewhere. -- Mwalcoff 23:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever hey, is that a cookie? Man I'm starving... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 00:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --- Candidates do not merit articles unless notable for other reasons. There is a lot of speculation on this page, but very few facts as to why this guy is important. 209.202.119.248 14:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whatever" Attack of the internet snobs. Frankly I don't give a shit what you do with it. www.timmeehan.ca
  • The current consensus on unelected candidates permits a merged page for "X Party's candidates in Y election". This does create its own set of problems, but unless you're prepared to take on the job of proposing an alternate policy, established consensus stands as the final word whether you like it or not. Merge to Marijuana Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Bearcat 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is this consensus defined. I've read the ongoing debate but my take from reading it, was that consensus had not been reached. It looked to me like the debate died before consensus was reached, and a vote is still pending. Is there another discussion that I've missed? Nfitz 00:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consensus doesn't require a vote; if the discussion dies prematurely, then in the lack of a clearly defined policy statement the results that have actually been applied here in practice stand as the consensus. And that consensus has consistently favoured the merged listpage solution — nobody, to date, has challenged that. Bearcat 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • But consensus has consistently not been met anytime that a major party candidate, and even some non-major party candidates, comes up for deletion. I'd say consensus was keep them ... and that's what I thought reading that article. Nfitz 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Capitalistroadster and people trying to flood the discussion with comments of minor relevance. Stifle 02:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well written article on a candidate. We have tons of these. Much of the information in the article I have verified as true. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:14, 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. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Jacobson[edit]

This page is harrassment of an individual and otherwise serves no notable purpose. Sycthos Talk 18:06, 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 NO CONSENSUS. Mo0[talk] 23:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bear-beer-burr merger[edit]

This article appears to be more about rap and hip hop, than about an actual linguistics phenomena. Since this article appears to be a rap article, it should either be moved to a rap related article or deleted. Robot32 16:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Improve to sound less like a rap article. Garr 18:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, actual linguistics phenomenon. Kappa 18:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and IPAify. 64.194.44.220 14:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with African American Vernacular English on condition that the authorsomeone actually looks up the Pollock & Berni references listed at [29] and reports on what the linguistic literature has to say about the phenomenon. Otherwise delete as unsourced original research. --Angr (t·c) 21:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Stifle 02:23, 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 and BJAODN. - Mailer Diablo 09:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Kevin of Roddy[edit]

Probable hoax. Zero search results for "Sir Kevin of Roddy". Delete unless verified in some other fashion. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:16, Dec. 17, 2005

  • Delete, possible BJAODN. —Etaoin (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because it can't be found on Google doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's why it was posted!
    • Note User:Rith (the article's author) anonymously left the line above. I left a vandalism warning on his/her user page. Chris the speller 19:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not funny enough for BJAODN. (If you're going to hoax, it helps not to have anachronisms like people born in 765 going on voyages to America in 1000 and dying in battle in 1066). Tearlach 19:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN- an amusing read. Reyk 22:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN per Reyk. Stifle 02:22, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 10:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Internaught[edit]

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

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

Relisting to generate more discussion. Only 1 vote besides nominator's. Mo0[talk] 18:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was userfy to User:Arenmaeir. howcheng {chat} 17:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A. Maeir[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion as "autobiography", which seems to be true, but doesn't make it a speedy candidate. Gets maybe 106 google hits [30]. No vote from me ATM Kappa 18:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy as this was created by and all content edits are by User:Arenmaeir. Definently verifiable and a possible keep, except for the autobiography issues. --W.marsh 18:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per W.marsh. Stifle 02:20, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pjoannfra[edit]

Pure advertisement. QEDquid 19:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete agreed, company spam, prob copyvio  J\/\/estbrook       19:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Varco 21:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 02:19, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ASBoM[edit]

Delete. Very badly written advertisement about a non-notable TV program. Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article prompted me to put BW's First Law for TV program AfDs on my user page: If the article of a TV program doesn't indicate where the show was/is broadcast (network, local channel, or syndicated), I shall immediately conclude that the article deserves deletion, regardless of notability of the program. This article flunks on that basis - Delete. B.Wind 03:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — editorial review: not encyclopedic. — RJH 21:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete random advertizing. Stifle 02:19, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bexel[edit]

Article only serves to show how bad these batteries are, not useful  J\/\/estbrook       19:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is suitable for a battery blog or a gaming blog, but not for an encyclopedia. Too bad there is not an article for "miniature crowbar" so we could merge them into something meatier ;-) Chris the speller 19:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 02:19, 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 delete. Thunderbrand 01:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


BsE Bails[edit]

Delete. Non-notable gaming clan. Very few google results. [31] Thunderbrand 19:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Changing to speedy delete. I didn't know this was a bio on a single member. Thunderbrand 01:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete not even the whole clan, just one member from it. Therefore (I think) qualifies for a speedy. Durova 19:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio (and delete all gaming clans). Kusma (討論) 20:16, 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 09:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Synorex[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 09:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Retrobates[edit]

Found via Special:Random. Fails WP:MUSIC; delete. Melchoir 20:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. Looks like the random pages patrol is paying off. -Bobet 22:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, it's the only way to fly. Melchoir 22:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. The Pink Floyd LP cover indicates the intent of using the article as user space. B.Wind 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete band vanity. Stifle 02:14, 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.

we didnt put that picture of the pink floyd emblem on we had the band logo but some one edited it to have the pink floyd logo

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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} 17:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmington Friends School[edit]

In the past two months that this article has been live, no one has felt the need to expand to it at all. I am a student in Delaware and, imo, it is not noteworthy for Wikipedia (especially because there is no content). Perhaps someone would like to provide content for the article, but until that time I recommend that an admin delete. --R6MaY89 19:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a historic school, in fact the oldest school in Delaware established in 1748. [32]. How could it not be noteworthy for Wikipedia? Nom should have just added some info to article. -- JJay 20:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very historic and unique school. Normally (at least lately due to WP:SCH) I would say merge something this short. But this a very unique institution which warrants its own article, and substantial expansion of the article. I'm thinking a couple centuries of history will provide ample material for expansion. According to Deletion policy nominations should not be used to deal with articles needing expansion. --Rob 22:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that if someone is willing to make it into an informative article, it deserves to stay. But as long as it only contains 2 lines of content (year of origination and link to official site) it should not have an encyclopedia entry. If it is in fact the oldest school in Delaware, the article should mention it! As it is, there is no content. BTW, yes, I am the one who started the AfD.--R6MaY89 00:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your point of view. I myself have suggested that we should make it policy to remove one/two-line sub-stubs (until they're properly written). However, current deletion policy makes clear, that "A stub (but with potential)" and "Article needs a lot of improvement" are not valid reason for nominating an article for deletion, and instead it is to be tagged for improvement. The policy may need to be changed, but an AFD is not the place to change policy. --Rob 02:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The irony is that because WP:Cleanup is so hopelessly backlogged, the best way to get attention to a borderline article that needs dramatic improvement... is to list it on Articles for deletion. Now the article gets dozens if not hundreds of eyeballs on a highly trafficked part of Wikipedia. Stick a cleanup tag on it and... it'll sit there, waiting. FCYTravis 07:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, this is really a problem. In my dream world we would take substubs and move them out of article space promptly. Maybe they could go to the new Wikipedia:Articles for creation, so people could still see it, and make an real article out of it if they wish. The problem with using AFDs is we're writing many times more text in the AFD, then the article has. It's an absurdly ineffecient system (so many people, writing so much, about how to deal with so little). But, letting things sit in clean-up categories (as you said) isn't working either. A third way is needed, but I don't see much support for it. --Rob 08:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and further expand. I have added more about the history of the school and more could be added. Capitalistroadster 00:44, 18 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» 03:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is a historic school Yuckfoo 07:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable redstucco 09:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Stifle 02:14, 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 keep. howcheng {chat} 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Visitor (TV series)[edit]

On second thought, this is a forgotten television series which only existed for one season on the Fox network. Althought I remember it, most people never heard of it. Plus I want to test this AfD thing. Roman Soldier 20:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • As you are the only author of the page, asking for it to be deleted I think it can be marked as speedy delete --Petros471 20:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since this was a real show on network TV why delete? -- JJay 21:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand based on excellent comments below. -- JJay 22:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment quoting nominator... "forgotten television series...existed for one season...Fox...most people never heard of it", same statements can be used to describe Firefly, which became Serenity...FYI  J\/\/estbrook       21:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This program was a classic - though short lived. It has plenty of webpages devoted to it. And it is regularily still aired around the world; it's certainly not forgotten! There's a (very incomplete) list of world-wide airings over the last eight years. Really the page needs to be expanded! Nfitz 22:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I too enjoyed the series, and it was one of the first hour long shows I had ever had the attention span for, but I don't know if it is notable enough for Wikipedia. Although many short lived television shows develop cult followings, this one doesn't appear to have one. Roman Soldier 22:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've made a small edit now now the proposer is not the only author. We probably need to do some disambiguation here. DJ Clayworth 22:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm willing to withdraw my nomination if we can get some more material on the page about the series. Anyone else who can remember this series from so long ago please correct my work.
  • Keep — I remember this series. The article could use a little cleanup. — RJH 21:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that this television series has been the subject of independently sourced published works. I searched for and read a few of them a year or so ago when I was trying to find out what the series was actually about. ☺ People have even considered it notable enough to have written and published additional episodes of their own. Keep. Uncle G 23:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable redstucco 09:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no reason this should not be on Wikipedia. Stifle 02:12, 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 redirect to Operation Barbarossa. howcheng {chat} 17:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Master Plan East[edit]

I cannot find one page which refers to this plan as 'Master Plan East.' Although there certainly was such a plan by the Nazis, it is very, very rarely referenced as such. The little material this page has should be moved to Operation Barbarossa or something similar. Roman Soldier 20:55, 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. JWSchmidt 21:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bryson Voirin[edit]

Person in question is non-notable...this is a vanity page Nsb3000 17:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • THERE IS NO ARTICLE FOR THIS xaosflux Talk/CVU
  • Delete DJ Clayworth 22:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can someone close the AfD please? The article has apparently been speedied. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it wasn't speedied, there was a typo in the title on this page. - Bobet 00:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another attempt at inclusion for this person; see [[33]] from earlier this year. Voirin is a research assistant at a college. Although he assists someone who may be notable in her own right, I can't say that Voirin meets any Wikipedia notability standard. This [[34]] and this [[35]] are pretty much as big as it gets. Delete, unless someone can wow us with a bigger accomplishment. Sawney 14:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and speedy and protect given that it's apparently been deleted more than once already. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as previously deleted and nn-bio. Stifle 02:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comeone change my daiper i farted
  • Strong keep A notable topic. This is not a vanity page. I know the person behind this article-- I don't even even think that this person has ever met Mr. Voirin. Pincus 03:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps he is not notable to the users advocating deletion, but within environmentalist circles and here in southwest Florida, Voirin is notable. The criterion for inclusion of articles on wikipedia is verifiability, not necessarily notability, which is just way too subjective. The material is entirely verifiable and notable to enough people, so there is no reason to delete the article. JMaxwell 06:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yes, notability on Wikipedia is a de facto standard, not a de jure one. But there are precedents that can provide guidance. Because of the vote and explanation above, I did another search on Voirin to find out if I was missing anything significant, and especially to find documentation on the claimed notability "in environmentalist circles and...in southwest Florida."

Regarding the latter, the only reference I could find outside of New College of Florida articles/blurbs/advertising and Wikipedia mirrors is a Sarasota Herald-Tribune article [[36]] about college fundraisers. Voirin is mentioned in the "Young volunteers" section regarding an auction gift he gave. Are there any independent media references of significance? This would help his case for inclusion tremendously.

Regarding the former, he may indeed be noted to some extent in environmentalist circles, but there are hundreds of thousands, if not a million or more, people in south Florida alone who are as notable or more notable for what they do, or have done, in their respective circles. These people may be accountants, artists, executives, technologists, or practically anything else. These are the many people who simply do a job in a particular industry and do it well enough to be notable to some reasonable extent among a dozen, a hundred, or a thousand of their peers. Many, many people in the working world, and some students, are in this category. There are tens of millions of them in the U.S., an order of magnitude or two more in the world. Very few have articles on Wikipedia; very few, if any, should. If Voirin can be shown to have done anything more significant than the many millions discussed here, he might have a case for inclusion. Sawney 04:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete based on no verifiable claim of notability (saying you've heard of someone doesn't make him notable). And there already was a consensus to delete this before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Voirin. - Bobet 11:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is verifiable, not the speculation on this discussion thread. Good P**** H** 06:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable in the Wikipedia sense that every claim made can be substantiated from trusted neutral secondary sources? Plus, my personal benchmar is "does this person get more relevant Google hits than I do?" Answer: no. I get just short of 5,000 and nearly 35,000 in the Usenet archive. Bryson Voirin scores 100 and zero respectively. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of Google hits is meaningless. They tell us nothing of quality but rather of quantity. Please do not suppress information based on falulty logic. Good P**** H** 02:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As requested above, can anyone supply even one quality Google hit? Sawney 05:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I voted to keep the original article too. I knew the topic was important then. I know it's even more important now. Goldstein307 05:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY as A4. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Camping de l'été[edit]

It's in French, but based on what I got back from BabelFish, it's advertising. Delete. Scott5114 21:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Seems to be an advertisement. Varco 21:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All contributions by the original author have been advertisements in French. — TheKMantalk 21:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be spam. xaosflux Talk/CVU 22:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam, as per this user's other contributions. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY A4. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wall bed[edit]

Advertisement Varco 21:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy - Advertisement for furniture from France. Daykart 21:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as it is an advertisement wrapped in spam wrapped in vandalism. Roman Soldier 21:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All posts by original author have been advertisements in French. (and its Québec, not France =) ) — TheKMantalk 21:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like spam. xaosflux Talk/CVU 22:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supprimer le spam Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson as A7 Jamie (talk/contribs) 00:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew j[edit]

Non-Notable Vanity Page Varco 21:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as copyvio. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Born in the 50s[edit]

Just a song's lyrics (inherently non-notable, doesn't assert significance). Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Visco memory foam[edit]

Advert, in French. It begins: "Three years ago, I invested a large sum for a good brand of mattress of the best materials...". Klaw ¡digame! 21:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete can't read it, can't keep it : ). εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Saw this in articles for translation. Reads like a paid testimonial. (anything that involves the words "memory foam" and NASA usually is). — TheKMantalk 21:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete le spam (nb: no AfD tag on the page, added it). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. All 3 of this user's contributions have been spam in French, two of which have already been deleted. Scott5114 00:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, is SPAM. In French, too. Cchan199206 20:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 02:11, 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 ALL speedily as nonsense. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The lees bees pool[edit]

This is a strange article about a pool in Long Beach. There are no references and it's completely unverifiable as far as I can tell. I did find it fairly entertaining though. Carbonite | Talk 21:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete both. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

10,000 Days of Misery and Wander The Earth[edit]

Works by Edward Killingstone (AfD discussion). —Cryptic (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; I can't find any mention of these anywhere else. Tom Harrison (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — neither could I. Probably a hoax. — RJH 21:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to complete work of deletion of article on Eduard Killingstone --Mecanismo | Talk 23:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource and delete. Stifle 02:11, 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. howcheng {chat} 08:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Claw Accident[edit]

Substandard article without dates; biased; if this really happened and is notable enough, then it should be merged into a larger article Madman 21:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unencyclopaedic, POV and probably unverifiable (I ran out of patioence long before I exhausted the irrelevant hits) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. “The Claw” is one ride at the Dream World amusement park in Australia. The website is here [37]. Is there any precedent for individual rides at amusement parks? •DanMS 01:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Just zis Guy. Stifle 02:10, 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 Keep following rewrite. The Land 11:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Roper[edit]

it has one of the thinest and most desperate claims to notability i've yet encountered and is a remarkably borderline speedy candidate, but I'm being on the safe side by listing it here. The Land 22:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain for now; he's on IMDB ([38]) but I'd burn all gamegruft anyway so I may not be best placed to judge his significance. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bill Roper is (was?) actually the VP of Blizzard North, the developer of the games listed on the page. The info listed appears to be in error, or a hoax, but in any case he's a very notable game developer. His voice acting was just a side gig. The article should be rewritten. Flyboy Will 22:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've updated the page in question with more accurate info, and would now like to upgrade my vote to Speedy Keep. Flyboy Will 22:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to Flyboy Will. -- JJay 22:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is concise and pertinent Silas S. Gordon 13:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speed Keep, then. The Land 11:08, 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} 17:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leticia Moreno[edit]

NN violinist. Speedied then restored on request - Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. One of the most notable female violinist in the world. Make sure before adding you vote - . --Stoni(talk) 22:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Considered internationally one of the most promising violinists of her generation", and she has several awards to prove it. I might add that I was about to speedy it and ended up working on it. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. A very notable young viloinist. Just look at the people she studied under, and her award. Absolutely meets the criteria. Flyboy Will 22:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NMG as winning a significant prize from the Royal Philharmonic Society [39] and has played in concert halls throughout the world. Capitalistroadster 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Look at those awards. The fact that this could get speedied is frightening. -- JJay 02:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT NOTE All those awards are redlinked or go to entirely unrelated articles. Verifiabilty is needed before we jump the gun. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Are you saying this is a devious hoax cooked up by those Royal Philharmonic troublemakers? [40]-- JJay 05:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Most of these awards are internatiotionally known and some have the name of a famous violinist. Perhaps it is a wikipedia fault not having many articles about international music awards. Verifiabilty is needed before we jump the gun. (Try Google!)-- Stoni(talk) 12:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please research before nominating...let alone speedying. If you don't have time to go to your local library or music conservatory, try an Internet search engine, such as this one. [[41]]. Sawney 13:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this obvious hoax invented by the Royal Philharmonic Conspiracy just to fool naïve Wikipedians, as per JJay (sort of). u p p l a n d 17:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless verified. Stifle 02:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you regard as unverified in this article? u p p l a n d 06:19, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commander speer[edit]

Random Star Wars fanfic that doesn't exist beyond this page. - Bobet 22:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Thesquire 22:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — not encyclopedic. — RJH 21:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete swcruft. Stifle 02:10, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto Graduates[edit]

This is too nn to be an article; it gets only 30 Google hits. -- King of Hearts 22:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it should be deleted. it's a good way educate others on up coming southern musicians. please dont delete this page. PLEASSSSEEEE!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidewalk (talk • contribs) 22:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC) who is the author of the article.[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Thesquire 23:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as an act, fails my "band membership test" (no group members are listed in the article, only label mates); as a label, it hasn't made much of a dent in any national recording scene. Maybe this time next year, when the releases start charting with some regularity, it will merit a Wikipedia article. B.Wind 03:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Brim 04:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i dont see why the page should be deleted. its pretty interesting. i am from louisiana and i have heard of the Ghetto Graduate camp, and they are on their way to the top. it would be foolish to delete their page. if someone deleted my page and wanted to make one AFTER all the fame, i wouldnt want them to have it because that is not true support.-Big B

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Ghetto_Graduates"

  • Delete band vanity. Stifle 02:08, 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.

Discussion blanked as a courtesy to article's subject The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Cryptic (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Stuipid Sam[edit]

RPatent nonsense Nv8200p talk 22:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obliterate That is stuipid. --D-Day 23:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. This is stuipid and they even forgot to conjugate the verb. :D -- King of Hearts 23:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - patent nonsense. B.Wind 03:31, 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. Tasteless. - Mailer Diablo 09:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Straggler theory[edit]

WP:VAIN WP:NOR How the author got laid on spring break MNewnham 23:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious. One of my friends always does the straggler. Speedykeep Cigar816 23:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: not encyclopedic. Thesquire 23:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. About a tactic for date rape. Not verifiable, and written in a joking tone ("pursuing the prey" and so on). delldot | talk 23:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not verifiable, WP:V. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This could be speedied as a hoax. —Brim 05:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN would be an appropriate result. Stifle 02:08, 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 was no consensus to delete, therefore keep. Bucketsofg 21:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.800.Vending[edit]

1.800.Vending (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is of a corporation that is not notable. Only primary sources (FTC pages, Better Business Bureau, and the company's website itself) have been used as sources to construct this article. Nothing of consequence ever seems to have been written about this company by third parties. This constitutes original research. Further, the primary editors of this article seem to be the principals, and various people upset at the fact that the principals have edited the article. This article was put up for deletion in 2005, with no consensus here. Disclaimer: I have no personal stake in this matter. Quatloo 07:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I were one of the owners, I wouldn't want this article on Wikipedia, so I don't see a WP:COI or WP:SPAM problem right now. That being said, I think the company makes a product notable within its industry, but that's not what the article is really about right now, and the company does not seem to meet WP:CORP. I also agree that it seems like there is WP:OR going on in the article. Given all these problems, and the relative stagnation of the article since the last AfD, I say delete. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 09:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There has been considerable press about this company and the surrounding litigation. This reason alone is sufficient to make the company notable under WP:CORP. The article itself should be rewritten to be more encyclopedic, but I doubt that'll happen seeing as it has become a battlefield for interested parties. Owen× ☎ 15:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not all fraud is notable. All results on Google News Archive are ads. Fails WP:CORP, and WP:COI seals the deal here. Seems like a way to present their side of the story when hardly anybody even cares.--Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep fraud with a substantial press is notable. If npov is needed, supply it.DGG 04:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there is no "press" for it, much less "substantial press." Quatloo 10:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This article is both of interest to the public and in the public interest. To delete it would smake of corporate censorship. Zomghax 15:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin's remark: this was the fourth edit of this editor and was discounted.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 John Dewey. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transactional[edit]

Copied, word-for-word, from text in the John Dewey article--is this a concept that needs its own article anyway? Philthecow 23:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to John Dewey. Doesn't appear to be an attempt to split up a large article, since the text is identical. — RJH 21:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per RJH. Stifle 02:07, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raúl Yáñez[edit]

Leader of the Chicano Power Revival Orchestra (AfD discussion). —Cryptic (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Guess the leader should go down with his ship. Dlyons493 Talk 02:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn groups generally have less notable members, and this doesn't appear to be an exception. B.Wind 03:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, partial copyvio too. Punkmorten 10:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nn-bio and copyvio. Stifle 02:07, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EXECryptor[edit]

Non notable advert. For the record, a very similar "ad" was put up for deletion and axed with no dissent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software protection.

Nomination requested at AFC by User:68.39.174.238 Kappa 00:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad like. However if they are really able to make an executable virtually impossible to trace, crack, or bypass by making code restoration NP-hard problem and still be useable in practice, such wonderous technology would much deserve mention on Wiki. 83.148.62.2 00:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That was written by me. I somehow got logged out in the middle of session. Pavel Vozenilek 00:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam, per above. I tagged it {{advert}} and the author (contribs) has made no attempt to fix that. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 02:07, 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 as vanity. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three Words[edit]

NN band, does not meet WP:MUSIC Cnwb 23:52, 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 09:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tides of blood[edit]

This is an article about a single map for a game. Seems straight up fancruft. mmmbeerT / C / ? 00:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for that reason - DavidWBrooks 01:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Presentation similar to a talk page doesn't help, either. B.Wind 03:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but add an entry to the listing of custom maps at Warcraft III; this map is reasonably popular. --Zetawoof 06:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zetawoof, Werdna648T/C\@ 00:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn fancruft. Stifle 02:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and also delete the individual pages of other maps (DotA, EotA, Sheep Tag etc.), if beer's criteria are to be applied uniformly. Otherwise leave it in the Warcraft custom games category and call it a stub. --Cassiel 20:30, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_17&oldid=1081091849"