Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 1 December 3 >

Purge server cache

December 2[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Drunken_Masters_vs._the_Moon[edit]

  • Do Not Delete, One of the principle virtues of Wikipedia is its ability to catalogue the small-time or niche things that would never be covered in a conventional encyclopedia. For example, internet memes such as O RLY?, which have a strong following in their own 'cult' communities would not and could not be featured in other encyclopedias because their format prevents them from listing niche notables. This readio show has a following in its particular community, it is one of the highest-rated shows on a St. Louis metropolitan radio station, KWUR. While the station's radio range itself does not boast broad accessability, their internet stream means that anyone with a connection the world over could potentially take advantage of their programming. Further, effort has clearly been exerted in the formation and maintenance of this article. This entry clearly conforms to the quality standards of Wikipedia. I think that this article and other niche notables do indeed have a place on Wikipedia and should therefore not be deleted. 21:00, 6 December 2005
Vote discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete, This show will last for two semesters and is broadcast via the airwaves, note KWUR. If you make a judgement on the size of the show as a criterium for deletion, then you would need to delete all pages on every radio show. I do think we would all agree Howard Stern does deserve a place on Wikipedia. This site is trying its best to conform to the standards of Wikipedia while chronicaling a niche part of history. Don't delete this article or a stub on the height of radio broadcast towers should also be deleted; they are just as irrelevent. At least here there is an interest and an valient effort to provide future generations information on a dying media form, freefrom radio broadcasting. ajpappal 05:00, 5 December 2005 (CST)
Vote discounted by closing admin {very few edits and majority being to this AFD) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity. (Small university radio program). VanR 10:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin {very few edits and all edits being either to article or this AFD) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A college radio show that is only 3 months old. It is available as a stream, but, then again, most college radio stations are. No evidence that this one has achieved a significant effect on the world of radio or people. Geogre 15:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable. Ifnord 20:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak deletenotable in a local concern, but not enough so to vote to keep.--MONGO 03:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete, Wikipedia is a resource for free global knowledge and with the help of anyone with access to the internet, it has the obvious potential to become the world's most diverse and authoritative source for information. Why then would an article about a "small university radio program" be tagged for deletion? As users of Wikipedia we are suppose to record our knowledge into this database for the curious minds of the world. There are policies and criteria we must follow, but this article does not deviate from the standards any more than other articles which are revered for their presence. The answer to the question would seem to lie in the minds of those who want to regulate the information contained within wikipedia. Perhaps before one considers an article for deletion they must ask themselves if they have the global authority to remove human knowledge from this unprecedented resource. Although just a small radio program, it nonetheless exists and has full right to be recorded into history. Who are we to decide what cannot be recorded into history? We cannot even begin to comprehend the utility that these "small" entries will carry in the future. Instead of deleting information, these articles should be suggested for standardization to the accepted guidelines of wikipedia where they can exist side by side with other articles recording the activities and perceptions of humanity. --trhermes 03:11, 7 December 2005 (CST)
Vote discounted by closing admin (very few edits) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 | @ ---- 00:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex In Wonderland[edit]

One album released, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, no notable members. feydey 00:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tobe and Yahbee[edit]

Delete, neologism. FreplySpang (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - here Tobe! come here dog! Good dog. I doubt its anything more than that. Note: yahbee should also be nominated for deletion for the same reason. Zordrac 01:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 | @ ---- 00:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


December 13, 1981[edit]

Fact is already mentioned in 1981 and other articles related to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaf (talk • contribs)

  • Comment - not sure of the policy with dates. I thought I saw somewhere that we had a whole huge listing of dates. Or is that just categories? If so, then merge. If not, then keep. Not sure. Zordrac 01:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; we don't generally keep pages for individual dates and it is already on December 13 and 1981. Peyna 01:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the fact mentioned in the article is already on December 13 and 1981 articles. Carioca 02:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia would explode if we involved every single individual date in history. Croat Canuck 05:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to December 13. NSLE (讨论+extra CVU) 08:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we use separate articles for dates and years. - Mgm|(talk) 11:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete --Bluezy 12:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Çómmént I think by listing the date this way it allows the wiki software to correctly display it for each individual user. Cause 31-12 makes no sense.-- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 15:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the wikimagic will automatically display many dates according to your preferences if you've set them and if you actually have some (which unregistered users don't, so unregistered readers will see dates in the literal format they're in in the article source). For instance [[2005-12-02]], [[December 2]],[[2005]] and [[2 December]],[[2005]] might all appear the same:2005-12-02, December 2,2005 and 2 December,2005 if you are a logged-in user with preferences set. If you log out and look at those again they'll look different. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due the fact that dates and years are in separate articles.--MONGO 03:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aleem desai[edit]

Vanity resume about someone who is "expected to become 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. – Robert 01:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Street and Racing Technology[edit]

Judging by the tone, his article seems to have been written by an employee of DaimlerChrysler for the express purpose of advertising an engineering team and its products. In my opinion, there is no academic or informational value to retaining this article; we may as well add an article about IBM's department of accounts payable. Wbutler 01:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per above. will381796 01:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV Vanity Olorin28 03:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete borderline spam Masterhomer 03:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It reads like a promotional pamphlet. B.Wind 03:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely rewrite. A search for DaimlerChrysler PLUS "Street and Racing Technology" turns up about 800 Google hits, many from mainstream automotive review sites. I agree the current article sounds like an advertisement (has anyone checked to see if it was copied from somewhere?) But there is a legitimate topic. Firebug 05:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising/marketingspeak. there's no need to keep this in order to write a new article. Post a request at Talk:DaimlerChrysler if you have to. - Mgm|(talk) 11:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You could make a case for an article on this, but there's nothing worth keeping in the current version. Richfife 20:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely rewrite I think that their should be an article on the SRT group, but this must have been copied off of the SRT website. Poonkla 09:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--MONGO 03:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. No reliable sources provided to establish notability. Mr.Z-man 04:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kael'thas Sunstrider[edit]

Kael'thas Sunstrider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

Archive 1

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep; (a) try properly AfDing it, which is clearly described on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and does not involve moving the old page, and (b) if you're going to avoid a mass deletion, then avoid a mass deletion and treat each article distinctly. Don't post a bunch of reasons the article should be deleted and then state that they may not be relevant. Furthermore, the claim that a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all is wrong, given the number of times I've went to Wikipedia trying to understand an out-of-context quip someone made, and irrelevant. A complete stranger to English literature isn't going to try and look up Moby Dick. Someone not familiar with Australia isn't going to look up Robert Askin. Not every article in Wikipedia has to be for everyone.--Prosfilaes 22:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. Bobby1011 06:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of significant coverage from secondary sources to demostrate notability per WP:FICT. Also fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - These articles should not be deleted.

DarthSidious 07:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]

  • Strong Keep - one of the links leads to the official Warcraft site(!). Such as source can't be considered "secondary" Dimts 19:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smalltown punk[edit]

Appears to be orginal research. Actually reads like somebody is using wikipedia as a blog. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 01:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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. 01:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shpants[edit]

non-encyclopedic nonsense - invented by 9th grader during the summer ... ERcheck 01:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nomination. The content of the article is nonsense. ERcheck 01:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - dittos will381796 01:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete per CSD:A1 (patent nonsense). Peyna 01:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC) **Okay, it might not quite qualify as patent nonsense, but it's pretty close. Peyna 01:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 3/4 pants exist. See 17,000 google hits. Including this: [3], this [4] and many others. Commonly used product range. Note that we should have an article about this phenomenon. Wikipedia does not appear to have an article on the topic yet. three quarter pants does not exist. Zordrac (talk) is a wishy washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the page so it is about 3/4 pants, which is what she is describing there. A lot of people think they are the first to invent something, not realising it already exists. Zordrac (talk) is a wishy washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
About the closest thing I could find is Capri pants, but this word is a neologism, so a redirect is a bit much. Peyna 03:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, Capri pants are different. They might have similarities, but they are different. Zordrac (talk) is a wishy washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In the shorts article, it mentions Shants. Perhaps these are all words for the same thing? Zordrac (talk) is a wishy washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. Add redirect if one must to 3/4 pant. Ifnord 20:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-- Shpants is a neologism for 3/4 pants, and probably used only by a very small number of people. As such, I don't think it merits a redirect for the content of the current article. ERcheck 21:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gauntlet Systems[edit]

Was marked for speedy delete but its not one. Looks like a nn company so Delete --Jaranda(watz sup) 02:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The company might be real, but they haven't done anything worthy of being in an encyclopedia. Fails to meet WP:CORP (proposed policy). Peyna 02:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if its so unnotable, why the whole filled in box? Don't see why there is a problem with it. Zordrac (talk) Darwikinist, wishy washy and Eventualist 03:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because someone was bored and had enough time to fill it in? I could make a very long and involved page about myself that would be very accurate, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia because I haven't done anything worth of being in any encyclopedia. Nor has this company. Peyna 03:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that one of the company founders (Adam messinger (talk · contribs) and 68.167.205.26 (talk · contribs) appear to be one and the same.) filled in all of the corporate directory information from firsthand knowledge does not indicate notability.

      The way to write about one's relatives, one's organization, or one's company (see Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas) is to be scrupulous about using (and citing) third-party sources for every single thing in the article, and to not use firsthand knowledge anywhere. (Articles written that way rarely even come to AFD in the first place.) If this is not possible, because there are no third-party sources, then one should not write an article. If one does, the article is highly likely to eventually be deleted, as here. Uncle G 04:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This looks like a start up that may go places, but not yet. Jtmichcock 03:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. New company NOn-notable Olorin28 03:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - founded in 2005? http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Gauntlet+Systems%22 generates 41 hits, hardly notable. The only bluelinked key person listed in the infobox leads to a dab page, of which the only blue link is a footballer. I think not. Josh Parris#: 04:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searching, I find nothing written about this company that isn't either sourced from the company itself or from one of its founders. I find no published works of any kind from sources that are independent of the company and its founders. There's no independent news or magazine coverage. There are no books about the company. Consumer organizations haven't issued any reports about the company. The company thus fails to satisfy the primary WP:CORP criterion. Since it is not part of a ranking list or a stock market index, it fails to satisfy the secondary criteria as well. Delete. Uncle G 04:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it says its a start-up; we all know how many of those promtly become shut-downs and how few become Hewlett-Packard or Microsoft. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Filling in boxes is easy. Getting your company to be so successful that it is referred to by non-customers and by the press is difficult. This start up is not yet successful enough to be an industry leader. Geogre 15:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Per Uncle G. Ifnord 20:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity page, advertising.--MONGO 03:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 U.S. one dollar bill. I'm not an expert in this, but I think that everything is already in the target article. It's all in the history if I missed something, though. -Splashtalk 21:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One dollar Federal Reserve Note[edit]

There's no reason for this article to exist. Much of it is a doppleganger of U.S._one_dollar_bill, an article about the exact same piece of currency. Tom Lillis 02:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re-direct to U.S. one dollar bill. Georgia guy 02:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect Gazpacho 02:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, redirect, though i seriously doubt this redirect will ever be used for practical reasons. RabidMonkeysEatGrass, It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine (and I know you will feel fine, too) 02:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to U.S. one dollar bill. Of course, when I was a kid, there were, let me see if I've got this right... two different kinds of one-dollar bills: silver certificates with, um, um, um, let's see today's Federal Reserve notes have green Treasury seals so the Silver Certificates must have been blue... and United States Notes, which had red treasury seals. For some reason I don't believe there were $1 Federal Reserve Notes at that time. IIRC only the five dollar bill actually came in all three different flavors: Federal Reserve Notes, Silver Certificates, and United States Notes. Isn't that interesting? No? You say it's boring? Never mind... Dpbsmith (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to U.S. one dollar bill - only significant difference is in the preamble, which should be included (somewhere) in a U.S. Currency history or U.S. Currency: Notes heading, to elaborate and illustrate points mentioned by dpbsmith. B.Wind 03:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Merge with U.S. one dollar bill - was going to vote keep, but saw other comments. Zordrac (talk) Darwikinist, wishy washy and Eventualist 03:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since nothing here is not in U.S. one dollar bill. A redirect isn't need since it is a very unlikely search. Peyna 03:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect this odd adventure because redirects are fun and cheap - also, if any material from this article is merged into a U.S. one dollar bill, the redirect preserves the GFDL. BD2412 T 03:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect An article for this just the $1 FRN is highly unnecessary. Infact, I'm currently rewriting the U.S. one dollar bill article and should be done by this weekend. --Kurt 04:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to U.S. one dollar bill.--MONGO 06:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC) In looking all this over, there is a minor distinction that may be noted. I have yet to determine if I now support merge or a keep vote, but would prefer at least a merge and collaboraton between Paul Hanson and Kurt.--MONGO 03:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and comment As originator of this article, I will provide an explanation. (One is certainly warranted, and I agree that the case for a separate article isn't immediately apparent.) A Federal Reserve Note is, as most of you know, different from a Silver Certificate or a United States Note, however $1 notes (and other denominations) have been issued in all three of these forms, as well as others. Yes, it is certainly possible to smush them all together in one page about the $1 note, but there are several very distinct issues of that note, and considering the a) interest numismatists would have in the topic and b) ease and cheapness of including more info and detail on a separate page, I strongly think this page (and others like it) should be kept. I of course would have created articles for the other denominations and other series of notes. Having this would make Wikipedia a highly authoritative source on the history of U.S. currency (an area in which I am greatly interested, as you no doubt could tell) just as it is a respected source of information on other topics. Please, keep this article and let me work on improving it further. If the entire series draws the wrath of the WP public, then ditch it--redirecting it back to the old article is easy. Give it a chance, though. Thank you to all for discussing this and wikilove to all. Paul 14:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Kurt above. I'd have been WP:BOLD myself, but fair enough to come here for a second opinion I guess. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments While I'm on the subject, I'll share a few other thoughts. Firstly, there are articles for each type of United States dollar coin, and the article for the note could easily be modeled after this one. Secondly, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a "U.S. one dollar bill"-yes, that's what everyone calls it, but hairsplitting aside, our readers deserve a precisely titled article describing what the thing actually is (what it looks like, who issued it, and what its role in the history of the U.S. economy is--each note has a different story.) Continuing in that vein, the history of U.S. paper money is far too rich to be condensed into one article for each denomination - images of each issue could be presented on the article about it - and far more information could be presented (images of every one dollar note would clutter up a single article...put the first and most recent on the main article and the others in their own!) Anyway, please consider the usefulness of this article and the ones like it, and I look forward to working on them. Paul 14:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First: naming convention is that articles go under the most common name, not the most technically correct name. Second, everything should go into the single article on the one-dollar bill until it gets too big, for two reasons: this is an encyclopedia, not a desk encyclopedia or a Britannica 3 "Micropaedia" and articles should follow summary form, starting with the basics and getting deeper; second, splitting articles tends to result in much unnecessary repetitive material. For example, if you have one article you can describe the Treasury seal and in depth and then say "the Treasury seal on the United States note is similar but printed in red" without having to describe it all again... Dpbsmith (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, although I believe the differences between the different notes are more subtle and more significant than just the color of the treasury seal. And yes, you are right that the most common name is better than the most technical one--99% of Americans wouldn't know a US note from an FRN, and therefore just calling the thing a one dollar note is useful in clarifying. However, if you look at the one dollar coin article, I think you will see information on that very large topic (in terms of how many different coins there actually are) structured in a clear and informative manner. That is how I strongly advocate we proceed with the articles on notes. As far as repetitive material, that would only be a problem if the superficial differences between the notes are described. If more useful information is included, than that will cease to be an issue. Paul 15:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dpsmith hit it on the head: there should be a section in U.S. Currency that can describe the various types of currency (United States Note vs. Federal Reserve Note vs. Silver Certificate vs. Gold Certificate) that generally covers all the denominations (and can use different denominations in its pictures) instead of slicing and dicing it so thinly as to make it useless. Wikipedia would be better served concentrating on having these note types in one heading and the history of the design of the currency in each of the denominations' sections/articles instead. 147.70.242.21 20:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now undecided - current content is good and should not be lost; whether that's a merge or keep I wouldn't like to say. I explicitly do not buy the "cruft justifies more cruft" argument but this article does have encyclopaedic content of some emrit, even if the numerology bit is somewhat overdone (I'd say 13 letters in E Pluribus Unum is coincidence, not numerology, unless anyone can prove otherwise?) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect until such space is required to sustain a sperate article, which I believe is not far off considering the rapid expanse and exposure of the WikiProject Numismatics. Many members now seem to have a priority interest in currency(bills/banknotes), including myself. The many different types of American currency are identifiably seperate from each other. An all-in-one article should be complete with individual sub-articles when information amount is increased. Joe I 01:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Imperialist Party Of Canada, Social Imperialist Party of Canada[edit]

Not notable political party or hoax, the only references are in http://www.thefreedictionary.com. Delete abakharev 02:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I didn't include the "the" in quotes.
  • Yes, and now it has been.


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battleon Wars: Enternal Power[edit]

Appears to be a vanity page the author has created about a series of books he has written that have not been published. Author makes claims that the book will be made into a movie series but this seems doubtable. Some guy 02:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Potential[edit]

Doesn't seem to be notable. High on a tree 02:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

XIIITH Sounds[edit]

Underground rap label founded by 14-year-old Serious Potential. Doesn't seem to be notable yet (0 Google-hits). High on a tree 02:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ormanik[edit]

Underground rapper signed onto XIIITH Sounds. Doesn't seem to be notable. High on a tree 02:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was attempt at communication about article topic (and CSD A1 - lack of context and content). - Mgm|(talk) 11:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stermata[edit]

I can't see any reason for keeping this page - I'm not sure of its intention - is it a request for genealogical information? Colonel Tom 05:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, speedily if possible - I read it the same was as Colonel Tom - Wikipedia is not a "help wanted" service. B.Wind 04:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as lacking context and information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YixilTesiphon (talk • contribs) 00:22, December 2, 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 no consensus. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Milf hunter[edit]

I originally tagged this as a speedy, but the creator has subsequently claimed notability. I don't buy it; not every porn site is notable, and this article looks an awful lot like advertising. Firebug 03:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Count is currently 12 keeps, 13 deletes, 1 "cull" (cleanup?), with 1 of the keep votes being disputed, as well as 1 of the delete votes (unsigned) being disputed. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Delete"
    • This opens a 'pandora's box' for free advertisements on wikipedia for certain websites, if not deleted we should not allow a link to an external website.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.121.47 (talk • contribs) . This was this user's 9th edit, and first vote on an AFD. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      • Actually it doesn't open up a pandora's box. The pandora's box is already wide open, as each and every porn article on Wikipedia has their own official site as a reference. Indeed, all of the sites are required to have something in order to meet WP:V. So unless Wikipedia makes a ruling to ban all porn sites, such a criticism can't work. But I am suggesting that a consensus be made on what to do with pornography related articles, so if you like you can contribute to that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His site is one of the most popular on the net. And since making November (film) a featured article in time for the DVD isn't advertising, neither is this. Bangbus has a page, and there are plenty of articles on wikipedia less "important" than Milf hunter (1000 alexa ranking is high). Jedpressgrove 04:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. What is Wikipedia's policy regarding porn sites? It's been estimated that about two-thirds of the Internet traffic is visiting porn sites, and many of the most-visited sites are hardcore in nature. B.Wind 04:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Objections to coverage of pornography topics simply based upon content are invalid, and are soundly rejected by most editors. However, that doesn't excuse pornography topics from the requirement of verifiability, although sometimes some editors try to distract the argument away from verifiability by trying to make the argument about content. Many people in the pornography industry are unverifiable by their own deliberate choice, to protect their identities because of the nature of what they do, and thus make themselves too secret for Wikipedia. Much of the information published about pornography actors and actresses, including (in many cases) their names, is simply made up. Some editors apply the Google Test to pornography topics, but, as explained at Wikipedia:Google Test, there is a whole sub-industry of the pornography industry that is devoted to gaming Google, and it is utterly useless as any sort of metric. The best tests are the WP:BIO tests for biographies and news coverage from sources that are independent of the subject, and the WP:WEB test for media coverage from sources that are independent of the subject. People such as Danni Ashe and Traci Lords satisfy such criteria. Uncle G 05:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as far as I have observed Wikipedia does not have articles for specific porn sites. Allowing one would just open the floodgates for thousands of porn advertisement "articles". Some guy. 04:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking the same thing, but I'm not sure if there are specific guidelines regarding porn. Regardless, I'd vote delete as the article lacks references and doesn't truly show the notoriety of the person or the site: what separates this from the thousands of other porn sites? Better yet, let's hope that the Wikipedia policy reflects Some guy's and my concerns. B.Wind 04:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would imagine WP:WEB was designed to apply for porn sites as for all other sites. Capitalistroadster 04:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's about him, not the site. I just haven't added much to it yet. In fact, i should probably change the name of the article to Shawn Rees. By the way, according to Alexa.com: Traffic Rank for milfhunter.com: 1,126 Jedpressgrove 04:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the article is about the person, then it should be deleted as non-notable. And while the website meets the Alexa criteria of a 10000 ranking or better, it fails to contain information that makes it a useful work of reference, as per WP:WEB Kevin 04:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The article appears to be about the actor who uses the nom de plume "Milf Hunter" (much as Adam Glasser calls himself "Seymore Butts") as opposed to the site. We certainly have articles on less notable porn stars. 23skidoo 04:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see him as non-notable, especially in certain 'communities.' Hmm, not sure how to put forward a delete nomination for Drew Curtis. And i will lengthen the article. My source went to sleep. And as soon as i made it it was up for deletion. Not much of a chance to actually add to it.Jedpressgrove 04:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's stopping you from adding to it now? Furthermore: Your source went to sleep? Are you using a reliable source that readers can use to verify the article? Because from that comment it sounds like you are not, and that what you are writing is unverifiable. Please cite this source. Uncle G 05:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • My source is someone who knows a lot about Milf hunter. His knowledge does come from reliable sources that can be cited. Further information will have to be taken from him. Nice use of italics there, to express shock, perhaps disdain or revulsion. Jedpressgrove 05:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The onus is on you to cite the sources for your edits. It is impossible for readers to obtain information from this third party. Once again, please cite your sources. Uncle G 05:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe the proper name is Gonzo-Porn--64.12.116.200 06:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam advertising--MONGO 06:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a very well-known series of porn movies. See the article on reality porn. —Brim 07:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As remarked above, the site should be regarded as notable by WP:WEB, so I'd vote keep. However the article is still weak on content. First, the actor's name is misspelled (should be "Shawn" [5] [6]). Then, the article fails to provide some basic information about the site: When was it founded? (ca. Oct. 2001 according to this review Link may contain adult content) What is the company behind it? (The domain is registered to RK Netmedia, Inc.). What is the business model? (Subscriptions apparently, see the cited review) According to a poster in this forum Link may contain adult content, the site is part of a larger network of porn sites run by a company called "Nasty Dollars".) About the person, there is also a lack of basic information, such as the approximate age/birth date. regards, High on a tree 10:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good research! Looking for independent reviews is exactly the way to address these subjects. Thank you. Uncle G 17:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google search for link-site gets nine results, which is staggeringly low for a supposedly popular "pr0n" site. Article is POV (note words like "popular"), and if the site ain't notable the author surely is not! Redirect to American Pie if we absolutely must. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your methodology is invalid, because Google does not behave the way you think it does. Google actually treats 'link:foo -site:foo' the same way as '"link foo" -site:foo", so your nine results are, in fact, all the sites contain the text "link foo"! If you do a link: search without the -site, you get over 100 results, the majority of which are from other sites. Alexa reports over 1000 incoming links. — Haeleth Talk 01:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a Web Guide. There is no indication whatever that this site is so overwhelmingly popular and novel as to have set a trend or accomplished anything particular that dozens or hundreds or thousands haven't. It's a porno site. There are tens of thousands of those. Geogre 15:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, verifiablilty problems.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 16:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Verifiability problems, seems like an ad, perhaps a little vanity... --DanielCD 19:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree wth Just zis Guy, to extent article is about Shawn (or Shaun) Rees, subject is nn; to extent its about the website, its an ad FRS 19:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not opposed to the content (no accounting for taste) and I have voted to keep articles with notable pornographers (ie: dozens of published videos) but this pseudo-actor just doesn't make the cut. Self-publishing is vanity, this is no more noteworthy than a blog writer. Ifnord 20:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how this is not a valid article. It is a very prominent subject within the adult entertainment industry and people need to learn about it and are interested in it.
    • Comment Whoever made the above vote, you have to sign it for it to count. --DanielCD 20:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As it stands, the article is more about a person than anything, and by WP:BIO, I don't believe it makes it. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The main source of the information is probably the website itself. People scrap together what reliable information they can from watching the videos and discuss and certify it on porn forums. Everything I've added is true. And how come bangbus can have an article but milf hunter can't? Milfhunter is higher on the Alexa scale and makes more money. Jedpressgrove 01:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this sort of thing is insipid scum, and has no place in Wikipedia. --Agamemnon2 08:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes NO SENSE to have bangbus but not Milf hunter. Jedpressgrove 21:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:WEB. Also the pornstars listed establish notability. Kappa 04:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Porn is notable.  Grue  20:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. Pavel Vozenilek 23:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is the most well known of all of the internet porn sites (other than ones like playboy etc that have their own magazines). They have their own feature films etc, and have something in the order of 100 other porn sites as spin offs or inspired by. Also remember that this was the first MILF porn site, something which became an actual category of porn sites, because it was so popular. When I was seeing some of the other porn sites in here, I was wondering if this one existed. But it should be renamed to MILF Hunter, to be accurate. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 21:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just an addendum here. Bang bus, which is an existing less notable article, seems to be a spin off from MILF hunter... Also, you should note that the Alexa rank for porn sites is unrealistic, as there are more than 1 site for the exact same place. There are I believe 15 different web sites that are mirrors of MILF hunter, all with (slightly) different content. Therefore, its true Alexa ranking would be around 300th. And we are thinking of deleting the 300th most popular web site in the world? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I expanded hugely on the article. Note that Shawn Rees is *NOT* Milf Hunter. Milf Hunter refers to the phenomenon. Shawn Rees *occasionally* refers to himself as "The hunter" but almost never as "Milf Hunter". Whilst he is in *almost* every video (there are a few with just 2 girls going at it), it does not necessarily revolve around him. However, it should be noted that most of the other MILF copies (all based on this site) have a variety of men as the focus, and hence MILF Hunter will too if and when Shawn Rees gives up/gets too old/etc. It is therefore not a biography. And indeed, describing it purely as a web site is misleading. They have had feature films and videos and DVDs and all sorts of things. It is better described as a phenomenon. I am astounded that something like this was even nominated for deletion. As I said elsewhere, it is in fact harder for a porn site to meet the alexa ranking test because they have so many mirrors and visitors do not all go to the same web site. For it to make it by 10 times in spite of that makes this nomination quite silly. Of all internet porn sites that you could consider, this is the most notable. Check out some of the reviews I linked if you doubt it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article is half-way on the path to decency now and I see no reason it should take a detour. --Cyde Weys [u] [t] [c] 07:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go have a look at the article now. I think it looks pretty good. By the way, once the AFD is finished, I will rename it to MILF Hunter, which is the correct capitalisation. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this porn site keeps appearing a lot when surfing for porn, but I don't see what's so notable about it. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. Vicky Vette first became famous because of her appearance on MILF Hunter. See here: [7] Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - MILF Hunter is fairly famous in the reality porn world and was one of the first reality porn sites.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RayGordon (talk • contribs)

  • There is no rational reasons to delete this entry. keep Fairfis
  • Keep. Notable porn site. -- JJay 19:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cull. You may interpret that as delete or as "go through it with a meat cleaver and leave no more than 30-40% of the article intact", whichever is necessary to prevent a "no-consensus" close. Either way, this article is very adish, what with the "how-to" information in the history about the trial offer and previews, etc.; the rambling (I feel) section about the models; and the influence section that reads as a fan essay. And redlinks all over the place. Gah. The Literate Engineer 02:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IPxpress[edit]

adicle, no inbound links Josh Parris#: 04:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SmartEMR[edit]

adicle, with no inbound links Josh Parris#: 04:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete original version was copyvio from http://www.smartemr.com/index.php?menuId=7 and other pages on the smartemr web site. otherwise is an ad. jnothman talk 04:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete copyvio probably, although I'm not conversant with the criterion. It's 100% manual, though. Geogre 15:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad; copied from company's web page, but apparently with permission, so not copyvio FRS 20:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - it's a copyvio of many pages. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AdoreSoftphone[edit]

Advertisement. Some guy 04:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hypercluster[edit]

Arxiv, google and the Harvard abstract service show no use of the term "hypercluster" in the astrophysics community. It is not a real term appearing in literature and thus does not require an article. -- Xerxes 04:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term does appear to have some use referring to computer clusters, but I can't find anything related to astronomy. Peyna 04:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete. I agree in only finding reference to computing. Except for one article, but it is not clear whether here "Maybe scientists will find evidence for superclusters gravitationally bound in a hypercluster." it is being used as a term, or to create a neologism extending the concept of superclusters. If someone can provide evidence for use of the term, I will readily change my vote. jnothman talk 04:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hyper-neologsim. It's a term that's hypothetically applicable to a hypothesized phenomona that hasn't actually been observed yet. FRS 20:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the term "hypercluster" isn't really recognized by astrophysics. "Supercluster" is another matter. Jtmichcock 00:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism, unverified. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as the author has admitted this was a hoax intended to make a point for a Dartmouth College newspaper article. As a journalist myself, I can appreciate the misguided reasoning, but I strongly urge the authors to consider Wikipedia's policies before wasting our time. I won't block for this violation... but others might. FCYTravis 21:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur W. Baron[edit]

NN bio, likely nonsense. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. An important figure in this sometimes cultish, but interesting field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.237.159 (talk • contribs) 23:38, December 1, 2005
  • Keep. Known in jazz fusion circles, and published author on molecular economics.--ProfDariusAlexander 04:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is one of the most ambitious of all humanist expressions. Baron is a brave visionary who pushes his controversial ideas to achieve the maximum benefit for compendiums like ours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.237.159 (talk • contribs) 23:45, December 1, 2005
  • Speedy Delete as A7. Peyna 04:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is all very interesting and I've found other sources outside Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.117.9 (talk • contribs) 23:49, December 1, 2005
  • Cleanup. Just needs to be tidied up a bit. Quite a bit. Some of the facts on molecular economics are wrong. I suggest you consult Meir Cohn's book for more details.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.117.9 (talk • contribs) 23:49, December 1, 2005
  • Delete This is just a non-notable person. Recommend a speedy delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.239.204 (talk • contribs) 23:51, December 1, 2005
  • Keep As much as I suspected this to be an NN, I was very unpleasantly surprised to find that there is a cult following behind this guy's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.117.9 (talk • contribs) 23:52, December 1, 2005
  • A note to Mr. Baron: "sock-puppet" votes are discounted, and actually hurt the article's chances of surviving. Please stop. You are wasting your time. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a student at Dartmouth College, I know that this is a real person.--AaronS 05:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what? I'm a real person, and I don't deserve an article, thank god. In case you somehow didn't realize, there are standards of inclusion including notability and verifiability. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am a real person too, do I get a Wikipedia article? Peyna 05:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You didn't write a book on molecular economics. This guy did. That's the difference. It's an important burgeoning new field. See this reference from: http://www.dartlog.net/2002/06/congratulations-mr-baron.php --AaronS 05:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Considering that Google indexes that website, it has not yet indexed that page, which suggests the creation date is false. Also, I highly doubt someone born in 1985 graduated from Dartmouth in 1998 and still contributes to a blog there. Peyna 05:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also notice that the "reference" has a link for "comments" while the other postings at that time do not. Apparently such a feature was not added to the web page until a much later date. I also find no evidence of any such award existing. Nice try, but find something more productive to do with your time. Peyna 05:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you use Blogger, you know that that feature can be turned on and off at any time, for any post, depending on the author's wishes.--AaronS 05:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Google cache [8] at the time of this posting shows the information was not on the page. Google's cache is not 3 years out of date. Peyna 05:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also see the Wayback Machine cache from October 2004 [9]. Peyna 05:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The biographical information was false. He was born in 1977.--AaronS 05:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this guy. There are 594 Google hits for Arthur Baron [10] However, they are about an older musician who played with Duke Ellington not this guy. "Arthur Baron" molecular economics gets 0 Google results see [11] and given that he is 20, he wouldn't be expected to have made much of a contribution to the field. Delete this article although an article on the jazz guy might be another question. Capitalistroadster 05:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am Art Baron and my friends the are assholes who did this page. Especially AaronS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.239.83 (talk • contribs) 00:51, December 2, 2005
  • Delete The Night Time is the Right Time...--64.12.117.9 06:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This and Molecular economics (AfD discussion) have all the hallmarks of a university student hoax. The mutually supporting articles and the inclusion of a purported reference are unusual. But as per Capitalistroadster and Peyna, the articles do not withstand scrutiny. The fact that Arthur W. Baron is a contributor to The Dartmouth Review, which AaronS is citing here as evidence, is also telling. From all appearances, AaronS is in on the hoax, and this is a prank played on Mr Baron, by Review staffers, rather than by him. Where imagination has particularly failed the perpetrator(s) is in the litany of comments in the AFD discussions offering personal testimony, stating that the article should be kept because it is "interesting", and claiming the existence of sources but not actually supplying them. This is an age-old "keep our hoax" pattern. Delete. Uncle G 06:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congratulations. Ungle G wins the Sherlock Holmes award. This was an experiment for an upcoming article in The Dartmouth Times Courant about Wikipedia as an effective reference.--129.170.237.98 06:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If true, phooey. My wife and I and my neighbors frequently pick up and dispose of litter left on the sidewalk, but I hope someone isn't going to dump a load of Forest Green trash on my sidewalk just to see whether we really do. If you disrupted Wikipedia to illustrate a point then you're a bunch of inconsiderate jerks and I hope that when U. S. News and World Report finds out about they'll break the tie between you and Columbia in Columbia's favor. Pffffftttt! Dpbsmith (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete farcical attempt at humor and it's not even funny. Not even encyclopedic.--MONGO 06:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I made the page.--ProfDariusAlexander 06:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Preferably speedy as silly vandalism, though I'm not sure whether the chorus of sockpuppet stupidity above, including a supposed author request, is sufficient to justify that. --Last Malthusian 10:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. Gazpacho 10:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero Google hits for the guy except for what might be an ad for a performance, and certainly no references to his name in connection with molecular economics. 23skidoo 12:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. The reason I call it unverifiable is that Molecular economics, also on AfD, makes the mistake of citing a source, a 1999 book supposedly published by the University Press of New England entitled "Subjectivist Labornomics" by Arthur W. Baron. Google books shows no hits on Subjectivist Labornomics and no hits on Arthur W. Baron. If this were an important theory and book, it is almost certain that a 1999 book itself or references to it would show up in Google Books. The University Press of New England's complete author/title index shows a book by Mary Baron entitled Wheat among Bones and one by Barron, Jonathan N on Jewish American Poetry but nothing resembling the cited book. Looks, sounds, feels, tastes and smells like a transparent hoax; the onus is on the contributor to show othersize. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the non-sockpuppet arguments above. Also comment to the person who states he is the subject of the article, which is a hoax by his friends - kudos for trying to help, but we must go through the process. You might also be a hoaxer, if you follow. KillerChihuahua 14:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination; socks --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. --W.marsh 15:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - creator has admitted hoax. ESkog | Talk 15:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or speedy delete as vandalism: Block IP of contributor, as well. It's authentic gibberish with a soupcon of moronia. The creators should go get cans of spray paint and exercise their muse in Providence, not here. Geogre 15:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, nn bio and hoax. WP:NOT a playground for bored rich college students. That's what SomethingAwful is for. :P  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 16:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Is this the most funny thing that these guys can come up with? Really? - Hahnchen 17:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as non-notable biography. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all these glowing tributes put me off. PatGallacher 17:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems like complete and utter nonsense. Somehow economics, music, and string theory don't seem to mix. --Impaciente 18:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sock-puppets dance in Wiki-Hell. BD2412 T 18:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and seconding the nomination to block IP of contributor. If this is indeed an effort by the Dartmouth Review to test Wikipedia then it shows callous indifference for the time and effort of volunteer editors. Durova 19:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and my disdain for sock banter. PJM 19:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax bordering on patent nonsense. Ifnord 21:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manic hype-cycle[edit]

Poster-child for expanding A7. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn; also, should it be kept, it needs a rewrite as Wikipedia articles are never written in the first person. B.Wind 04:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as utterly non-notable, and/or fiction. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 07:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Hoax for a Bobbist blog. Geogre 16:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per PeruvianLlama. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, KEEP. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 07:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of academic conferences[edit]

Delete, this list contains only two entries - the first (computer science) is merely a disambig link, and the second (optics) contains a link to a page that hasn't even been created. This article gives no useful information whatsoever. Mushin 04:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. As of listing, the article has been in existence for roughly one half hour. This should be taken into account in the voting process. For the time being, I'd wait to see if author fleshes this out before voting. B.Wind 04:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is an impossible to maintain list in its perfect form. "Academic conferences" would not just be the annual APA conference, wherever it may be, and the BPA conference, wherever it may be; nor would it be "MLA" and "ASECS." In a perfect form, it would be "MLA, SAMLA, NEMLA, SCMLA, PCMLA, MTMLA" then "ASECS, NESECS, SESECS, SCSECS," etc., and then it would be "SAMLA Atlanta 2005" and "SAMLA Charleston 2006" etc. I.e. a list of every academic conference would eat up all our servers, and that's just the United States. Add in the UK. Add in France. Add in Belgium, Spain, Netherlands, all the Scandinavian nations, Germany, Russia, etc. Simply put, there is no conceivable way that a list could be fashioned, much less maintained. Geogre 16:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interiot makes a very good argument. I still have to say weak delete: I almost think that a list of major academic conferences should go into academic conference or some similar larger article and then the list be a {{prettytable}}. I know I'm getting into content advice and not dispensation deliberation, here, but I agree with the content, just not a list that can't be complete or maintained. Geogre 13:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I did not think of that reason, although it is definitely valid. Mushin | Talk 16:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we tackle a similar problem in Trade fair#List of trade fairs. It's good to promintently note in the article that there are huge number of them, to make it clear that every single one shouldn't be listed there, as some simply aren't notable enough. However, I think it's good to have a list like this because, IMHO, there are some that aren't notable enough to have their own page on Wikipedia, but are notable enough to be briefly mentioned on some page somewhere on wikipedia, and something like this is one potential home for those medium-notability items. In terms of categorization, that can be worked out in time, organically, once the article starts growing. --Interiot 20:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as un-maintainable. At least trade fairs are held on a regular schedule for a number of years. While some academic conferences fit that description, there an awful lot of them, and an awful lot of ad-hoc one-off conferences. Where do you draw the line? -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Interiot. Let's see if this article goes anywhere - perhaps they will develop reasonable standards to deal with Geogre's concern, and it seems we have many other long lists around. ESkog | Talk 13:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Interiot. There is certainly a value in having a list of major regular confererences in all fields of academia. The fact that the list has just been created and does not have many entries for now should not be a reason to delete it for good. Instead, we should all work to enrich the list with what we know. In most academic fields, there are only a few truly prestigious conferences. For fields that have too many small conferences, sublists can be created to solve the problem. Xgu 21:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blackbird: Children's Orisons[edit]

Article for a webcomic that doesn't even give the URL for the comic... I can't even find the webpage for sure, closest I have found is this [12] hosted on DeviantArt. Wherever it is, there's no evidence it would meet WP:WEB proposed guidelines... possible self promotion. --W.marsh 04:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable. If its self-promotion, they aren't doing a very good job. KillerChihuahua 14:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unverifiable and of necessity fairly minor. No one is talking about it in a way that Google can find, anyway. Geogre 16:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

&Delete. I think I found it through deviantart.com, and if those posters are her work she's hella manga artist, but I can't get the webcomic to display or find any references to it; it may not exist yet. Herostratus 22:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN and unverifiable. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as a violation of WP:POINT. FCYTravis 21:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular economics[edit]

Violates WP:NOR, probably hoax associated with Arthur W. Baron which is AfD'd above Peyna 04:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: sources cited, this is not an example of NOR. Google has 9,660,000 hits for molecular economics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfDariusAlexander (talk • contribs) 23:51, December 1, 2005
  • 100 google hits for "molecular economics" (which is what caused me to initiate the Baron AfD). Crackpottery OR BS. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As stated above, no Google hits for "Arthur Baron" "molecular economics" see [13]. According to Baron's article he would have been 14 when he wrote the book on molecular economics. Two Google results for "molecular economics" see [14] - none mentioning Bacon. Three Google Scholar results with none supporting this usage [15]. This is simply not a significant form of economics. Capitalistroadster 05:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Arthur W. Baron article is a mess and has erroneous information. He is, however, a real person, and the book is real. See: http://www.dartlog.net/2002/06/congratulations-mr-baron.php --AaronS 05:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, a weblog comment posted 5 minutes before you wrote that comment. I am impressed. Peyna 05:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wild speculation.--AaronS 05:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not wild speculation. See the google cache for the page [16]. Also notice that the "reference" has a link for "comments" while the other postings at that time do not. Apparently such a feature was not added to the web page until a much later date. I also find no evidence of any such award existing. Nice try, but find something more productive to do with your time. Peyna 05:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also see the Wayback Machine cache from October 2004 [17]. Peyna 05:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would you find evidence of such an award? There's no reason to assume that you would find it on Google. As I said in the other AfD page, the option for comments is decided by the author of the post.--AaronS 05:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the reasons given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur W. Baron, delete. Uncle G 06:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no such field. Farce.--MONGO 06:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per all of the above. Ugh. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 07:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although it does appear that "molecular economics" is an actual concept - or should I say there are several concepts out there with that name per Google - none of the pages that I can find seem to coincide with the article or this Arthur Baron fellow. See for example [18]. 23skidoo 12:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable unless far better evidence is provided prior to close of discussion. At the very least, we need an ISBN is given for the single cited source and easily verifiable evidence that the book exists. Google books shows no hits on Subjectivist Labornomics and no hits on Arthur W. Baron. If this were an important theory and book, it is almost certain that a 1999 book itself or references to it would show up in Google Books. The University Press of New England's complete author/title index shows a book by Mary Baron entitled Wheat among Bones and one by Barron, Jonathan N on Jewish American Poetry but nothing resembling the cited book. Looks, sounds, feels, tastes and smells like a transparent hoax; the onus is on the contributor to show othersize. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Molecules have no money. Ridiculous formation, non-existent "science": all dismal and no science. Just a hoax. Geogre 16:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. See the Arthur Baron AfD for related confirmation of hoax.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 16:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - So outright ridiculous that it doesn't even border on pseduoscience. Absolute hoax, absolutely not funny. - Hahnchen 17:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blackbird 1.0[edit]

Bio of a guy whose key accomplishment is having one of the highest post counts in a Power Ranger's forum, and being in some clan related to the forum. And this article has been up for 4 months. --W.marsh 04:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleted some POV crap, but still Delete as per nom. --YixilTesiphon 05:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete er, nothing notable in any way.--MONGO 06:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It would be virtually impossible for someone known only as a web forum poster to meet the WP:BIO criteria, and this person isn't going to change that. --Metropolitan90 06:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, absolute vanity. Nandesuka 13:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Screen names are not people. Screen names are pseudonymns of people. The people behind the screen names would need to be mighty mighty to qualify as candidates for encyclopedia articles, and even the most famous of them (e.g. Commander Taco) only have articles when the real names can be listed and they have been referred to in outside sources (in that case Revolution OS). Geogre 16:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yeah but it's not like he's racked up those numbers on some unimportant board. This is the Power Rangers we're talking about here -- a topic that affects every human in profound and fundamental ways. LOL Herostratus 22:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, the Power Rangers board? We're all in fear now, lest someone in Spandex with the body of a Japanese Karate master but the voice of a [your nation here] teen actor come and kick our rears! :-) Geogre 13:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Puffery. Reyk 23:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was closed early as candidate for speedy deletion. cj | talk 08:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

King Bob M[edit]

Cyber-vanity. Delete YixilTesiphon 05:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per YixilTesiphon's reasoning. Croat Canuck 05:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedy as nonsense?--MONGO 06:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete; I would say {{nn-bio}}, but it's not even a real person. I'm going to put a speedy tag on it. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-02 07:07:07Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Mhan[edit]

Gut feeling is that he's not notable enough, but as someone who's not familiar with anime, I want to see what people's opinions are. Tentative feeling: Delete (speedy if clearly not notable). --Nlu 05:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since a penciler makes the initial drawings and since this person worked for some very notable companies on several notable comics, I fail to see why he shouldn't be notable. His work involves more creativity than inking (coloring) the drawings. - Mgm|(talk) 11:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pop Mhan (that is his real name) has been working for major comic book publishers since the mid 1990s. Besides Spyboy, he also drew Ghost Rider (one of his first projects). --Pc13 13:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well known comic book artist, drew the Flash for DC for a fairly long stint. I heard of him before seeing his Wikipedia article, if that means anything. Smerdis of Tlön 17:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand and keep - I would like to see the article fleshed out a bit more, but otherwise Pop Mhan meets all the criteria. 147.70.242.21 21:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 a copyvio. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moody Church[edit]

Delete: unencyclopedic article, with a strong religious POV, copied from the church's web site, about an old but not particularly notable local church. Nominated here on the assumption that the material on the web site is used by permission; otherwise this can just go to copyvio. MCB 05:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Pretty blatant copyvio; without more info we can't assume use by permission so I blanked everything but the AfD and added a copyvio tag. Peyna 05:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-I think the Moody Church is moderately notable RM page on it, but as this is copyvio I could see deleting and starting over with something that's not. Or just dealing with it at the Moody Bible Institute article. No vote for now.--T. Anthony 06:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this was a legitimate article, I would vote to keep as the Church seems notable enough for mine. However, it is a copyvio so Delete. Capitalistroadster 08:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it's here. While it might have been posted by somebody from the church, they might not have permission from the writer to use it. Even if they do, they often don't really want to give permission to post it, as they give up some of their rights as to how it can be used and it can be modified however Wikipedia wants. Also, sometimes they never come back to Wikipedia after posting the article, so we're never able to find out if they have permission. Because of this, I'd suggest sending these types of articles to copyright problems. -- Kjkolb 10:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio w/o prejudice to re-creation; church was apparently founded by Dwight L. Moody, a significant figure in U.S. evangelical Protestantism, and seems notable. Smerdis of Tlön 17:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BleedingSnort[edit]

Rather confusing article that seems to be advertising for a website which has an Alexa rank of 433,365 and a forum without a whole lot of users (can't find the actual number but there look to be about 1,000 total posts). Fails WP:WEB proposed guidelines as far as I can tell. --W.marsh 05:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. --Merovingian 05:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unremarkable forum. - Mgm|(talk) 11:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The nomination is well formed and says almost all that needs to be said. Add to it, though, that this is a copy & paste of the site's mission statement. Geogre 17:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on principle as advertisement even if it WAS notable. Herostratus 22:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre. Xoloz 22:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom <->Refusetobesilenced 22:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Javiano[edit]

NN bio, likely vanity, claims notability, google disaggrees. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN bio possible farce anyway.--MONGO 06:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, but innocent enough i think. perhaps it should be userfied.--Alhutch 06:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 speedy delete nn. NSLE (讨论+extra CVU) 08:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for winning the coveted 0 google hits award. Notoriety suggestions are likely lies. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 speedy delete. I tagged it twice, it got speedied twice. No notability whatsoever. Also note the articles for his son and his wife; those also need to go. Tom Lillis 23:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vinyl Era (band)[edit]

NN band. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and no assertion of notability.--Alhutch 07:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertions of notoriety. The crystal ball thing has nothing to do with this kind of article as the band exists. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:MUSIC as fas as I can see. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above Colonel Tom 03:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - any band article that lists their "influences" is usually a bad sign. Bill shannon 03:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at least until one of them shows up on a Broken Social Scene album. Though I won't hold my breath. Bearcat 06:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus = keep.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Money Bin[edit]

  • Keep The context the article was written under was from a link from the article on Ducktales, the television show and as such the information relating to it is from the television show.

A building featured in a cartoon. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination, or as a second choice redirect to Scrooge McDuck. The article is inaccurate in implying that the money bin comes from the DuckTales cartoon; it predates that cartoon by decades in the comic books. --Metropolitan90 06:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Money bin is referenced in many other places as well, and has been used in variations of Scrooge as well as Monty Burns from The Simpsons. Not solely related to cartoon, has cultural significance. Similar to Chewbacca Defence from South Park. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - often referened per Zordrac -Meegs 20:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I loved the Scrooge McDuck comics fifty years ago, and that's the place for this kind of discussion. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup, wikify, add stuff from comics. Or at very least, if that's not possible, redirect to Scrooge McDuck. Well, I think it's a notable enough topic to have an article of my own, but then again, I'm yet another crazy European. There's a whole lot of stuff, an example that barely scratches the surface, to be said about the thing, not just what's in the article right now. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 03:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Insignificant. There is too much cruft like this clogging Wikipedia. Hu 04:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Scrooge McDuck. NN enough to have its own page. --Worthawholebean 04:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Scrooge McDuck, the originator of the concept. B.Wind 05:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, recurring location in popular fiction, wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 04:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the most well known buildings in the Donald Duck universe. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Stealers Wheel. – Robert 01:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steeler's Wheel[edit]

We already HAVE an article on this: Stealers Wheel. Delete! --Lifthrasir 06:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Trampled by elephants. Enochlau 02:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stampedian_law[edit]

This page is at best original research, but more likely a hoax or nonsense. It has been put up by a new user without a registered username, and the comments on the talk page appear obfuscatory. Slashme 06:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come clean, this is made up, but it’s not a hoax. It is true to say that this is a very small and young religion, but go to hell anyway. --80.177.160.138

OK, could one of you intrepid admins please kill this page now? --Slashme 05:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy redirect to Necrophilia --Nlu 07:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skull fuck[edit]

dicdef; Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary; there are probably better reasons but it should be deleted Peyna 06:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the alternative, we could always redirect to Necrophilia. Peyna 07:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (and delete redirect). bainer (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Hierarchies of English Accents and Dialects[edit]

Original research, or at the least an outline for a personal essay (with only one author in the edit history). The contents of what would eventually make up this article might also be found at American English regional differences and other similar articles. Delete. Parallel or Together ? 06:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOR. I couldn't find anything related to this topic; a few things about a similar subject with respect to different castes in India and their dialects, but that's about it. Peyna 07:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have left a note on Mbooth13's talk page to let her know that this article has been sent to AfD. She was the sole editor of the page in question. -Parallel or Together ? 07:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above - Research proposals on WP?? JPD 10:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POV. I can't see this ever being presented as a neutral argument. Whilst it'd be interesting to find out about Accents and Dialects of the English language (particularly in England and United States, where they have the largest variation of accents of any country), suggesting that it has to do with race etc is just wrong. Maybe, just maybe, we could consider rewriting it as a whole other title, whole other way of doing it, about accents and dialects full stop. But nah, then we are starting over anyway. There is nothing of value in that article. Nothing to salvage. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's original research on a topic upon which there is massive scholarly research. British accents have long had class associations, and they still do. In Australia, the British accent (as opposed to "Ozzie" accent) had a class marker. In the United States, each region has a prestige dialect (e.g. Plantation Southern, Mid-Atlantic, Ivy, etc.). These class hierarchies are persistent. Furthermore, there have been new class dialects emerging, and some dialectology research suggests that regional accents themselves are becoming prestige markers (as there is an amalgamation of accents in the highly mobile middle class, leaving only the wealthy to grow up in one place and Black English as a universal "poor" accent). So, in fact, there is a great deal to say -- too much, in fact -- that could be and should be heavily cited. However, it isn't really encyclopedic so much as it would be scholarly. Geogre 17:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to user page for the time being. Right now, it's just a truism and an outline. I have every confidence that a valid, referenced, and encyclopedic article could indeed be written on the social status of various speech habits, and that there's enough here to warrant a separate article outside the broad overview of regional differences. As it stands now, the page is rather short on actual information. We should give the author every opportunity to finish it. Smerdis of Tlön 17:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to user page - Basically I agree with Geogre's observations but Smerdis of Tlön's conclusion. It's plainly a work in progress on a massive subject, so give the author a chance to develop the article, cite other sources, to avoid the "original research" problem. With so much trivia around, it seems wrong to get rid of something serious too hastilyJameswilson 02:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. – Robert 01:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turanism[edit]

After removing copyvios [20] there's not much left on this article to stand still. Also Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine Delete-- -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 07:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. 553 Google hits but includes a number of history articles see [21]A number of Google books results including Volume 1 of the Cambridge History of Islam indicates that it is a significant phrase see [22]. 62 Google scholar results as well [23]. Capitalistroadster 08:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's an academically-respectable term with enough articles and hits. Dlyons493 13:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - how many references do you need? LOL. Well known term of historical importance. Simple choice. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? Again, folks, this article is bad news. This topic is valid. Y'all see the POV statement in there? I suppose the only possible vote would be Send to cleanup. Geogre 17:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think an explanation on this moevment is a good idea since it is a political movement, copy rights were given so I vote to keep it. References are given to back up things in the article. And yes it needs expansion which I will do later, once the voting is done and if it is aloud to be put back up --Aryan Khadem 23:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Redirect and merge any useful parts into Pan-Turkism, which the article itself states is equivalent and which is a much more developed article. Hu 04:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep-only after a major edit. It shuld be neutralize and de-politisized. I don't know where to start now, but will have to do it if no one else does.--TimBits 04:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put a deadline for a major rewrite on it - if it's met, keep it; if not, delete. I now see a framework with no details. B.Wind 01:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Rewrite? Ok when you say rewrite what exactly do you mean, any particular parts? What area? etc --Aryan 14:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Predator 3[edit]

There are plenty of hits on Google, but poke through them, and you'll see it's all pure speculation. No listing on IMDb. No verifiable details of any kind. Delete until it's something other than a rumor. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-02 07:02:50Z

  • I just wrote that article, and yep, your right, get deleting! 210.86.40.187 07:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball. Peyna 07:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in spite of words like "probably", "supposedly" and "rumour" in the article, it does get 43,300 google hits, which is more than just wild speculation. Predator 3 already has its own movie page. So I think we can say that the whole crystal ball thing isn't relevant here. It is definitely going to be released. It is definitely notable. It is definitely going to be called Predator 3. It is definitely very notable. Since wikipedia is a collaborative project, we should have no problems changing the article's contents to suit changes in what is happening with the project. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V; you can't possibly tell me that rumor sites are a reliable source of information, Zordrac.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 16:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm telling you that I believe that 43,400 "people" have no reliable, verifiable information on the topic. Have you actually looked at any of the links? Just because it's in a Google search result doesn't mean it's worth anything. See WP:CITE and WP:V. If you can find anything beyond a bunch of fans wishing for a sequel, do share! :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-02 21:21:46Z
  • Delete: Cannot be verified. If we all wish hard enough, it still won't necessarily be. (See how long folks wished for the Firefly movie, and then see how it emerged with a different title than they expected and later than they thought. How about Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie and how long that was not only anticipated but "in production" before it was in production?) When it exists (at the very least, when principal photography has wrapped), it will be time to say what it is. Geogre 17:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's 43,300 verifications there for you. That's about the most ridiculous interpretation of "unverifiable" I can imagine. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Counting Google hits is not research. You must actually read what Google turns up. If you have found a reliable source of information about this purported movie as a result of a Google search, tell us what it is. Otherwise, you have failed to counter what RasputinAXP and HorsePunchKid (who both clearly have read what is turned up) wrote above. Uncle G 20:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - even though this topic is of ZERO interest to me personally, in the interests of fairness I rewrote the article somewhat, with reference not only to the Predator 3 movie, but also the 4 other commonly used ways to describe Predator 3. The reality is that Predator 3 already exists, as both a novel, comic and video game. There already exists a script. It is just a matter of when, and what precisely the movie will contain. I gave details of what the movie will be about, and confirmation as to what stage it is at, to ensure that we make fair votes here. Apparently the recent hype (as evidenced by the 44,000 google hits) is because Arnold Schwarzenegger has recently agreed to be a part of the movie, and a director has been found, hence pre-production is underway. This, combined with the success of Aliens vs Predator has meant that this movie is now going to be made. If you delete this, then its silly, because it will just be re-created later on. I suppose that immediatists don't see the value in this. Delete this, and you free up server space for oh 3 months, before its going to be back in force and then we'll have a whole big argument about whether or not it should be up now, or later, etc. Not to mention the fact that there are a range of products that have already been released. It's kind of like refusing to have an article on Star Wars 7 because it hasn't been produced yet. There's already a book and a script there. Star Wars 7 movie, fine, maybe there's an argument to prevent that. But Star Wars 7 full stop should exist. Its a similar kind of case here. These are not mere rumours here folks. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just noticed that the original author voted delete, so I guess then we have a no contest. I didn't realise that before. I still think its silly though. Does Star Wars 7 exist by the way? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently not. Unless its known by another name. Apparently, until they turn it in to a movie, we don't list it here, number 1 best seller or not. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you referring to Heir to the Empire??  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 01:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure. There's so many fan fic books and spin offs that its hard to tell the official from the fan fics. There were initially 9 books in the series, 3 trilogies. First 3 on Annakin Skywalker, next 3 on his son Luke Skywalker and next 3 on their kids. At least, that's what I read when I was a kid, before all the fan fic books. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no Star Wars 7 yet, nor any scripts for it yet. But their are a number of official novels and comics that show what happens afterwards, and would supposedly be adapted for any new movies. One of the most commonly cited is Timothy Zahn's Heir to the Empire. -LtNOWIS 04:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is no Star Wars VII, and according to George Lucas, there never will be. Star Wars was originally planned to be a trilogy of trilogies, but he abandoned the idea after finishing the Indiana Jones trilogy (there is, however, a fourth Indiana Jones movie on the way). B.Wind 01:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes I understand that. But weren't there books first? I can remember reading a comic book version of them (summarised, short and sweet - one comic book for each of the 9 episodes) as a kid. Or are you saying that they only wrote 6 books? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • The first movie, called simply Star Wars, was issued in 1977. At the time, George Lucas said he planned to make a trilogy of trilogies, with Star Wars being the first film of the second trilogy. He intended to issue a new film in the series every three years, but waited 16 years after Return of the Jedi to make The Phantom Menace. All the books and ancillary products came later. Any books set in a time period after Return of the Jedi are the works of others, and not necessarily part of George Lucas' conception. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE and REDIRECT to AvP. That is the third Predator film, and some have called it Predator 3 or Alien 0. It's also chronologically the third Predator film. As Ahnold is now the governator, and won't be making films for a while, this won't happen, because he's making True Lies 2 if he gets turfed, which is a much more solid bet than P3. 132.205.44.134 00:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We're not in the rumor business. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. When and if this movie happens, then someone can do a real page. Jtmichcock 02:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of verifiability. Friday (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and WP:NOT a crystal ball. Zordrac, if you feel that this reasoning is incorrect, you are more likely to get a productive discussion on the talk page to WP:NOT instead of grinding your gears against a bunch of people voting based on established policy here. ESkog | Talk 14:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK ,lets cut to the chase.I, yes I, creAted this article.I now realise that it is only wild speculation. I may have created this article, but now it must be deleted. it has gone far enough.{210.55.147.162 07:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)}[reply]


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

The result of the debate was page listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1.2 Central[edit]

I'm really not sure what this is. This author has created various pages named in outline form, such as chapters of a book. This could maybe go to Wikibooks but doesn't belong on WP. —Brim 07:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Cuisine of Central Thailand and do similar for the rest of that user's articles on Thai cuisine. Peyna 07:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd go ahead and remove this AfD nom since it's been determined it was all copyvio, that should take care of it. Peyna 07:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pod Music Countdown (PMC Top10)[edit]

Just some non-notable podcast; not at all encyclopedic. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-02 07:12:11Z

  • Known better by the abbreviated name (nearly 20,000 Google hits). This podcast was the FIRST to countdown the podsafe music being spun by podcasters. It played a key role in the rise of Brother Love as the first podsafe breakout star. This is definitely a key podcast. --C-Dogg 14:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cdoelle. Definitely notable, and assertions are backed up. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Cdoelle. Factitious 04:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If kept, can the closer please move the article to a more reasonable name and make a redirect from whatever C-Dogg suggested, since that's obviously the more likely thing to end up the search box! —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 04:54:01Z
  • Agreed - it should be modified to PMC Top10 --C-Dogg 17:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dexigen Technologies Inc.[edit]

Advertising spam, plain and simple. With only 5 Google hits, this may be the least noteworthy bit of spam I've ever seen here! (And no, that doesn't make it notable. ;-) Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-02 07:15:35Z

Pssst... notability, not notoriety. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-02 21:47:30Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


close notes - NOTE: These are only the notes of the closing administrator both so that he could keep his thoughts together when closing this RFA and so that users can understand his thoughts while closing


  • It has been determined that this does not qualify as a speedy deletion since the content currently in the article at the time of the AFD nom is not the same as content at the time it was originally deleted
  • User:Ognit Ice's vote discounted, as a suspected sock JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Mihnea Tudoreanu has been campaigning for votes which while not explicity forbidden is discourged as a matter of practice
  • 17 keep (including merge and redirect votes), 12 delete
    • (of keep votes) 11 just keep, 5 merge/redirect



Economic fascism[edit]

The article was deleted before, only to be ressurected again. It is unencyclopedic and has no hope of ever being anything other than a stub or a description of the views held by some libertarians on the issue of state intervention in the economy. The definition of fascism is highly disputed; the existence of a separate economic system called "economic fascism" is not supported by the majority of economists and historians. The idea that state intervention in the economy is inherently fascist would be seen as utterly absurd by all but a handful of authors, all of which are economic libertarians. The term "economic fascism" does not appear in any encyclopedic sources. At this point, the article does not contain any information which is not already present in fascism, and I believe that that article is the appropriate location for discussing fascist economic policies and the various interpretations given to them. A separate article for one particular such interpretation is not only unneeded, but positively harmful given the controversy and POV surrounding anything related to fascism. Delete. Mihnea Tudoreanu 07:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to voters from author of article: The statement above: "The idea that state intervention in the economy is inherently fascist would be seen as utter absurd..." is misleading. The article does not say that. It clearly says it's an overall economic system including a "planned economy" and "heavy coordination of the means of production, among other characteristics. Mere economic intervention is not "inherently fascist." The article says no such thing nor gives any such impression (This message left 5 days after voting started, unfortunately). RJII 15:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Administrators I'd just like to note that Minhea Tudoreanu is going around spreading false information in campaigning to get this article deleted. He's writing to various editors' talk pages the following: "There is an ongoing attempt to define state intervention in the economy as inherently fascist through the creation of an article entitled economic fascism..." This is false. The article clearly says that economic fascism includes a "planned economy" and says the means of production are "heavily coordinated"; it obviously does not say that economic fascism is mere intervention. Of course people are going to vote to delete if that's what it said. *I* would vote to delete in that case or edit the article to say otherwise. Tudoreanu placed this message in the Talk pages of users such as user:El_C, user:Sesel, and user:Ruy Lopez who then voted to delete. Administrators please take note of this in your analysis. RJII 05:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As one of the users receiving a notice from Minhea Tudoreanu, I reject the claim that he has sent me false information. Even if he were sending false information, the point would be moot. I respect Minhea Tudoreanu; but I do not vote based on how he tells me to vote. I am certain that the same is the case with the other editors receiving the notices... Since RJII has metioned Minhea, I will use this thread as a chance to offer him a belated thanks for the message. I would not have seen this AfD had it not been for his note on my talk page. I hope that he continues to send me similar notices so that I can better stay informed of important discussions on Wikipedia. 172 09:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So that explains your confusion over what the article is about. In order to give this some semblance of being fair. I'm going to have to leave a few notices on the Talk pages of others. But, unlike Tudoreanu, I'm not going to misrepresent the article. I'm just going to let them know a vote is going on. This won't fix the damage that has been done by Tudoreanu, because obviously he has misled several, but it may help alleviate the injustice. Administrators: Please give me time to do this. RJII 15:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD:G4; I added the Speedy tag. Peyna 07:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The text of G4 reads "[b]efore deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject." I checked the content and it's not substantially the same as far as I can tell, therefore we need this AfD for it. gren グレン 08:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for verifying this. Peyna 08:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That would have been quite a coincidence, as I wasn't even aware that the article had existed and deleted before I created it. RJII 14:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Economic fascism is a notable term that deserves its own article. It has over 11,000 hits on a Google search. Scholoarly papers are written about it, use the term, etc. Minhea Tudoreany, who put this article up for deleteion says "the idea that state intervention in the economy is inherently fascist would be seen as utterly absurd by all but a handful of authors, all of which are economic libertarians." Well, the article says nothing of the sort so I don't know where he's getting that. RJII 14:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC) (author of the article)[reply]
    • The number of google hits can tell you whether a term is widely used, but it cannot tell you whether it deserves its own article. Given the way "economic fascism" tends to be used, I would classify it as a pejorative term and mention it in the list of political epithets. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry but that makes me laugh. That's totally bizarre. It's not a "pejorative" term ..it's just a term. RJII 00:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a lazy 11,300 google hits. A well known term in common use. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google hits tell us nothing about encyclopedic standards. For example, "cultural fascism" gets an even greater number of hits 14,600. [24] But the kinds of entries that come up are revealing. Many are Google hits are related to the Lyndon LaRouche tract "How 'The Sexual Congress of Cultural Fascism' Ruined the USA and and Gave Us 'Beast-Man' Cheney"-- not encyclopedic. The People's Daily usage of the term "cultural fascism" in "Lu's remarks reveal Taiwan cultural fascism" is only slightly less bizzare. 172 03:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fascism, agree with Capitalistroadster. An article on economics under fascism, if there were enough material to justify a separate article, should be entitled economics under fascism or something similar. "Economic fascism" implies fascism through economics. Almost all those google hits for "economic fascism" are from economic libertarians. TomTheHand 17:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does the fact that "Almost all those google hits for "economic fascism" are from economic libertarians" have to do with anything? The fact is, the term is used and is notable. Anyway, most economists today are economic libertarians so it's no surprise the most usages of the term are by laissez-faire advocates. It's POV of you to want to get rid of the article because laissez-faire advocates use the term. Totally unjustified. RJII 18:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Most economists today are economic libertarians"? That is a bold - and, I would argue, ridiculous - claim. But that's not the point here. If only (or mostly) laissez-faire advocates use a term, then that term should clearly be presented as such. I would not object to an article entitled Libertarian perspectives on fascism that included all the information currently found in Economic fascism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should have been more clear. When I did the Google search, I primarily saw paranoid pages talking about how the United States was practicing economic fascism, or was on the way down the path to doing so, which is unrelated to what you've written about. I think what you've written is good, and non-POV, but I think it's redundant and should be merged with and redirected to fascism. TomTheHand 19:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That still doesn't negate the fact that the concept and term is noteable in and of itself. If someone wants to know what economic fascism is, after coming across it, they should be able to go direct to an article on it instead of having to wade through the desultory generalized fascism article. RJII 20:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem is that no one agrees what economic fascism is. All the definitions you've found are hopelessly vague. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Everybody agrees that economic fascism is the economic system practiced in fascist nations. Sure, there is some variations between definitions but they're in general agreement. RJII 00:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fascism: Fascism, we should remember, was Mussolini's economic philosophy before it was his political philosophy, and the article on fascism talks about the economics of the government. There is no need for the doublet. Geogre 17:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I completely disagree with a redirect. As I am sure a number of other students have done, I twice was set essay topics in relation to "Economic Fascism", neither of which had anything to do with "Fascism". Some people can link the two: most don't. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've also seen professors use the term "economic fascism" in syllabuses, study notes, etc. RJII 18:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, let us base an article on hearsay. [/sarcasm] On a more serious note, it has been my experience that whenever the term "economic fascism" is used neutrally in academic circles, it tends to be used as a synonym for "the economic policies of fascist governments". It is not considered a separate economic system. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, "economic fascism" is "a synonym for the economic policies of fascist governments." And that's what the article says it is. You're complaint is very strange indeed. RJII 00:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a need because there is a notable term to label the economic of fascism: "economic fascism." RJII 18:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree, the entry should stay and it shouldn't be redirected. Economic Fascism is not the same as Fascism and deserves its own entry. This is something i've come across in my own college studies.Ognit Ice 18:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • vote discounted by closing admin (user has 22 edits the majority of which are to AFD's, also comments also probably sockpuppet as shown by [[25]]) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-max rspct 21:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Look up capitalism, buddy. Merriam-Webster (unabridged) defines it as: "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market." If these things are determined by "state control" then it's not capitalism. Get a clue. RJII 21:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Try and directly refute what I just said..I reckon that anybody with a good knowledge of working capitalism (not just capitalism "the ideal" or free market "the ideal") would agree that there is no government on earth that has not greatly intervened in it's economy, national bank, infrastructure whether though subsidies, legislation or creation of markets. And by the way.. this is for an encyclopedia article not a thin dictionary entry -max rspct 21:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The definition said "mainly in a free market." It doesn't have to be an absolutely free market to be capitalism. But it has to be overwhelmingly free. If intervention is very significant but some private decision still exists, then it's not capitalism, but a mixed economy. If it's a mainly interventionist economy, then it's a planned economy. Get your terms straight man. What you are calling capitalism is not capitalism. RJII 21:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just listen to yourself! -max rspct
Even the US Department of State says the U.S. is a mixed economy. [26])
The distinction between capitalism and mixed economies is not in dispute here. What is in dispute is your claim that any mixed economy with sufficient state intervention is necessarily fascist. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where the hell are you getting this? The article does not claim a mixed economy is a fascist economy. A mixed economy is not a fascist economy. Economic fascism is an overwhelmingy planned economy ..not a mixed economy. I don't understand where you're coming from. RJII 00:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A large number of economists and political theorists use this concept, and there is considerable literature on the subject. I would have made it fascism (economic), but I guess that's a matter of taste. Hogeye 22:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats a very bold claim! -max rspct 22:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect sans merge to Fascism; the "economic" is superfluous, and Flynn and DiLorenzo are quite openly partisan. Gazpacho 23:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, the economic system of Mussolini has a name: corporativism. That of Hitler also has a name: Führerprinzip. This article would be redundant with those as well. Gazpacho 00:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree with the agenda of people who talk about "economic fascism," but I can't deny that it's an actual concept which is fairly widely used. The article should be kept and improved with some NPOV. Factitious 04:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Essentially, my argument is that economic fascism is not so much a concept as a smear term. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you're very confused. "Fascism" is a smear term, yet there's an article on fascism. "Economic fascism" has the term "fascism" so you're probably associating it with a smear term, but it's not. It's just the name of the economic system that has existed in fascist nations. RJII 00:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Fascism after POV cleanup as a section titled "Economic aspects of Fascism". If article kept as a separate entity, I would suggest Move to a title such as this: "Corporatism", "Fascist economies", "Fascist economics", or ""Economic aspects of Fascism". "Economic fascism" seems (1) poorly formed -- we don't say "Economic captitalism/socialism", we say "Capitalist/socialist economics", and (2) sounds inflammatory. Herostratus 07:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After POV cleanup"? Where is the POV? And move it from economic fascism to "fascist economics"? "Economic fascism has like 11,000 Google hits, and "fascist economics" has just over 200. I'm afraid to ask what kind of reasoning is behind that. And the reason we don't say "economic capitalism" or "economic socialism" is because capitalism and socialism are themselves economic systems. "Fascism" is not itself an economic system; it's more encompassing than that. The economic system that's found in fascist political systems is called "economic fascism." And, "economic fascism" sounds inflammatory? Pure nonsense. RJII 07:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The economic system that's found in fascist political systems is not unique enough to be called anything. "Economic fascism" makes as much sense as "Economic monarchism", "Economic republicanism" or "Economic parliamentarianism". And your POV lies in the way you define economic fascism, which is at best a hopelessly vague term and at worst nothing more than propaganda by association (associating certain economic policies with fascism in order to make them look bad). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Over 11,000 hits on Google. That says it all. It's notable. RJII 23:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while the article as it stands is not NPOV, the question here is could there be a NPOV article with this title and there could. It seems to be a notable term with 11k hits on google and its details could be hashed out. jucifer 00:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reason for deletion is the existence of a separate economic system called "economic fascism" is not supported by the majority of economists and historians. So what! I agree that the theory is crazy but that dosn't mean it can't have an article describing it!! Let the article say that economist think it is shit. jucifer 00:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. What is there to be afraid of? I curious about the claim that it's not NPOV though. I tried my best to write an NPOV article. I even mentioned an author that promotes economic fascism. RJII 01:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete In and of itself the term "economic fascism" is a non-encyclopedic neologism. Yes, the term gets 11,000 hits on Google; but that tells us nothing more than the fact that the term gets 11,000 hits on Google. A Google search is a terrible indicator of anything, especially encyclopedic standards. Just about any non-encyclopedic neologism will get literally thousands of Google hits. For example, compare the number of hits generated by "economic fascism" to the number of hits generated by "American fascism," another unencyclopedic ahistorical term used in polemics. "American fascism" gets 78,000 hits. [28] (BTW, if a misguided user were ever to start an article on "American fascism," I suspect that some of the "keep" voters here would join me in supporting an AfD on such an entry.) Nevertheless, the term "economic fascism" has a place in a certain context on Wikipedia; a self-standing entry, though, is defiantly not the proper context. Most references to the term online are inspired by a fairly well-known essay among libertarian circles (and even some academic circles that have done some interesting comparative work on the notion of a 'welfare-warfare state' and its relation to the political economies of the European fascist regimes-- though academics never use the term themselves) by Thomas DiLorenzo entitled "Economic Fascism." [29] RJII's work would thus have a proper place in the Thomas J. DiLorenzo article under a section summarizing his essay "Economic Fascism." Since the term "economic fascism" is so strongly associated with DiLorenzo, the Wikipedia page "economic fascism" can even be redirected to the DiLorenzo article. 172 00:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree for you in the most part and although I haven't voted here my reason for not voting delete is that in an encyclopedia where we have an article for Slanted and Enchanted (non-notable album) why not have an article for economic fascism which seems to be more notable than many of our album pages. I suppose the issue with this is that it skews all of the work on economics to a POV rant when every little epithet gets an article. So, because of those views I can only be neutral. Your reasoning was pretty sound, but, when our notability standards are so low is there reason not to create this page? I really don't know the answer. gren グレン 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point in that there have been occasions with little political epithets creeping into Wikipedia and getting their own article. But I consider that trend on Wikipedia quite unfortunate and worrisome overall. If we can't spot all the problems, the best we can do is not allow the ones that do get listed on AfD to get by, and draw a line in the sand for encyclopedic standards whenever we get the chance. IMO this entry is somewhat more problematic than most epithets that get listed on AfD for a reason that is quite subtle. The term "Economic Fascism: is most notable as an essay by DiLorenzo. As an essay, "Economic Fascism" is a proper noun and thus capitalized and put in quotations. However, the article subject to the AfD at the moment is an article on "economic fascism" in the lowercase, which gives the impression that the term is not primarily notable as an essay (referred to in uppercases) but rather as an accepted historical term not in need of attribution. In this sense, giving the impression that a neologism is an established historical term is subtle, but can have a very powerful propaganda effect. IMO, AfD voters should be especially sensitive when it comes to spotting neologisms, as they may not be too noticeable at first glance, despite being as egregious a violation of NPOV as any. 172 02:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A "propaganda effect"? Some of you guys think a Wikipedia article can change the world. Lighten up on the paranoia and the censorship. RJII 02:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The concerns about propaganda on Wikipedia have nothing to do with changing the world but rather applying Wikipeida's own content policies, particularly NPOV. The users who upload the propaganda are the ones seemingly interested in changing the world. 172 02:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gren, it's not that it's a non-notable term, it's that it's not really a term at all. Economic fascism is more of a smear than a scholarly term with a defined and accepted meaning. The article as it exists is terribly vague. Nearly all sources that talk about economics under fascist governments talk about Corporatism, which was the principal economic theory developed by Italian fascists and proto-fascists. This article should redirect straight to Corporatism. —thames 14:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A POV fork that attempts to smear any non-laissez faire economy with the snarl-word fascist. Firebug 02:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where do you see the article smearing anything other than laissez-faire economies? The article pretty clearly indicates that a fascist economic system is "heavily coordinated by government" --a planned economy --not merely an economy that isn't completely laissez-faire. RJII 02:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was deleted before, I think it should be deleted again. I think this is the best option, however, if a strong consensus was decided to redirect it to Fascism instead of deleting it, I would probably go along with that. The reasons for this are not only articulated above, but were articulated the last time this was deleted. One among the many no-brainer reasons mentioned above already - try finding an entry for this in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta or any other encyclopedia. This clearly does not belong here, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to store political tracts of fringe groups. Ruy Lopez 02:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many articles on Wikipedia have titles that are not in Encyclopedia Britannica? Wikipedia is a little more liberal than that. If it can have an article called gay bathhouse it can certainly have one a little more intellectually important than that on economic fascism. RJII 02:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one is saying that the notion of "economic fascism" is intellectually unimportant. The term is neologism, and as such has its place in the Thomas DiLorenzo article, where his essay can be summarized, but not as a self-standing entry. 172 02:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • DiLorenzo is not the only person that has talked about economic fascism. What are you talking about it's a "neologism"? It's not a neologism. What if the article was called "fascist economics"?; would that be a neologism? You'd probably say "no" unless DiLorenzo titled his article "fascist economics," in which case you would be claiming it was a neologism. There has to be some way to refer to the economics practiced in fascist nations. "Economic fascism" seems to be the most common way of referring to it. It's not a "neologism." RJII 02:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • DiLorenzo is the most notable. He is not the only one using the term in the sense that other libertarians have been influenced by his work and now use the term themselves. The term is a neologism in the sense that it is use of a new term based on historically established terms to describe the patters that DiLorenzo is attempting to sketch. There's nothing wrong with that. A neologism can be innovative while unencyclopedic at the same time. As for "fascist economics," the term "economics" refers to the study of the economy. For now there is no school of thought among economists describing itself as "fascist." For now the term "fascist economics" only seems to have meaning in the lexicon of the Lyndon LaRouche cult, which published an article entitled "Arnie Rolls Out the Coming Fascist Economics in California." [30] 172 03:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's still very strange what you're saying. As far back as the 1930's and 40's people were describing the economic system that was particular to fascist nations as being distinct from others systems. Whether you want to call an article "economic fascism," "fascist economics," "economic systems in fascist economies," it's all the same thing. "Economic fascism" is just the most common language used to refer to summation of the economic characteristics found in fascist nations. RJII 03:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • If we clearly define our terms what I am saying will not be difficult to grasp. In the interwar era, "Fascism" referred to an ideological and political movement with often-changing and often-nebulous goals and tenants, particularly on economic policy. Today among historians, the argument that you just asserted-- that there was an economic system particular to fascist nations and distinct from other systems-- is subject to a considerable amount of debate. Circumscribing the topic of fascist economic thought is quite difficult because, depending on when at where you look, a different picture may emerge. Even more unclear to historians is the question concerning whether or not we can even speak of a 'fascist economic system,' a topic subject to a considerable amount of debate. DiLorenzo says 'yes' from a libertarian perspective, and popularized the term "economic fascism." The problem for Wikipedia is that turning his neologism "economic fascism" into an article implicitly means that Wikipedia is accepting his POV on a controversial debate, which, of course, goes against the Wikipedia principle of NPOV. BTW, there are many articles where you can work on the issues that interest you here. The libertarian perspective on "economic fascism" can be described in articles related to DiLorenzo. Details on the economies of Germany and Italy in the 1930 and 1940s can be found in the specialized entries dealing with the economic histories of those two countries. 172 04:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • DiLorenzo is not the only person who talks about economic practices peculiar to fascist nations. Sure, there may be other articles where one can talk about it, but I prefer a single article devoted to the issue. You don't. Hopefully, there is no consensus to delete the article so it can be further edited and improved. RJII 05:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • We already have an article discussing economic practices peculiar to fascist nations: corporatism. If we do not reach a consensus to delete economic fascism (and it looks like we won't), I would strongly suggest redirecting to corporatism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Corporatism in an important part of economic fascism, but it's not the whole story. RJII 17:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Indeed he is not. But DiLorenzo is the main writer associated with the neologism "economic fascism" in the discourse on the question of economic practices particular to fascist nations from the perspective adoped in the article now up for AfD. Given the NPOV policy, the place for a discussion of the question of "economic practices particular to fascist nations" cannot be under a title that endorses DiLorenzo's POV, which is far from being universally accepted, but rather in more general entry on fascism or economic history. 172 07:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • What are you talking about? The article doesn't even refer to DiLorenzo. All the quotes and definitions are from others. DiLorenzo is an external link. You can't consider that link as part of the article! That's ludicrous. What is the POV expressed in the article?? There is none. DiLorenzo's POV is not expressed in the article. RJII 17:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • If the article does not refer to DiLorenzo, it is not citing its sources-- all the more reason to delete it. The idea was his; so you should start working on better attributing your writing on Wikipedia. 172 06:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The article is sourced. DiLorenzo is not the only person that uses that term. This shows that you have not even read the article that you're voting against. Talk about irresponsibility. RJII 07:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                          • You're spinning me around in circles here. I already pointed out that I had never made the claim that DiLorenzo is the only person that uses the term. The term has to be attributed to him because he was the one who popularized it, leading others in libertarian circles to start using it themselves. 172 13:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing here that can't be covered (in more appropriate, scholarly-accepted NPOV terms) in the dozen or so articles listed in a previous user's vote. —Sesel 05:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Exactly, scholarly-accepted NPOV terms is what should be sought (is this taught as a term, as such, in academia?). This article and/in relation to the title is both non-npov (on both counts, see Firebug for the latter) and original research (again, on both counts). El_C 13:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it that those who are are saying that the article is not NPOV can't point to what is POV about it? And, El_C, you just claimed it original research. Where is the original research? These claims are bogus. RJII 15:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No one questions that Fascism had (or has) a strong economic component, and that certainly ought to be addressed in the Fascism article. The article in question, however, makes "economic fascism" sound mor elike an epithet free-market purists sling at people they oppose. I don't think that warrants its own article. The article on the New Deal can discuss debates among Americans at the time as to whether Roosevelt was saving capitalism, or inventing his own form of communism or fascism, drawing on contemporary sources. Beyond that, the Fascism and Corporatism articles should provide full discussions of their economic dimensions. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're having the same confusion as a few others here. You're reading some external links and taking them as being part of the content of the article. The article does not mention the New Deal and does not even so much as speculate that the U.S. has experienced economic fascism. The article is patently NPOV. RJII 18:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it has no reason to exist. Any material it addresses should be in the fascism article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it shouldn't. The economics of fascism deserves its own article. Someone who wants to see information on the fascist economies should be able to go directly to an article. RJII 18:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. First, the Fascism article should have a section on "Fascist economics" (not "economic fascism). Second, if or when the article becomes too long, that section should be made into its own article, with a summary and link in the Fascism article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you have a problem with it being called "economic fascism" but not "fascist economics"? That's ludicrous! What the hell difference make what it's called? "Economic fascism" is just common terminology to refer to it. Someone above said "the term "fascist economics" only seems to have meaning in the lexicon of the Lyndon LaRouche cult." So, he's probably going to complain about that terminology. Get over it people. RJII 18:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What "the hell difference [does it] make what it's called?" The difference has to do with what is the noun and what is the adjective. In English, meaning is produced largely through different parts of speech; the rules governing these parts of speech involve English sentence structure. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And the noun-adjective form behind "economic fascism" goes with the convention. There is economic liberalism, economic individualism, and economic fascism. RJII 19:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, not with Wikipedia's conventions-- maybe with certain libertarian authors who propose such a taxonomy, but not Wikipedia's, given the WP:NPOV policy. 172 06:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • So if the term is used by laissez-faire types you want to censor it. Talk about POV! RJII 07:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, I am not advocating censorship but rather proper attribution of sources. In this sense we are respecting the rights of Thomas J. DiLorenzo's to his intellectual property (such as his essay "Economic Fascism"). The "laissez-faire types" like defending private property, right? Now, once the source of the ideas underlying the contents of the article on VfD is duly noted, the content does not have to be "censored" but rather moved to an entry related to DiLorenzo. There are places where his work can be summarized on Wikipedia. However, pretending that a neologism, which he popularized in his essays, is encyclopedic, somehow transcending the need to attribute his ideas, is not the proper way to go about detailing libertarian thought on Wikipedia. 172 08:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Intellectual property? No one owns the term "economic fascism." The term is is pretty widespread use. And, it's not a "neologism." DiLorenzo was using the term back in the early 90's. This is almost 2006, man. Economic fascism is the economic system that typically exists in fascist regimes. RJII 15:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • According to DiLorenzo, "economic fascism" was the system that you are describing in the article. He popularized the term, and indeed others in libertarian circles have been influenced by his work. Still, his work has not come anywhere close to reaching universal acceptance in academic literature on the economic history of the 1930s and 1940s. Actually, I'm not even aware that it has had any influence at all outside libertarian circles. Others find it much more difficult to speak of such a clear-cut relation. Thus, the term "fascist" in the strict NPOV sense refers to ideology/political affiliation and regime (under fascist rule). When using the term in a less restrictive sense, in this case using it to refer to an 'economic system,' there must be a reference to the research making the connection. 172 01:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • What are you talking about? DiLorenzo might have "popularized the term" but he didn't invent economic fascism and didn't invent the so-called "term." Get it through your head, man --the article is not about DiLorenzo or nor has anything to do with his personal philosophy. It has to do with the economic system present in fascist nations. Whether DiLorenzo popularized the term "economic fascism" to label this system is not materially important, as the term is a pretty common term today. Hence, it's the proper term to title on article on the economic system present in fascist nations. If this article is deleted, I'll create another article with same information but with a different title (unfortunately, and ironically, with a less notable title). The title is not as important as the content. You have a problem with the title of the article because DiLorenzo, who you apparently have a beef with, uses that term. Your complaints are absolutely insane! RJII 03:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • On AfD the title is not less important than the content. The title, actually, is everything. Please review Slrubenstein's comments on the significance of the meanings of words and language. 172 08:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong Keep. We also need an article on American fascism. -- JJay 03:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate your opinion, but keep in mind the article is not about "American fascism," but economic fascism in general. Whether the U.S. economic system is the same as the system in the historical fascist nations is another matter. RJII 04:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hey its all good, just get the information out there. My remark was directed at 172 who I believe mentioned the American fascism idea somewhere in the Everest of words above. I'm changing to Strong Keep now because I feel kind of lonely down here. -- JJay 04:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, "get the information out there." RJII 04:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks you can quote me on that. But seriously, if these terms exist, like cultural fascism, we should explain them. This is an encyclopedia. That is our mission. What is everyone so afraid of? And don't bore me with that inherently POV crap. -- JJay 05:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per 172. Irpen 05:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that this is being portrayed as an economic reality and not just an epithet for a system unliked by some is what bothers me. Economic fascism didn't develop. A certain system with government controls developed and free market fans called it economic fascism. gren グレン 09:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 172. Mackensen (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Corporatism. If you examine the References listed, and do a Google Scholar search on "economic fascism", nearly every source that comes up is explicitly talking about the corporatist form of organization. This economic theory was expounded by the Italian Fascists as an economic third way between capitalism and socialism, was implemented in Italy, and implemented in part (in parallel to a more general war economy) in Germany. "Economic fascism" itself is not a distinct term or concept, and is not used by reputable scholars to specifically denote a unique form of economic organization. Redirecting it into the Fascism article is not as accurate as redirecting it to Corporatism, since corporatism was the economic theory implemented by European fascist states. —thames 14:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corporativism is just one aspect, albeit a major aspect, of economic fascism. Other elements of the system that are often said to be included are protectionism, mercantilism, and wage and price controls. Economic fascism is a set of characteristics --pointing to just one aspect, such as corporativism, just doesn't cover it. The article covers a few aspects of economic fascism, including corporativism, and it's going to be expanded to cover more than it does now. RJII 16:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a legitimate description of a type of economic system. *Dan T.* 16:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I agree with Dan T., above. I also should say that this isn't a very well written article, but that simply means it could use some work. Which is what we're all here for, isn't it? Shouldn't be redirected into anything, because this specific subject deserves its own treatment. --Christofurio 17:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment > so what about Trust-busting and the UK's Monopolies and Mergers Commission? And from what the 'keep' voters are saying I guess you would call the tenure of Theodore Roosevelt economic fascism? What about the birth of the National Health Service? or the New Deal. Anybody who calls the New deal economic Fascism is not being serious about wikipedia.... take a look at the main proponent's user page > User:RJII. - max rspct 18:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear what your point is or even whether you meant to address me rather than RJ, who can speak for himself. As for your example, I think it is worthy of note that the UK's Monopolies and Mergers Commission has its own article and isn't a merge/redirect into Trust-busting. Likewise, there's no good reason to make economic fascism a merger/redirect into fascism or corporatism or anything more generic than itself. --Christofurio 21:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete made up term with no academic credibility. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it has no academic credibility then why are academics using it? The guy who supposedly "popularized" the so-called "term" is a professor of economics at Loyola at Baltimore. Richard Ebeling uses it who is a professor of economics at Hillsdale. Jutta Schmitt uses it, who is a political science academic at University de Los Andes in Venezuela. And, so on. In other words, it has academic credibility. Morever, academic credibility is not even a prerequistite for an article. Does dogging have academic credibility? Surely there are numerous academics using that term. RJII 19:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You forgot Noam Chomsky. He's opposed to it, so it must be real: Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism.[[31]] -- JJay 21:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a "handful of authors" and "doesn't appear in any encyclopedic sources" standard would disqualify hundreds of wikipedia articles. We have articles about single books or movies with only one author, and that also don't appear in any encyclopedias. The only remaining objections appears to be that the word fascism may attract controversy and that it may be already covered in the fascism article. Why is it covered in the latter if it is unencyclopedic? Why wasn't the former raised as an objection to the fascism article itself? --Silverback 19:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fortune Lounge Group[edit]

Blatant spam/advertising for said company.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 07:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. It looks like significant chunks of the article might be copyvio, but given the name of the author, it may not be an issue. The group seems relatively notable, but the article in this state is unacceptable. Delete unless someone wants to totally rewrite it and turn it into something other than a long advertisement. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-02 07:37:53Z
  • Delete. Adding the userpage of the user that created the page to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Peyna 07:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 28,700 google hits. Makes huge assertions of notoriety, and they all seem to be backed up. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Zordrac, you need to take a look at it, as no one is saying "no verification." Instead, the chief grounds for deletion is that it's advertising. Further, it looks like a copy and paste of a promotional brochure. Further, even if it weren't advertising, we would have the question of whether this is notable among websites. The online casinos are geniuses at getting links. It's what they do. In fact, some have had the habit of automatically downloading client software on people who click their banner ads. This is an ad. Geogre 17:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So rewrite it. Simple. I have argued this point elsewhere. An article should be kept/deleted based on its topic, not on its contents as they stand right now. There are lots of reasons for this, which I have stated elsewhere. Fundamentally, look at M:Eventualism for the rationale. IMO your argument suggests a keep vote. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to get into a debate on wikiphilosophy here, but am compelled to justify my nomination in light of your comment: I think I would be less inclined to vote Delete if there was some content worth salvaging. If the article could be pared down to the bare information, sans all the advertising cruft, then by all means, let's do it. But I personally see no notable information in the current version worth keeping, and have insufficient knowledge of, or interest in the subject matter to perform a rewrite. So if choosing between leaving it for possibly weeks (months?) before a knowledgeable editor performs a rewrite, or deleting it now and letting a knowledgeable editor recreate it in weeks/months, I find I much prefer the latter. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 04:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I had a comment all written up that started almost identically, but I aborted it, since I was worried this wasn't the place for it. Following your lead, though, I'll point out that I think if an article like this is kept, it is unlikely to ever be rewritten. I doubt many people are willing to totally rewrite an article with over 10kB of text, and this article definitely needs to be totally rewritten. However, in the spirit of, well, putting my money where my mouth is, don't be surprised if I take an axe to the text if it's kept. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 04:58:49Z
Yeah, I've done that a couple of times. I figure that if I believe enough that the topic is worth keeping then I should be willing to fix it. The first article I nominated for deletion got fixed up by another editor and kept, and I took that lesson to heart. -- Dalbury(Talk) 05:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, in answer to the way above: It is advertising, and, to restate what was ignored, if it were not advertising (i.e. if all the rewriting took place), it would still be a website, and Wikipedia is not a web guide. The usual standards of assessing web pages include number of mentions on Google, but porn and gambling sites will screw that right up, as they aggressively (and illegally, betimes) elevate their hit counts. Therefore delete from all of the above (current status = ad; perfect status = web guide; web value unverifiable due to the business model). Sheesh. Geogre 14:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising Avalon 21:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatant ad. Moriori 22:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- verifiable - its in original namespace - if you don't like the ad, go ahead and rewrite it, until then users looking for them will find what we have instead of finding nothing at all-- --(U | T | C) 09:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have updated our article to at least define what the online casino group is about and hope this will suffice. PLz Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.234 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as blatant spam. 69.236.184.108 08:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. Chick Bowen 00:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slibe[edit]

Advertising spam for a website founded less than a day ago. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-02 07:36:26Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 vandalism (in light of one voter's subsequent message to me that the vote was a joke) --Nlu 07:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skull fuck[edit]

Due to quick action with a potentially inappropriate redirect, I decided to relist this immediately so as to allow the discussion to continue. My comment above regarding a redirect to Necrophilia was in jest; since the article refers to a hypothetical situation that is used as an insult of sorts. That said Delete or if really necessary, Transwiki to wiktionary. Peyna 07:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to squick, since it has 53,000 hits and mentions in film. --Interiot 07:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 16:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parametric Insurance[edit]

Advertising spam for a non-notable insurance company. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-02 08:02:55Z

It actually appears to be a type of insurance rather than any particular insurance company. Albeit, a very rare type of insurance, but a valid one. Peyna 08:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oy. Sorry about that; I got to the link from contributions from a user who has been spamming Wikipedia with NIASOM-related info (note the reference to NIA in the article), and obviously I didn't read the article carefully enough. I'm trying to come up with another reason for deletion here, and not really finding one. It does appear to be a valid concept with a specific definition, but I'm not informed enough to say whether or not the article has any merit. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-02 08:21:11Z
Yeah, I noticed the user's other contributions, so I don't blame you for your suspicions. Peyna 08:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Upon searching, it appears to be an actual term used by credible sources. -- Kjkolb 10:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Wikipedia does not deserve to have an emerging concept like "Parametric Insurance". It deserves at more serious place. Those who say National Insurance Academy of India and its allied institutions are spam, have wikipedia given right to as well not know "Parametric Insurance". Quick deletion recommended. Sum
    • While a concept might be notable and worth of inclusion in an encyclopedia, a company that implements it is not necessarily. Think of it like any other invention. The invention of a product (say, Rollerblades) is notable; and the product is notable. But the fact that company XYZ makes and sells them is not in itself worthy of being in an encyclopedia. Peyna 18:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • From the article and what I've found on Google, it looks like this isn't a company. Your earlier comment seems to say the same thing. -- Kjkolb 19:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry if that comment seemed out context; I was replying to "Sum"'s comment regarding the National Insurance Academy of India articles which have been repeatedly deleted as spam and pointing out that while those particular companies using this method of insurance may not be worthy of an article; the actual method itself probably is. Peyna 19:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, I was extremely confused. :-) -- Kjkolb 18:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as real term used by a number of different people. Type of insurance. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of being databased i find such a noble venture like Wikipedia is becoming captive to the whims and subjective angularities of individuals. I find the authors of National Insurance Academy of india have provided http://www.niapune.com as the official website, which could have been browsed before condemning a valid Government of India organization with all facts and metalinks available so transparently. I am ashamed to have joined the bandwagon at some stage before verifying the high credentials of this worl reputed research outfit of Government of India. Clean Wikipedia of these psycho-punchers rather than valid notable concepts beyond casual understanding by non-serious readers out to kill ideas the way it often happens. User:Sum

Obviously my nomination of this article was flawed, as I have already admitted. Beyond that, I can't make sense of what you're saying. The article will mostly likely be kept at this point, though if it is, I will substantially rewrite it. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-04 05:28:52Z
  • Keep per Peyna -Meegs 20:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bitties[edit]

Delete: I don't think this page is anything more than nonsense, despite a fancy diagram. The math formula is definitely nonsense. A recent anonymous IP made several other nonsense edits around the same time as this page. Hu 08:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neologism, duplicate with "love handles" and central obesity. JFW | T@lk 08:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dlyons493 13:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep enough in 55,900 google hits for "bitties" and "fat" to suggest that its worthwhile in its own right. At min merge with love handles. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Did you look at those hits? An awful lot of them are for "tig bitties", and I don't see any others relevant to this article. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - a search on google for coincidences of Bitties and the related "Love Handles" gives very little, and all or most of the references there don't refer to fat on the back. The entire article after the first paragraph is at best original research, and the statistics and formulae are pretty clearly jokes. Also, the image, that the author claims is his own work, likely isn't. -Meegs 19:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. Moriori 22:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is just. plain. stupid. Reyk 23:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It has to be a joke. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chulalongkorn Eateries[edit]

Delete per WP:NOT a travel guide (or something along those lines). Peyna 08:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. I don't think a travel guide would take university eateries either. - Bobet 14:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the acclaimed and sought after 0 google hits Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note; don't become too reliant upon Google in determining whether to delete an article or not. It can be a nice starting point, just don't treat it as the end-all be-all of article worthiness. Peyna
  • Delete: Wikipedia does not host reviews of software, albums, movies, or eateries. This is a purported eatery guide that can't actually be well verified. Geogre 19:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, or move to WP:huge and unmanageable list of takeaways with incomplete menus Colonel Tom 03:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WinWAP[edit]

The company is not exactly unnoteworthy, but this is advertising spam nonetheless. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-02 09:00:01Z

  • Delete: Commercial advertising. Hu 09:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. Gazpacho 10:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed, but that's completely orthogonal to my opinion that the article is (was) garbage. I was actually concerned that much of it may have been copyvio, but I didn't have the time to check, unfortunately. The edits by anon have improved it somewhat, though it's still in serious need of {{cleanup}}. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-02 21:31:50Z
  • Borderline: the page has been shorn of some of its overt advertising, but it still reads as promotional. I guess I'd say, Send to clean up and keep after NPOV tone is inserted. Geogre 19:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bartwidget[edit]

Advertising spam for a non-notable piece of software. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-02 09:07:54Z

Never said it wasn't real. I see no value in the article. Wikipedia is NOT a link directory, which is exactly how the author is treating it. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-02 21:21:14Z
  • Keep - pre Zordrac -Meegs 19:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: Wikipedia is not Freshmeat.org. This particular application does not appear to be specifically successful to the point where it is widely discussed. Inasmuch as it is an application confined to helping the San Fransisco Bay Area mass transit riders only, it is doubtful that the product can achieve more than local use. Furthermore, the article is advertising, complete with a "download here" link. I nowiki'd it while on VfD (which is what one is supposed to do), and there were no less than nine page links. It is the duty of Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia, not undigested information dump nor catalog of products. Geogre 19:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Geogre. -- Kjkolb 19:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searching, I find nothing non-trivial published about this product that isn't sourced from its creator. Whilst there are reprinted press releases and self-submitted listings in software catalogues, there are no independent magazine reviews, no independently written "BARTWidget/BARTSmart FAQs", no independently written "guide to BARTWidget/BARTSmart", no independent press coverage, no books — nothing at all. This product does not satisfy the primary WP:CORP criterion for products and services. And, having apparently only existed for a month or so, it certainly hasn't been around long enough to have become genericized, and so does not satisfy the second criterion, either. Delete. Uncle G 20:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's see. It's a BART schedule widget for the Mac. Yep, major audience there, all the Mac users in the San Francisco Bay area who use BART and want to check the schedule from home or their Powerbook. I think I'll say Delete until the whole thing becomes more notable. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On that, I suggest A link to it be added to the links section of the page on the system. 68.39.174.238 01:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Puckle[edit]

Dubious slang, doesn't cite sources. Delete. Catamorphism 09:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a verifiable description. Jtmichcock 13:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as a neologism that's not in wide use. Puckle gets some google results, but none of them are close to the definition given here. - Bobet 14:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite article. He's using the wrong definition. google gives me 514 relevant hits, and Urban Dictionary tells me it means "a penis that has cuts on it". I suggest rewriting article to reflect this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • UrbanDictionary has as its avowed aim the publication of stuff that people made up from whole cloth; and, once again, counting Google hits is not research. If your Google search turned up a reliable source for information on this subject, please tell us what it is. Uncle G 20:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Urban Dictionary is NOT a valid rationale for keeping something, especially since anyone can sign up for an account there and define anything they want. Basically, using Urban Dictionary as a source is like trying to say your cousin Joe Bob came up with the term so that makes it worth including :P Nezu Chiza 19:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is Wikipedia. It is not Wiktionary, and Wiktionary is not Urban Dictionary. Dictdefs are covered explicitly by the deletion guidelines, and neologisms are not permitted on Wiktionary, either, so no transwiki and no keeping. Geogre 19:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre. FCYTravis 21:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT isn't puckle the Finnish war cry? 132.205.44.134 00:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn neo, and like everyone said, Urban Dictionary is not a valid source for any verification.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 02:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Durmus Kumdereli[edit]

Victim of beheading by Iraqi insurgents. Sadly, too many people have died in Iraq to make them intrinsically notable without significant media coverage, which I don't see evidence of. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Last Malthusian 09:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was originally a German language article (see old discussion) and probably headed for the German Wikipedia, until I translated it. It failed to attract any more votes and was closed with a 'no consensus' - to be exact, one delete (mine), and one rather weak keep. Sjakkale (who closed it) said he wouldn't have any problem with a renomination to get further votes. Given that the original article was in German, I can't see the original author expanding it. --Last Malthusian 09:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Dlyons493 13:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sheesh, these beheading victims all made worldwide news, and were very relevant. Even if it is common, they are all notable, every last one of them. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: At this point, the victims are too numerous to be sole examples or trail blazers. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. We all mourn the loss and abhor the injustice of both the invasion and the terrorism, I think, but hostages are only worthy targets of encyclopedia articles if their lives, and not their deaths are notable. Otherwise, their accounts can be mentioned in a "Victims of the Iraqi insurgency" or "Victims of jihadis" article. Geogre 19:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above Avalon 22:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article said that he was shot and not beheaded (and it was an interesting read), but that's not the point. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and even having a section for non-Iraqis who were killed in Iraq would be asking for trouble. We don't have a section (or article) listing all of our military personnel who died over there (or Afghanistan); nor should we. Delete. If it were possible, I would recommend that someone copy the article and deliver it to an appropriate memorial Web site. 147.70.242.21 22:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia ia not a memorial, and, however unfortunaqte it may be, getting killed in Iraq is not remarkable enough for an individual article in WP. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Burn at stake. Enochlau 02:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lapine Paganism[edit]

Direct quote from article: "In October 2005, the writer of this article knows only one person who follows this Relgion, himself." AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 09:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - might be worth snipping bits for the humor page, but doesn't meet criteria for retention. Colonel Tom 10:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the author made it easy. JPD 10:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Watership Down. Don't see a need to leave a redirect. Dlyons493 13:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: redirects are necessary after merges because they preserve the article's history. Otherwise, only the person who merged the content is shown. I wouldn't care, but apparently it's needed for GFDL. We should change it so we don't have crappy redirects that we have to keep forever. -- Kjkolb 19:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Who stole my toothbrush? lol. i.e. Delete Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pound with asteroids --YixilTesiphon 00:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burn it at the stake. Vanity, adspam, OR, yuck. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete! There's more christian fundamentalist crap than I can shake a carrot at; diversity is more fun. (User:Hazel-rah blanked the page to post this. It is that user's first edit. Firebug 23:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jumbass[edit]

Neologism, but not quite patent nonsense.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Robert 01:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Team 9[edit]

Band vanity. No allmusic hits; lots of google hits, but I couldn't find any related. —Cryptic (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no claims to notoriety. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a lot of stuff out there about American Edit being produced by team9[sic] and Party Ben collaborating as 'Dean Gray'. American Edit is a downloadable 'bootleg' sendup of American Idiot. Warner Records has sent 'cease and desist' orders to websites that made American Edit available. The controversy may make American Edit notable, but I don't think team9 is there yet. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because Team 9 is one of the better known mashup groups. Given the legal issues that sometimes revolve around this sort of thing, it's not a group that'd be found on Allmusic or anything, and is yet another issue with WP:MUSIC that isn't addressed very well. With mentions in notable blogs and well known mashups, this article should be kept and possibly cleaned up to reflect the type of popularity they hold. --badlydrawnjeff 14:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a group which makes a notable bootleg is notable, like a group which releases a charting record. Kappa 04:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Peterson[edit]

Was put up as speedy, but claims to be respected Melbourne inhabitant who has won several tournaments in swordsmanship, so I'm not happy having it as a speedy. Said user mentioned it no hits Google), so I'd be happy to delete based on unverifiability, but I would like some outside opinion first. - Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Said user is here. I agree in that I'm (again) being a bit too eager in speedying doubtful new pages. –Mysid 12:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to exist all right [34] but to lack notability. Dlyons493 14:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability, verifiabilty. Also, likely a hoax, since it was added to Cult figure. Wikibofh 14:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not much said about it, but its verified here: [35]. Quiz question. Not a hoax. Enough for me. Would you have a quiz question about someone who was not heard of? I don't think so. My name has never been in a quiz question (other than by family members etc) and I bet most people's names are never used either. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Anyone can make a quiz there. I could make one about, oh, Invisible Pink Unicorns, but it doesn't mean it's verifiable.  :) Wikibofh 15:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That quiz was written by someone who is possibly from the same school he attended (Kensington Community High School) and may even be him given their email address is his name at KCHS.vic.edu.au. Sarah Ewart 01:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 81 Google hits for "Tristan Peterson" and nothing on the first page about this man. [36]. The one verifiable reference found so far is for a quiz on Melbourne's newest rock band so that doesn't assist us much. A search of Australian and New Zealand newspapers came up with nothing about him either. Scarcely verifiable and falls well short of WP:BIO. The only form of modern-day notability for a swordsman would be appearing in the Olympics in a fencing event which he appears not to have done. Capitalistroadster 16:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 16:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the non-notable. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speed delete! pure vanity, 99.9% for sure written by the person himself (not that is always a bad thing) and is nothing but self promotion of an apparently un-notable personality. Come on, read the text! Dead give away. What is the deal with the IQ of 172, ...yeah right! (laughing in the background). Well its like a key marker. There must be no more than 600-1000 people in the world with an IQ of 170 or above, and this is one of them? Speed delete! IQ 140-150 and one could have gotten away with it, but 172, no way and you better wrap it in xmas paper or something. I see no xmas paper, in fact I see nothing of notablity at all! Twthmoses 20:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. I'm from Melbourne and I can report that he is not one of the most respected men in this city, otherwise the general public (incl. myself) would have heard of his. Cnwb 21:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Jtmichcock 00:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 02:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Roisterer 05:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Sarah Ewart 01:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oldschool.co.nz[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. No Alexa rank at all, and a forum with 1307 registered members. No evidence of media attention. —Cryptic (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 01:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Bongcam-Rudloff[edit]

Was listed as speedy, but I think being the chairman for EMBnet (not a website, but on organization for bioinformatics) should be notable enough for an entry. Would like a second opinion. Keep. - Mgm|(talk) 12:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per nom. Dlyons493 13:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and possibly protect page from vandals trying to delete it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But if EMBnet had an article, then I'd say merge the info into that. If the only notable thing about him is his involvement in an organisation then it's the organisation that is notable, not him. --Spondoolicks 22:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Spondoolicks has a point. I think we do need an article for EMBnet, and when we get one we can merge Erik into it. So, Keep for now. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject is accomplished and active in an important area of modern science and business. Furthermore, he was newsworthy when in 1992 he survived attempted murder at the hands of John Ausonius. Articles like this can be the seeds that other worthy articles sprout from. The originator and interested editors are encouraged to make a page for the company too. Hu 04:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Camoble[edit]

CounterStrike word. If I knew Counterstrike, I'd probably disagree

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian CMS Products[edit]

Spam spam spam spam! spam spam spam spam! Lovely spam! Wonderful spam! What, you want a proper reason? Oh alright then. Article is unencyclopaedic in tone, an advert for a company which gives no indication of notability, could be confused for a list of CMS products available in Canada and - oh bugger it, it's just garden-variety spam, burn it. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- spam. Reyk 23:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam, er, advertising, NN. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. BTW: I love it! I'll have yours! I'm having ... Colonel Tom 03:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. Though it would be nice to have an objective list of Canadian vendors. -- Tony Byrne, CMS Watch.
  • Sorry! This was my first attempt at putting an article in Wikipedia. I did not intend for it to read like an advert. My thinking was that I had followed links on various CMS systems within wiki after doing a search for "Content Management Systems" I then clicked "List of content management systems" (including commercial ones - so I thought this was OK) and then noted near the bottom the rather oddly specific link to "Canadian CMS Products" which went nowhere. As I just happened to have used this company's products (I hasten to add I do NOT work for them, but have been a repeat customer) I thought I'd knock up a 1st draft with the hope that someone else would know about alternate Canadian CMS products and add those in ad-hoc. Sorry if I caused any offence, I will naturally understand your decision to remove the article. Regards, M-ray 13:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 20:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy stores[edit]

nothing useful, doesnt od so well on google test

  • Keep - I would have thought 110,000 hits was doing pretty damn well on the google test. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is on the list to be Transwiki'd to Wiktionary and that would seem to be the most appropriate place unless more can be added to it. Capitalistroadster 17:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks life a dicdef to me. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable aircraft component. Rename to buddy store and allow for organic growth. Kappa 04:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Imperial War[edit]

This article essentially lists the battles from Star Wars Battlefront II. However, they seem to be isolated conflicts. I don't have the game, but the name "Imperial War" doesn't seem to be used anywhere. Sikon 13:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - its not just talking about the game, its talking about Star Wars generally. Consider the influence of Star Wars on popular culture, this is highly relevant. Oh, and 337,000 google hits can't be wrong either. "Not mentioned anywhere" huh? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not the Imperial Civil War, these are just missions from Battlefront II coalesced into a "conflict". --SparqMan 17:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an actual conflict in the Star Wars galaxy. These are all isolated battles occuring before the Galactic Civil War. There is no "Imperial War". QuentinGeorge 22:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not because it's non-notable, but because it isn't even a term used in the Star Wars fandom. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sparqman, QuentinGeorge and A Man In Black. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per QuentinGeorge. These are legitimate battles, but the article is baseless. -LtNOWIS 04:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum aircraft g rates[edit]

No encyclopaedic content - it would be original research if it weren't for the fact that the research component is missing (which is, in fact, the entire thesis of the article) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete what if we were to delete this article? What would be the maximum amount of nonsense that we would put up with on wikipedia? You decide. (note: in style of article). Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — but this is the type of material that should be covered much better on dog fight, or some other page focused on air to air combat, for example. — RJH 16:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is a request for an article and should be directed there. Jtmichcock 02:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 01:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pointillé[edit]

Dictdef. I've transwiki'd it already.

  • Delete as per my nom. Keep the rewrite and thanks to Stephen Deken. Dlyons493 Talk 02:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with 253,000 google hits its gotta be a bit more than just a dic def. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's certainly possible to write an article on the topic, but what we have at present is a one-sentence dictdef. If someone expands it to an article I'm very happy to withdraw the Afd. Dlyons493 Talk 17:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't delete things where they haven't been expanded from (sub)stubs. We delete things where it is not possible to expand them from (sub)stubs. There appears to be potential for expansion here. Keep. Uncle G 20:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A stub that begins with basic information. Smerdis of Tlön 17:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widely used technique, at one time. Article begins like as a def, grows later -Meegs 19:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would vote to keep a decent stub given the significance. At the moment, however, it could be speedy deleted as a short article without context. Capitalistroadster 20:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've expanded the stub to show that it is a general art form and given it more context of historical artistic significance. --Stephen Deken 21:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and Revise - it needs to be expanded... and the stub needs to be replaced as pointillé is artwork, not literature. 147.70.242.21 22:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I replaced the stub notice with {{art-stub}}. There doesn't seem to be a good category for this either -- "Art genres" and "Art materials" come close, but not quite. --Stephen Deken 00:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dimitri Project[edit]

WP:NOT crystal ball

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 03:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - verified here [37]. Definite name for computer game release that is definitely going to be released and is definitely notable. Simple. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as potential vaporware and per nom. When it is released it can get an article. Until then it is speculation and rumor. Crystal ball applies to all future events. Peyna 16:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article that Zordrac links to above tells us outright that there isn't anything actually known about this purported game. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 20:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I believe that the game is 'real' (meaning it is being worked on), until it has a final title it doesn't merit an article. Perhaps merge with Lionhead Studios? --SirNuke 04:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zordrac. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a game in development, it could do with a little more detail though, like the fact that the project is named after Molyneux's nephew... Markusdragon 00:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The details may be sketchy, but it exists, and even though not much is known about it now, there's no point in deleting an article that will just be recreated when move info is available anyway. Just keep it around and edit it as more info becomes available. --sonicstormer 08:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable.  Grue  20:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JustSaveFoods[edit]

Not notable supermarket

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 03:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you delete it will keep coming back, if you protect it from recreation I will make other forms of it and will keep putting it back once the protect blank is over.McBeer 03:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm sure it will keep getting deleted. PJM 14:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, McBeer, I'm impressed with your cleverness. Nobody else has ever thought of doing that before. Well, it's hardly worth voting delete this article, you've got an answer for everything. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Empty article. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 13:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although this suggests that "JustSaveFoods" is actually a franchise or a chain, it has only 4 locations and is limited to one state. There is apparently nothing to be said about them other than their address (and that they carry Polar brands). BD2412 T 13:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why McBeer is threatening to defy consensus to keep this stub for a non-notable shop is utterly beyond me. --Last Malthusian 15:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - love the threats of vandalism. Always a good way to push for keep *cough*. Small and junky doesn't seem like its making any serious claims of notoriety. 4 stores is maybe notable though. Let's see if there's one for Roelf Vos Supermarkets, which also has 4 stores. If not, then I'd say delete this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since Roelf Vos exists. lol. Well, we have to be consistent. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Insert witty comment here. Lord Bob 16:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per BD2412, the WP:CORP criteria are not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G 20:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and McFlush the author. Avalon 22:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and temp-ban McBeer for stupid threats.
  • Delete per nom. If it keeps coming back, keep deleting it. If that doesn't work, protect it from re-creation. Watch for other forms of the article and delete them to. And suggest to our developers that they add a feature that would block people from editing. It could be called "blocking," or something. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment why does Wikipedia delete articles just for being about things you find unimportant.15:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Which you are you referring to? Please check out WP:CORP and provide some legitimate reasons why your article should stay, based on the existing guidelines. I'll be more than happy to reconsider my vote if you can make a strong case - but pointing your finger and promising to violate policy will get you nowhere. PJM 16:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Many people may be familiar with one of the 4, but may check here to find others.Ridnik 18:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. —WikiFanatic 03:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Marconi Scientists and Marconi Scientists[edit]

unverified

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 03:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment max rspct confirms the historicity of the suspicions and allegations. Focussing on those and gaving sources for them would make for an interesting article. Dlyons493 Talk 14:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment Does that mean you wish to strike your delete vote? --bodnotbod 16:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Strong Keep' - A programme on British TV called 'Scandal' recently featured these mysterious deaths. British scientists who all worked on Sting Ray torpedo all apparently dead > over 25 of them. Possibly an enormous scandal if somebody is able to blow the whistle or find out more info.. Media seems to have completely forgotton about it all... and then Dr David Kelly.. -max rspct 13:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Dearth of deaths" means they didn't happen. Are you surte that is what you meant to say? Could you point us to something on the WEB about this? The BBC does have a WEB site, after all. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment thanks for clarifying what you meant. Now, can you point us to any verifiable sources for this? -- Dalbury(Talk) 16:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect together - I'd rather see the Dead Marconi Scientists article be the one to remain, because it tells you more about what it is, but I don't mind either way. This is very encyclopaedic and verified. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • max rspct says: I had a bug on the terminal i was using... should be 'dead marconi scientists' Merge if folk know how to do it
  • Delete Five unique Google hits for "Dead Marconi Scientists", two on Wikipedia and the other three on sites pushing or debunking conspiracy theories. I would say this is unverifiable at this time. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - forgive me, but a Google search for dead Marconi scientists is a spectacularly poor indicator of verifiability of this news story. I understand that you made that search based on the article title, which could also be better in my opinion (though I have not yet got an alternative to recommend). Please see my search below which returns pages featuring the names of two of the dead, namely Vimal Dajibhai and Ashaad Sharif. --bodnotbod 15:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment - This book, Open Verdict would appear to be about the deaths. --bodnotbod 16:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I notice that the only other keep is from Max who is almost sole contributor to the article and a relatively new user. I'm a Wikipedian of long standing and I'm throwing my weight well and truly behind him. I can confirm that this affair made a recent appearance on the BBC programme Scandal. It is absolutely a ripe subject for any number of mad conspiracy theories, however that does not mean it should not have an article, it just means that we have to be careful about how we explain the various theories to our readers and do our best to keep it free of, scuse my language, crap. This Google search of two of the dead returns 300+ hits. --bodnotbod 15:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - as mentioned above, I happen to have the relevant segment of the BBC programme Scandal on VHS tape. Here's a few notes:
      • As mentioned above source details are: Scandal - BBC2 November 30, 9.50pm.
      • Segment is titled Death of a scientist (singular strangely, since there are many deaths).
      • Details of Vimal Dajibhai's death are given.
      • A tabloid headline is shown BOFFIN DIES IN MARCONI JINX RIDDLE however tabloid masthead is not shown, so can't identify paper.
      • Death of David Sands described (car crash) - worked for Easams, a part of the Marconi group.
      • Moira Stewart is shown on a television, she's hosting BBC News saying "The Labour MP Doug Hoyle has asked the givernment to hold an urgent inquiry after the death of another scientist involved in defense work"
      • MP David Hoyle is shown voicing his concerns.
      • Archive television news footage outlining Trevor Knight's death "he's the 5th Marconi scientist involved in defense work to die mysteriously".
      • Unsourced voice overlays (the impression is that they are either TV or radio news) briefly mention deaths of Victor Moore(sp?), Bhapti Vinghida(sp!?), John Ferry.
      • Pages of the Mail on Sunday are shown with pictures of the dead. Top of page banner headline Trail of Tragedy Through A Top Secret World (then beneath as main headline) MYSTERY DEATH OF SCIENTIST No 7.
      • Tony Collins, author of Open Verdict is seen in archived interview.
      • Death of Shaney Warren(sp?) described.
      • Death of Robert Greenhall Greenhalgh [38] described given by BBC Newsreader Martin Lewis (I think).
      • Closing caption: By 1990, at least 25 people connected to the Defence Industry had died in mysterious circumstances
      • End of segment. --bodnotbod 15:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whaaa!!? You taped it? Plenty to go on now! -max rspct 16:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I say, it was just cos it happened to be after Rome and I'd set my player to just keep recording. Thought you'd be pleased ;o) --bodnotbod 16:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In spite of the assurances provided by Max rspct and Bodnotbod I can find nothing about this subject on the Internet, including on the BBC site. I can't even find a listing for a program called Scandal. Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources". Until someone can provide sources verifying the contents of these two article that other editors can check, these articles do not meet the verifiability standard, and should be deleted. If these articles do not get deleted, then everything in them that cannot be verified will have to be removed from the articles. -- Dalbury(Talk) 17:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BBC listing for series >[39] -max rspct 15:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep I also watched the Program on BBC2 so in fact hunted for more details on Wikipedia - The strangest News Report relates to - Shani Warren, twenty-six years old. Personal assistant in a company called Micro Scope, which was taken over by GEC Marconi less than four weeks after her death. Found drowned in 45cm. (18in) of water, not far from the site of Greenhalgh’s death fall. Warren died exactly one week after the death of Gooding and serious injury to Greenhalgh on 10th April 1987. She was found gagged with a noose around her neck. Her feet were also bound and her hands tied behind her back. Coroner’s verdict: Open. (It was said that Warren had gagged herself, tied her feet with rope, then tied her hands behind her back and hobbled to the lake on stiletto heels to drown herself.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.20.25 (talk • contribs) Only other edit from this IP address is in the Marconi Scientists article.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xul Taif[edit]

eteled - non-nontable MMORPG guild. 8 Ghits


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talark[edit]

Appears to be some online gaming/roleplaying; whatever it is, it is not an article for encyclopedia. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Junik Lee[edit]

Made up Star Wars character. No google results. No relevant google results for the supposed author of the book either (Selig Freeman). The author might be the guy who created the article (Seligo), and if the article's style is any indication, a book is unlikely to come. I'm also listing Lidro for deletion, for the same reasons Bobet 13:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lidro[edit]

Another made up Star Wars character from the same author (Seligo). See the nomination for Junik Lee above for reasons. Bobet 13:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - maybe someone can't read google, or maybe their google doesn't give them the 128 hits that mine does. But then again, of the 3 that include "star wars", not a single one talks about this character, not even the forum entry. *probably* made up. If its real, even if its not well known, it deserves a place here. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: if you really need a more verbose explanation, i googled for "General Lidro", as written as the character's name in the article's first words, since just googling "Lidro" does give you a lot of nonrelevant results (2210 for me). - Bobet 15:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Achsar[edit]

Band does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. No claim to fame except that they have released their first demo CD in the last 48 hours. A Google search finds no hits for a band by this name.[40] --Allen3 talk 13:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sync-Mobile.com[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank 3,500,166. No forum. Google news knows nothing of it. Suspected spam entry. --Durin 14:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was transwikied. Johnleemk | Talk 10:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opisthodomos[edit]

This article appears to have been created for the purpose of displaying two images which have since been deleted and now appear as red links. Other than that, the content is virtually nonexistent. Crotalus horridus 15:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Opisthodomos" is an architectural feature of ancient Greek temples, and would be best discussed in Greek temple. This article as it stands has not useful information. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up --> Wiktionary This is ultimately a real definition. Hu 02:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up --> Wiktionary Per nom. --Computerjoe 17:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TRIN[edit]

Non-notable band. Plus, the page has become a playground -Rholton 15:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Uninteresting near-gibberish. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Abusive cruft. Probably a complete fabrication or if any tiny part is not, the article is unsalvageable. Hu 02:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unintentionally funny, viz. 'These fallowers would be known as "Crulabs"' (well, I chuckled). Seems to be utter tripe. Not an article that improves Wikipedia. Colonel Tom 06:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Towers Holmes[edit]

Makes a claim to notability so can't qualify for a speedy, but probably is not encyclopedia-worthy. Merge if desired to some appropriate page of pilots, but otherwise delete. Stifle 15:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - appears to be both notable and verifiable. Had a documentatry on Channel 5 about the recovery of his craft which is now in the Imperial War Museum. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I get 62 Google hits for "Raymond Towers Holmes", and almost all of those are repeats of his obituary notice. It's an interesting story, and verifiable, but I don't think he met WP:BIO while he was alive, and while his death has brought some renewed notice, I still don't think he is notable enough for an article. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The documentary I mentioned above was broadcast when he was alive. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Real heroism by real people verifiably in historic conflicts deserves a much greater place in Wikipedia than any amount of video game character cruft. If we can't delete that kind of cruft, we can keep the real stuff. Hu 04:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, subject of nationally broadcast documentary. Kappa 04:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liza Shankar[edit]

Liza Shankar does not exist OR is particularly un-notable 136.148.1.142 15:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ordinarily we don't count votes by people w/o login names, but I will second this. Google knoweth her not [41], and if she is in fact a porno star that in itself would be a significant accomplishment. Only a few hits for Liza Shankar, and they seem to relate mostly to a quite obscure web-comic creator. This stub may be libelling someone. Smerdis of Tlön 18:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article states that she is a low profile porn star. Google supports this assessment with only 26 Google hits [42].

There are no images at all even without safesearch [43] I'd say that this is most likely an attack page so speedy delete. Capitalistroadster 20:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Drip-Along Daffy. – Robert 01:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drip-along Daffy[edit]

An individual episode of a Warner Bros. cartoon. No reason is given why this particular episode is especially notable, and the article is very short and devoid of any useful information. Crotalus horridus 15:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Stifle 15:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If it were a notable episode I'd say keep. But nothing seems notable here. --DanielCD 19:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Why do people write articles like this when there are so many subjects that really need articles? -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Drip-Along Daffy (which is a stub in its own right, but at least it's clearer on just what the short is). -- Grev 05:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Drip-Along Daffy. The cartoon (not "episode") is notable as being one of Chuck Jones' best-known works, and for introducing the character of Nasty Canasta. --FuriousFreddy 23:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 01:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Centennial High School (Ellicott City)[edit]

  • Non-notable school
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page needs some serious cleanup; right now it's almost entirely PoV. So I vote to delete and start over. — RJH 16:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cleaned out the POV and added a link to the school’s website. We are left with one sentence and a link. •DanMS 21:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is every school in the US notable? Avalon 22:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with school district for later expansion if someone wants to write an article that meets the new requirements at WP:SCH. Gateman1997 00:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the usual reasons. The article has been signficantly expanded and has room to grow. Silensor 00:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:SCH proposal. While this article doesn't actually comply with the proposed requirements (it has enough content, but WP:SCH suggests that facts be verifiable from sources other than those published by the school itself), it's hard to argue that it fails to comply with the spirit of the proposal. A verifiable external source for the "top 100" claim, and preferably the exact position in the rankings, would make this a firm "keep". And I'm a deletionist mergist where schools are concerned, mind. — Haeleth Talk 01:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this school please it is very important Yuckfoo 02:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this particular high school article makes a reasonable notability claim. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- DS1953 20:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High schools --Aranda 56 21:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Not notable school Catchpole 13:45, 5 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» 14:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge as per Hipocrites analysis above. David D. (Talk) 16:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good article. Kappa 04:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding dog (video)[edit]

This is not in any way a notable or prolific internet meme. It is not common enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, and if Wikipedia is not a web guide, then it certainly is not an A-Z of every piece of multimedia to hit the internet. Lavareef 14:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the nominator. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge with Internet phenomenon or something, I guess, altho I don't particularly see value to it either. In any case, this article doesn't need to exist independantly and thus should be deleted. Netcruft is overrepresented on Wikipedia, but I think we can trim it back simply by expecting normal standards of verifiability, which this article lacks. Friday (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Crotalus horridus 15:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find this so called "Internet phenomenon" anywhere - there are no webpages with it listed in the first half-dozen Google listings. There is a blog called Exploding Dog, however. I think it's either a hoax or a very very very obscure Internet creation. Additional: I checked Internet meme and there is a link to this video, but I still think it's not very notable. If this article is deleted I suggest it be removed from that article as well unless someone can prove me wrong re: its notability. 23skidoo 16:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it was reasonably popular at one time. I remember seeing it anyway, and hearing it talked about. However, Wikipedia is not an internet-fad-of-the-week guide. Friday (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Michael Z. 16:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Friday Rhollenton 17:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax or as non-notable. Jtmichcock 00:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also, remove the link from the Internet Phenomenon article of course. I've been through the internets long enough to know a *truly* famous meme and I'd never even heard of this before. --Wisgary 02:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 01:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Healy[edit]

Whomever started this article obviously detests Glenn Healy, whom I've never heard of. There has to be more to this story and I'm sure there's at least one person out there that likes him. The article is not up to encyclopedic standards and the language used is highly inappropriate. Rlevse 13:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I removed the attacks and rewrote it since there was a definite claim to notability. - Bobet 15:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Now that someone familiar with hockey who can also be neutral has fixed it, I think the article should stay. Rlevse 19:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's on national television several times a week (every day at some points of the year) on TSN, the top sports channel in Canada. Let alone his 15 year NHL career. I've added a couple of little details to the article in passing. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 20:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well done to Bobet for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 20:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, NHL hockey players like Healy's article should never get deleted, just put a clean-up sticker on it. Croat Canuck 20:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as NHL players are always notable. Carioca 21:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - three cheers for the two people who rewrote the stub, not only for fixing the POV but also for adding concrete information about the former goaltender. 147.70.242.21 22:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 06:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom management[edit]

No references. Seems like a neologism of dubious validity and utility. --Maru (talk) Contribs 06:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no way. I use this neologism all the time. this is the kind of thing that happens all the time inside large organisations. Valter MEDINA

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a well-known phrase The Mushroom Theory of Management is quoted in Tracy Kidder's excellent 1981 book The Soul Of A New Machine Dlyons493 Talk 17:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - it's not a neologism (any more) but I am not sure if it could be expanded much past a dicdef. FreplySpang (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Mushroom theory of management, a more accurate and precise title. 147.70.242.21 20:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This has been around for decades, but it's still just a joke. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is not a neologism but is at least 20 years old. Further it illustrates a theory of management that some managers actually practice, an extension of the "need to know" policy of secrecy. Hu 04:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naboo N-4 Starfighter[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was that it appears to be one persons creation. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not part of Star Wars universe, vanity. Jtmichcock 15:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft. Formally, it's original "research" and unverifiable in as much as it has no documented existence even within the fictional Star Wars universe. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete as per user above's reasoning. Croat Canuck 20:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nephew (band)[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article doesn't state or claim any notability, and the only Google hit I see at a quick search is to this very Wiki article. --DanielCD 19:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Jtmichcock 00:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything to indicate they meet WP:USIC -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not noteable; no discography on their website, & are unsigned to any label. Colonel Tom 04:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity is clutter. Bill shannon 02:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Lazerwitz[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unverifiable. Not that I tried too hard - the article is comprehensively unencyclopaedic. But this person is not on IMDB, which is a fair benchmark of whether a film person is notable. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, read the first (italicized) paragraph. If true, the article is just random fiction, which would explain the 1 google result (it points to the page of a DC area school). The same text was put by the same person on Alex Falconer so someone might want to look at that too. - Bobet 02:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bobet. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is being used for what looks like a school project creating a fictional company. Hu 03:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. -- Saikiri~ 05:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete because every word of it is true. This and the Alex Falconer article are very probable biographies for these two people, both of which I knew in grade school. Klairah 01:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC) The preceeding comment was edited by 68.83.214.247 (talk · contribs). This anon. user created the User:Klairah page after editing this comment. User:Klairah has not made any edits.[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Patrick's Alumni International[edit]

  • delete scarce notability --Melaen 00:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. Listen, you can make the argument that high schools are notable. Fine. I disagree, but I see where people are coming from on that one. But alumni associations? Come on. Delete. Lord Bob 17:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable vanity article.Gateman1997 00:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or alternatively redirect to St. Patrick's Higher Secondary School (redirects are cheap). No need to merge because all the information is already present in the main article. — Haeleth Talk 02:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Catchpole 13:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wrote the article (I don't know whether I'm allowed to even post this)and based on the feedback, I would like to create a redirect/merge, if the consensus is to delete. I am not doing anything yet because it seems that I shouldn't do that until this review period ends. But since the comments were made I have expanded the article beyond 1 line to provide more substance to it. To provide some context, this school is one of the oldest and most prestigious in India, and we should have some added tolerance for articles that deal with non-US things on the English site, and not rely entirely on the foreign languages to pick up that responsibility, especially in a big country like India where a lot of English is spoken, and Internet penetration is low right now. If we don't want to kick out the alumni organizations of Harvard, or the Philips Andover Academy, why St. Patrick's? Daxdarius 13:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge, failing that just redirect. Kappa 04:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Younevercall[edit]

It looks okay to me. What's the problem?


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clement's Market[edit]

This article describes an independently-owned supermarket. If it remains, that opens the floodgates for tens of thousands of articles on small stores throughout the United States, and this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Crotalus horridus 15:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — not even a remotely interesting page, at least to me. I'd be all for an article on a store with some interesting attributes, even if it did open up the flood gates. :) — RJH 16:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless something noteworthy is found about this store. There must be 100,000 supermarkets in the USA alone, let alone the rest of the world. What can be said about this particular market that distinguishes it from the other 99,999? •DanMS 21:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2k sports forum[edit]

This has been speedily deleted twice already but does not appear to qualify for redeletion at this time. It is, however, a non-notable webforum. Stifle 16:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Just another place people can try and get their 15 minutes on the cheap. 24.17.48.241 17:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as non-notable. Carioca 21:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and padlock - the playground needs to be closed for awhile. 147.70.242.21 22:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "Famous members"? I think not. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable and full of non-npov. Cool3 22:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons as above ... and because it's stupid. --Cyde Weys [u] [t] [c] 22:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Zipfel[edit]

Delete. This article presents information regarding a non-noteworthy person. It also appears to be an online CV ("He is currently looking for a job in Chicago") and advertisement ("He has several papers available for download at SSRN" Mushin | Talk 16:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — for a nationally-renowned legal scholar he sure is hard to find on the internet. Appears to be a vanity page. — RJH 16:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And Google has not heard of either of his best-selling books. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete job-seeking vanity is especially heinous. Paul 14:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Rockefeller Lincoln[edit]

Appears to be a real person [44]. Unfortunately no information besides the name seems to be verifiable. No results for "Arnold Yehudi Lincoln" [45]. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is a not a collection of geneological information. I wonder if her oilyness is genetic. Peyna 16:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Jtmichcock 00:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had to laugh by the time I got to "Semolina Lincoln". -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Estevan Oriol[edit]

Notability is not asserted. Cleanup tag there for 3 months and no improvement. --Edcolins 16:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joker Brand Clothing[edit]

Notability of brand not asserted. Edcolins 16:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Deng[edit]

Delete Unsourced; the organization that is mentioned produces only mirrors of this article when Googled for; and there are quite a few 'Daniel Deng's from the Sudan that can be found by Googling, (some with a third name tacked on as well) so I suspect the name is fairly common there. Caerwine 16:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 20:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Domains by Proxy[edit]

Advertising for non-notable company. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Hitchhiker89 16:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-notable? I hope the next thing you call non-notable won't be GoDaddy.com, since Domains by Proxy is their private domain registration service. [46] Keep or merge into GoDaddy.com. - Sikon 17:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable branch of GoDaddy service. This is the only hosting company of note offering anonymous registration and this is valuable information. Jtmichcock 00:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Then it can be merged into GoDaddy
  • Delete does not meet WP:CORP -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Ingoolemo because content consisted entirely of external links. Ingoolemo talk 18:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies that provide data and analytic services for pharmaceutical sales and marketing[edit]

Just a collection of external links--Wikipedia is NOT a linkfarm nor the Yellow Pages, nor a "resource for conducting business". 24.17.48.241 17:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notice: I'm going to temporarily undelete this in order to transwikify it to Yellowikis, which is a Yellow Pages. Uncle G 21:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

W. Jay Wood[edit]

Delete. Vanity article, doesn't appear to be a noteworthy person. Mushin | Talk 17:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The giveaway is "favorite philosophy links" -- Delete as vanity. 147.70.242.21 21:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete He does have a book published (you can order it from Amazon), but I don't see that he necessarily passes the "professor test". I could be persuaded to change my vote is something else that makes him notable can be documented. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One inch punch[edit]

band scarce notability: recorded one album that never saw the light of day. Melaen 17:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The band is not notable, but perhaps a better solution would be to redirect to Bruce Lee as this is a famous fighting technique he used (mentioned at #Upper Body within his page). Sliggy 17:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteTheRingess 21:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UPC Staff Roster[edit]

  • Delete Aside from the fact that I have no idea what this is, it's unverifiable nonsense. It appears to be some sort of imaginery universe that the author created (see Pheonix Star). Regardless of what it actually is, things of this nature do not belong on Wikipedia. Soltak | Talk 17:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I got one hit on Google for "UPC Fleet", [47], a space war story. I do not recommend that anyone waste their time trying to read the story. -- Dalbury(Talk) 04:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slowly. Speedy tag removed. Enochlau 00:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See also UPC Starbase. Suspect it's either a fanfic or a roleplaying game... The Land 16:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Sent to outer space. Enochlau 02:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pheonix Star[edit]

  • Delete Aside from the fact that I have no idea what this is, it's unverifiable nonsense. It appears to be some sort of imaginery universe that the author created (see UPC Staff Roster). Regardless of what it actually is, things of this nature do not belong on Wikipedia. Soltak | Talk 17:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Soltak. Could also add that it gives no context. --71.103.155.229 17:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit Conflict Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried to find out about it yesterday and wonder if it is connected with this book?. The lack of context makes it hard to tell (I told the user about that yesterday, and was planning to AfD nominate later). Some categories connected to this are at CfD. Kusma (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I can't tell what series where this one originates. Jtmichcock 00:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This throws a little light on UPC Staff Roster, just above here in the deletion list. -- Dalbury(Talk) 04:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blossom Forest[edit]

Article about an RPG with 140 members and lots of ads on their page. The article seems to be written entirely by an administrator (or at least member) of the site [48]. Wikipedia is not self-promotion. --W.marsh 17:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - delete. PatGallacher 17:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Viagra uk[edit]

Advertising/spam for non-notable online dispenser of Viagra.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 17:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--Alhutch 17:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit Conflict Delete. For the record, why can't this be speedied? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The reason I listed it here is because in this chart (under "Problems that may require deletion") of Wikipedia's deletion policy, it lists "Advertising or other spam" as belonging on AfD. I agree though, that "obvious" spam should be speediable. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 18:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Thank you for the helpful link. I'll refer to it next time somebody (no names plx) tells me I'm wasting AFD time/space. This entry does, however, call for some serious CSD Reform. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as patent spam. I hate spam. Jtmichcock 00:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Request renewed for deltion of this page, based on its sanitizations and generalities, and general sectarian offensiveness and provocation.

Irish-Scots[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted: this page is too short and too sectarian to do justice to the larger issue it awkwardly attempts to essay understanding: that of dual loyalty. Is it possible to be loyal to Ireland and Scotland at the same time (we all know the answer to that, anyway). The page should be deleted because it is provocative in a sectarian fashion, and was heavily sanitized when first produced for a vote on deletion. Pls. review with my additions (provided CPMcE has not deleted them). Thank You.

216.194.2.210 15:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith nomination, and incorrect procedure followed, by yet another Sock-puppet of [email protected]. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/[email protected] for the history of this user's rabid POV assertions and disgusting personal attacks.
I do agree that, in the form that Rms/216.194 has left it, it is an example of vile sectarianism, with no place in an encyclopedia. Camillus (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Kirill Lokshin 06:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irish-Scots[edit]

Not a clearly defined community.PatGallacher 17:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I only meant to call for deletion of the article, but I may have triggered of a call for deletion of the category as well, so be it. Some of these issues were discussed in the Charles Kennedy talk page. The crucial point is that the term "Irish-Scots" is NOT significantly used in Scotland, if it was then it would be encyclopedic. Whether we like it or not (and there are some good reasons for not liking it) the main social division in Scotland is between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Who all does this term apply to? Lots of Scottish people (including many Protestants) have an Irish ancestor somewhere in their family tree. How predominant does your Irish ancestry have to be to come into this category? Most Scottish people would have no idea how to answer this. PatGallacher 17:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Neutral insofar as the Ulster Scots addresses this same population, protestant Irish that migrated from Scotland and later settled in the US (Ronald Reagan being among the notable descendents). Jtmichcock 00:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to neutral. I am persuaded that my reference was incorrect, but I am not certain that the group has the notability to merit its own article. So count me on the fence. Jtmichcock 19:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Although I'm only a weak "keep" on this article, I have to point out that your "delete" vote appears to be based on a misunderstanding: this article clearly does not refer to the same community as Ulster Scots. Ulster Scots or Scots-Irish are people of Scottish descent in Ireland, while Irish-Scots are people of Irish descent in Scotland. So the question is not whether the community referred to is already covered by Ulster Scots, but whether it merits an article of its own. --Ryano 12:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disagree with both comments above.
  • I don't know if you live in Scotland, PatGallacher, but I do, and I know plenty of people who call themselves Irish-Scots, famously of course Billy Connolly and James Connolly. If you know anything about Scottish history then you'll know that in many parts of Scotland there where NO Roman Catholics until the first wave of immigration in the 19th century, when many Irish people came to Scotland to take the jobs of striking workers - which caused a great deal of resentment at the time.
  • Without wanting to sound flippant, you only need to go to Celtic Park to see tons of Irish-Scots - why else do they wave all those tricolours? Indeed, Celtic F.C. (and Hibernian F.C) where specifically created to provide recreational facilities for the Irish-Scots.
  • Who do you suppose the Ancient Order of Hibernians consists of in Scotland?
  • Ulster Scots does NOT address the same population at all. Ulster Scots are people who emigrated from Scotland to Ireland (mostly in the "plantations" of the 16th-17th century, while Irish-Scots are people who emigrated from Ireland to Scotland, mostly in the 19th and 20th centuries. Completely different and distinct.
  • You cite the Ulster Scots, Jt, but if you care to look at that page, you'll see the following:
    • "Ulster-Scots" is a term used to refer to the Presbyterians descended from people of Scotland who live in Ulster, Ireland. "Scotch-Irish" is the usual term in the United States; "Scots-Irish" is also used to refer to the same people, and is not to be confused with Irish-Scots, i.e. Irish immigrants to Scotland.
  • So obviously the author of that page thinks there is such a thing as Irish-Scots.
  • Incidentally, I created the stub, and I recognise that it is rather poor, and needs improved, but not deleted.
  • I did not create the category, so there must be someone else who agrees with me.

Camillus(talk) 01:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, perhaps not under this title, but the topic of Irish emigrant communities in Scotland, their descendants, and the cultural ramifications thereof is clearly (a) real and (b) worthy of coverage. Palmiro | Talk 20:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I'd like to see a few more references to this being the primary descriptor for Scots people of Irish descent. I would probably favour deleting the category, however, as I'm not a fan of categorising biographical articles purely by ethnicity. --Ryano 11:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a key demographic group in Scotland, and a quality article on the topic will increase understanding of modern Scotland.--Mais oui! 06:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something less annoyingly ambiguous. - SoM 17:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The LNP[edit]

Delete, non-notable three-person gaming clan FreplySpang (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete this. This page is a symbol of our superiority with beginners on a number of subjects. If this page is deleted, then our knowledge on how superior computer nerds are to other people. For example, a n00b (stands for someone arrogant), is far less knowledgable of any subject than the pwnerz. This can be displayed in a nuber of ways. Please do not delete this. This is our link to computer nerds everywhere. By the way, most of the jocks that you went to high school with are probably bagging your groceries, or mixing cement. So let this be a reminder of how great this page is... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.172.254 (talk • contribs) 3:00, December 2, 2005 (subsequently edited by User:Chunti, 13:09, December 2, 2005)
  • Delete: {{nn-bio}} of a group. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this clan, just like the others. Gazpacho 18:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even more than the others: unencyclopedic in both content and tone. - squibix 19:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is such an obvious delete that it deserves to be a speedy, though I don't believe any current case exactly applies. Rossami (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and I agree that this is borderline speediable (nonsense/attempt to communicate). --PeruvianLlama(spit) 21:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost incomprehensible. •DanMS 22:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:Danny

Baby Jeebus[edit]

Delete, mostly opinion. FreplySpang (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mostly nonsense. Atlant 18:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonsense. I nominated this for speedy deletion earlier in the day! Stephenb (Talk) 19:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, nonsense. Firebug 19:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Stephenb originally put a speedy tag on it, but it was removed. The AfD notice has also been removed. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, entirely nonsense. This would be a crap article if it was on Uncyclopedia, let alone Wikipedia. --Cyde 20:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your language Cyde. (This comment added by Ragnarok56 Demi T/C 19:28, 2005 May 21 (UTC))

I have deleted the page. It is not a candidate for deletion. It is an obvious Speedy Delete. Danny 20:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a speedy candidate, but I'm not going to argue. Delete Articles like this would make anyone cry, let alone Jeebus. DJ Clayworth 20:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing either, but it would be good to close this discussion after deleting. FreplySpang (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Fountain - Exclusive Internet Trailer and The Fountain Logos[edit]

Blatant advertisement. I tagged it for speedy deletion, but said tag was removed. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've merged the discussion of two very similar articles by the same creator, Logoboy95 (talk · contribs). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.. wtf? Rhobite 23:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but it should have been speedied. Mushroom 00:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 04:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, certinally not worth keeping --V3rt1g0 05:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've blocked the creator of this for posting hoax and nonsense articles. 23skidoo 21:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely useless articles. These are about the studio logos associated with this film and have virtually no information about the film itself. --Metropolitan90 05:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Oppenheim[edit]

  • Delete as unverifiable unless credible external references provided. --Alan Au 19:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. -- Dalbury(Talk) 04:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violates Wikipedia regulation and international copyright laws:

1.) It displays unauthorized personal information. 2.) It displays copyright material without authorization. 3.) It deters readers because the article is unverifiable. It should be deleted immediately.


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly[edit]

Band vanity, no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Body 1[edit]

Obvious advertising right now with 1 contributer, presumably connected to the website. Even if rewritten I doubt it would pass WP:WEB proposal, site has an Alexa rank of 705,400 and just seems like a typical eCommerce medical site. --W.marsh 19:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears to be linkspam, and there's no attempt to meet the WP:CORP guidelines. Body1.com has an Alexa rank of 705,400. --Alan Au 19:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as spam, spam, spam. Jtmichcock 01:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising and fails WP:CORP -- Dalbury(Talk) 04:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 popcorn. – Robert 01:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hulless popcorn[edit]

Nom but No Vote: Procedural nomination, since User:Freakofnurture tagged it for speedy with template:nonsense despite it being a coherant article. (Perhaps the start of an article, or a sec'n deserving a rdr, in my casual opinion.)
--Jerzy•t 19:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to popcorn. Hulless popcorn exists, but the article comes close to pure nonsense.Bjones 19:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Bjones. Could be expanded into a separate article later, but the current one isn't appropriate. --Alan Au 19:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to popcorn but save nothing. First- and second-person writing is not encyclopedic. 147.70.242.21 19:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slowly Delete instead, though I question the coherency. There is nothing to merge. If the topic can be legitimately addressed in the popcorn article, go ahead and redirect, but only then. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to popcorn, but this article is a nonsense. Carioca 21:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

China as the next global superpower[edit]

Looks like an outline for a thesis paper. WP:NOR. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Alan Au 19:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur. Encyclopaedic converage of this subject wouldn't be under this title, moreover, because the title advocates one single point of view. Delete. Uncle G 21:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crystal ball. Gazpacho 00:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as written (and titled). BD2412 T 03:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prepa Tec Campus Santa Catarina[edit]

NN school, no potential --Impaciente 19:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN Pardon, I did not check that discussion, and since I don't want to start a debate here on whether schools should be kept or not, I will have to agree with consensus. --Impaciente 17:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and please overturn our bias Yuckfoo 02:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep. -- DS1953 20:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn Catchpole 13:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep N, and helps to counteract systemic bias. Kappa 04:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plush in a Rush[edit]

A toy company. There are a number of Google hits, but nothing to indicate that this meets WP:CORP. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless notability established (per WP:CORP). --Alan Au 19:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 14:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was transwikied. Johnleemk | Talk 10:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drink run[edit]

The first line says it all: "A drink run is a brief excursion for the purpose of obtaining liquid refreshment." Possible BJAODN material, but not that funny. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; \'\'e\'\' ] 19:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I\'m baffled by this one too. It\'s much closer to coffee break than beer run, though -Meegs 20:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes an attempt to draw a distinction between a coffee break and a so-called “Drink run”. Is this a legitimate distinction? --Wabazana 21:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to the Wiktionary. The term is real and has been in use for quite some time now. It usually refers to a break from work to have a drink (or buy one from a vendor prior to drinking it). While coffee breaks are usually social activities conducted while drinking coffee, the term "drink run" generally focuses on the activity of procuring the drink before consuming it (the social activities, if any, would concentrate around the drink source, like a water cooler). 147.70.242.21 21:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as noted above. Jtmichcock 01:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to the Wiktionary.--Wabazana 13:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I see no evidence in Google hits of it being in use. -- Dalbury(Talk) 14:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to the Wiktionary. There are also no hits for Griphennus on Google, yet that article has managed to persist.--64.128.190.243 06:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At work, me and my buds take daily drink runs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snorgenhorpher (talk • contribs) , first edit by this user.
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary as above. It's useless here. Ec- 00:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki & Delete. WP:NOT a slang guide. 'Nuff said. The Literate Engineer 02:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cornells true value[edit]

Advertising, doesn't meet WP:CORP


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as a clear vandalous hoax. A7 does not require us to consider assertions of notability that are prima facie untrue. FCYTravis 21:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Wartz[edit]

A7 speedy candidate with absurd claims. Speedy deletion notice removed once. No Google hits. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; although A7 doesn't apply since it does assert importance or significance. Peyna 19:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non speedy. A Hoax -Meegs 20:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You would think that a member of Blink-182 would get more than one Google hit [49]

Hoaxes are generally silly vandalism in my view and should be speedy deleted. Capitalistroadster 20:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clinton FALN clemency[edit]

Appears to be promoting a Puerto Rican terrorist group.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 19:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy under G4; pretty evident from history the recreation is the same as the previously deleted material. Peyna 19:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This page has already been deleted 3 times.--Alhutch 19:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and padlock per all of the above. 147.70.242.21 20:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Probably also CSD A3. Enochlau 03:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seed related databases[edit]

WP:ISNOT a collection of links. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Solarik[edit]

Looks like a hoax to me [50]

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the claim to notability, the olympics, is false (bbc listing of winners). Hoax. -Meegs 20:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there were 3 hits on Google, one of them being this page, one being about a 1500m racer, and one was on one those whatcha-ma-call-it websites. Croat Canuck 04:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 14:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Komikwerks[edit]

  • Delete NN publishing company; almost no text left after removing copyvio from komikwerks.com. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subjective designation of NN publishing company is incorrect. Komikwerks is one of the longest running web comics portals that also has a history of regular printed volumes. Further, it is home to "Stan Lee's Sunday Funnies", hosting the most significant name in the history of comics. Several of the comics properties have been optioned for film. The company is marshalling a major book launch for 2006. It was recently featured on the NBC prime time series "Las Vegas" (episode #56 - "Mothwoman" which aired November 21). The copyvio designation is also incorrect. The text was based on an article from author's (my) own website (Comics2Film.com article -- which, admittedly, is drawn from a press release) and I give Wikipedia full permission to reprint and use as a basis for the Komikwerks entry. Request that gutted article be restored and article be removed from the AfD list. Apologies in advance if this "keep" entry is formatted incorrectly. .:.Robworley.:.
    • Comment Robworley (talk · contribs) is the originator and sole contributor to Komikwerks -- Dalbury(Talk) 14:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This is true, but it doesn't look like he's part of Komikwerks itself. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment In the interest of full disclosure I will say that at the time I posted the article I had written a book for the 2006 launch and a short comics story for the upcoming anthology. –Robworley 04:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Alexa ranking of 1,729,487, doesn't meet WP:WEB. -- Dalbury(Talk) 14:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Alexa rank is not _absolute_, specially on the sites that don't rank into the top 10k.Rvalles 03:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Robworley. Put the above info into the article and it will be quite good. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Robworley. Given the source of the original article, it looks like we should allow the original text to return. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on etymology in the world of Harry Potter[edit]

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter

Original research and soapboxing. Someone seems to have a point to prove against Ms Rowling. [[Sam Korn]] 20:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Do a ton of these kinds of articles pop up at the end of every semester or something? Seems like everyone wrote their term paper, turned it in, and then decided to post it to WP. (This is a poor example and I'm just making a general complaint, but you get the idea.) Peyna 20:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and lack of references. 147.70.242.21 20:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain (just comment): Neither original "research" (did you read the article, or just make broad assumptions based on the title?), soapboxing, or a dis against Ms. Rowling. What it IS meant to be is a general disclaimer - and an attempt to defuse the ongoing debates on the existing Wikipedia pages about the rigourousness of the language in the works of J.K.Rowling. I'm supposing that you probably havn't noticed that there's endless debates on talk pages about the "Harry Potter universe" about whether this term is from Latin, or that is supposed to be Aramaic, or whether the spelling on page 27 is canonical, or the spelling on page 62 is the final word.

    This is attempt to defuse these debates by pointing out that there is no final answer, so just have fun with - but there's no need for upteen jillion contesting re-writes of an article depending on the viewpoint of the last author to get their paws on the page.

    If that's violation of the Wikipedia policy - and there seems to be a general policy against disclaimers in genreal - by all means, take it down - I don't have a lot of time or ego invested in writing it - but it was not created for the reasons listed in it's request for deletion.

    Beowulf314159 20:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • OK, I'll go through this if you want to. This is emphatically not encyclopaedia writing. It belongs on a fan site or something. You are presenting your opinion in the article as a proven fact: it isn't. This is the definition of soapboxing. Yes, I did read the article, and found it mildly interesting. It is certainly well written. However, it is emphatically not a topic for an encyclopaedia. I have to say I haven't noticed these debates, but this is a big wiki, so that isn't entirely surprising. And that's true, disclaimers are disencouraged. But what is it you are disclaiming against? If it is against the way articles are written and concepts presented in existing articles, then the existing articles must be changed to fit in with other policies. By "original research", I mean to say that this is information that has never been published elsewhere and is your own point of view, undiluted. [[Sam Korn]] 20:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • thank you for the compliment. I can't disagree with your comments - it's not a "factual" article - it's only a by-product of the nature of the "public contributions" of a wiki. You're right in that were this a paper encyclopedia the article would not exist, and as such, it probably shouldn't be here.
  • Delete: Ok - you're right, it would not be in a paper edition of an encyclopedia. Beowulf314159 20:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Analysis of the texts down to the level of word usage on individual pages is exactly what the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter is for. Coördinating the efforts of editors writing on Harry Potter subjects is what Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter is for. Uncle G 22:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR.Gateman1997 00:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insfar as this is original research and editorializing. Doesn't belong here. Jtmichcock 00:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I clicked on this expecting something else. There is a much better list out there that I have seen before, showing all the Latin roots of names in HP. Like albus means white and malfoy means bad. Put that up instead.-- --(U | T | C) 09:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in present form. There is a place for this, but maybe not its own article. Maybe as a subheading on a main Harry Potter article. Bill shannon 02:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that it is soapboxing. If people want to discuss the etymology in HP, just let them. It doesn't even give any actual facts. It doesn't really seem necessary to have an article for it. Maybe merge it with something else?
  • Move to either the Talk namespace or the Wikipedia namespace, perhaps under WikiProject Harry Potter. This is something more akin to policy than an encyclopedia article. —Brent Dax 19:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Chick Bowen 00:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsalvagably POV. We could instead have an article on Harry Potter etymology (if there isn't one already) that mentions these criticisms (provided that verifiable sources can be found). Yeltensic42.618 23:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of online multiplayer cheats[edit]

Normaly I'd say let it stay or possibly merge it but this page deals with cheting in multiplayer online games, and in some cases gives instrucions on how to do it, online cheating runs these games for everyone. Delete Deathawk 20:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Widely documented stuff. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability can be debatable, but I'd think it'd be more encyclopedic to take each section of the article and merge it with the article on the appropriate game. If this one's not nipped quickly, the article will soon become very unwieldy as new games and new ways to cheat them are developed. 147.70.242.21 20:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The issue of cheating itself is much more well covered in Cheating in online games. Cheats on individual games should be merged with the article on the game itself per 147.70.242.21, unless the issue is a major and notable phenomenon (Cheating in Counter-Strike). -- Saikiri~ 21:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because WP:ISNOT a howto (explicitly stated). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as you would any other list of recipes for food, this is recipes for software. Jtmichcock 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here is worth merging anywhere, and the content is strictly narrow-application how-to. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Bon Joniv[edit]

Delete as hoax. FreplySpang (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kendine's Formula[edit]

Appears to be a hoax/neologism. No Google hits outside of WP. Any references to it in other articles were inserted by the original author. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unverified, no real significance. Probably vanity, probably posted by a Kendine or Ken Dine (both "names" used in the article). Hu 04:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even the "quote" from Poor Richard's Almanac is fake. -- Dalbury(Talk) 14:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gender stratification[edit]

Personal essay. WP:NOR. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 20:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avalon 22:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure that this is already covered elsewhere. Clearly NOR. Ben Aveling 22:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-encyclopedic and original essay. Jtmichcock 00:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delet per nom as well as very obviously biased opinion.


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Randolph Gardner III[edit]

NN bio. WP:ISNOT a memorial service. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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] 04:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Titak[edit]

No notability is mentioned and looks like a simple vanity page. Delete --DanielCD 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. nn-bio. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an nn-bio. Be alert that this AFD page has been vandalized multiple times as well. ESkog | Talk 20:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danny's rule of thumb. If the subject is unnotable, was born after 1985 and it says he is a sex icon, you can safely assume it is vanity and delete it without wasting time on an AfD. Danny 20:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of nasal singers[edit]

Subjective topic by definition, and so not in line with WP:NPOV. Could easily be used as a "list of singers I don't particularly like"; I don't see this ever being a very encyclopaedic article. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - even if there were an objective definition for the term "nasal singers", it would not be a well defined set. Where's the cut-off? Who decides if Tina Turner is nasal and Cyndi Lauper is not? No one is that authoritative. 147.70.242.21 20:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since as far as I can make out all of these singers sing through their mouths, not their noses. Pity, I was looking forward to something genuinely novel here. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, one sings through both. 147.70.242.21 is right, though. It is a matter of opinion, and there's no attempt at neutrality here. One would render such an article neutral by attributing the opinion of "nasality" to its holders. However, since that would result in a hotch-potch of multiple opinions from different sources, there being no one single definition of "nasal", it seems daft to have a single list article on the subject. "List of singers considered to be 'nasal' according to various people's individual and differing definitions of 'nasal'" seems far too cumbersome to ever be useful to anyone. Attributed opinions about individual singers are far better reported in the articles on those singers. Delete. Uncle G 22:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I don't know if WP:ISNOT applies, but I just couldn't resist. 23skidoo 00:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV. Jtmichcock 00:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not inherently POV but the chances of it's being properly worked up are zilch. If not deleted, then the article should be rewritten to say that it is a list of names of singers together with source citations attesting to their nasal voice tone. Then every name that is not accompanied by such a citation, i.e. all of them, should be cut from the article, pasted into the talk page, and not reinserted until a citation can be provided. I think I'll do that much right now. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if there were even more than one person listed, I might even consider it, but why not start List of Off-Key Singers or List of Singers with a Slight Lisp? Or List of Singers who you can't tell if they are British or American when they are singing? Bill shannon 02:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Access Integrated Technologies[edit]

Advert for non-notable company. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as Spam. Jtmichcock 00:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lots of Google hits, but largely from press releases. They are just beginning to install their equipment in theaters [52]. -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MultiPath[edit]

Software advertising. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tawan W Chester[edit]

Advertisement for book by this author. FreplySpang (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly: Contributing Writer: Natalie A. Mitchell . It is a CD-ROM with an ISBN. Does that count as "author"? It is "faith-based". Does that count for a "religion-stub"? I tried to put in a one-liner about the author and the publication but got reverted by User:Sango123. Go figure.
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it doesn't matter if it's a book, DVD, CD, or kinescope. As the article is written, it is still advertising, pure and simple. Putting in a one-liner about the author actually magnifies the problem. 147.70.242.21 20:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not established, topic is of highly questionable encyclopedic value, current article is just an advertisement. Sliggy 21:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ten Google hits for "Tawan W Chester", including Wikipedia. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you get more if you drop the middle initial, but it is mostly publicity for this product. FreplySpang (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aitonikui[edit]

Band at a Malaysian university that fails WP:MUSIC. Hasn't recorded any songs of their own, hasn't released any albums, hasn't charted any hits or been prominently featured in any media. Delete as vanity. Saikiri~ 20:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, since it fails WP:MUSIC based on the article. Malaysian bands might be hard to find information about on the Internet so I'll take the nominator's word on the media coverage. - Bobet 02:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coincidentally I do live in Malaysia, and I've not heard about them at all... Google gives exactly 2 hits, both of which are blog entries. I'll look around a little more and see if I can find anything. -- Saikiri~ 03:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vistes[edit]

No source, doesn't sound real, and Google searches for vistes, vistes denmark and vistes denmark crime all turn up empty. [[Sam Korn]] 20:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete On the face of it, this is nonsense, and there is no reference or verifiability. Hu 04:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bohuslav Marashek[edit]

Unverifiable. There's nothing about this guy on Google or newsgroups, other than WP and mirrors. This article's only author also nominated for a (quickly rejected) featured article candidacy. That author also seems to have a less than stellar reputation. As far as I can tell this is a hoax article. --W.marsh 20:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Has all the earmarks of an attempted prank. Hu 04:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, joke. For sure no street in Prague is named after him. The joker should be blocked or redirected to Unencyclopedia automatically. Pavel Vozenilek 23:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it sure did put effort into the bullshit though. EscapeArtistsNeverDie 01:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 00:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Nitot[edit]

Wikipedia is not a phone book. This person is just a little bit known, in France, and we can't put all bloggers on Wilipedia Trucmuche 20:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since it does also say he's the president of Mozilla Europe. Googling for "Tristan Nitot"+mozilla gets over 30000 results so he seems to be notable enough. - Bobet 02:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bobet. Also, FWIW, the nominater, Trucmuche (talk · contribs), nominated this article on his/her second edit, raising the possibility this is a bad faith nomination by a sockpuppet. -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Robert 00:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Christian[edit]

Fails to express notability. The JPS 20:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as non-notable biography. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article claims a best-selling video, for which a Google search turns up plenty of hits (admittedly most of them do seem to be marketing). On the other hand, a cleanup notice has produced nothing for over a month. I categorised the page, and think on balance this should be a keep for now. Sliggy 22:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As it stands, the article is an ad. Convince me his video has sold over 5,000 copies and I'll reconsider. -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Though he is not super famous. It is plausible that his video has sold over 5000 copies - as his video is ranked #158 on the "everything else" list in Amazon.com [53]. Thus, his notablility can be asserted. --Hurricane111 22:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Amazon rating of 158 388. Kappa 04:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cedardale Church of the Nazarene, Cedardale Church of the Nazarene - The Walk to Bethlehem[edit]

NN church in Ontario, Canada. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added a performance that's held at the church as well. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Said church clearly does not assert notability. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reasonable level of notablility established.Gateman1997 00:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Lots of churches have pageants or living displays, so nothing notable about that. -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Abraham. —Kirill Lokshin 06:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahamic covenant[edit]

Nothing in this that is not in Abraham Avalon 21:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Abraham. It's a pretty widely used term so this can't hurt. - Bobet 02:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this widely-used term with considerable potential for expansion; Abraham is already a lengthy article with a different focus. - squibix 02:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Abraham per Bobet. -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Tauzin III[edit]

Article on a failed candidate for an unspecified political position somewhere in the United States. --Carnildo 21:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable Avalon 22:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article seems to be much better written than the average candidate bio which seems to be taken off their campaign brochure. Unsuccessful candidates for political office are not generally notable unless they have significant achievements to their name in other fields. However, this article could be usefully merged into an article on the contest in that particular seat. Capitalistroadster 22:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tauzin's defeat in the election was unexpected in a widely covered election. Jtmichcock 01:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then maybe the article should say that. Right now, it doesn't even tell what *position* the guy was running for. --Carnildo 01:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and I've fixed the seat ref - he was the Republican candidate for a United States House of Representatives, which, combined with his political scoinship and upset loss, is sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 02:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete: The man is notable only for a DUI arrest and a failed political bid and even that was only due to his father's influence. On the other hand, history is history and it does accord with the corruption of his father. Hu 04:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how he meets WP:BIO. Losing the race for the seat your father held is not much of an accomplishment. -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as improved by BD2412. -- DS1953 20:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the race gained nationwide attention for particularly nasty attacks between members of the same political party. CDThieme 18:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - all schools are notable and vote where only reasoning was a link to schools debate discounted JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Bryant high school[edit]

Wikipedia is not a listings directory. The JPS 21:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin (all schools are notable vote) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with school district or other appropriate article, as per the actual proposed guideline at WP:SCH. Both deletionists and inclusionists would be well advised to grit their teeth and accept this proposal (which boils down to "delete only the unverifiable, merge very short stubs, keep everything else"), because it's the best way forward to stop these endless futile AfDs. — Haeleth Talk 02:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this school is important to the community Yuckfoo 02:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely no assertion of notability. -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not in any way notable Velela 20:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You left out "in my opinion" from that sentence. Former chairman and CEO of Bertelsmann, one of the world's largest media companies, is a notable graduate of this school. Silensor 20:58, 3 December 2005

(UTC)

  • .....and might I cordialy suggest that this comment too, is "in your opinion". The judgement of notability, when this is disputed, is almost always a matter of opinion, yours and mine, equally valuable but all opinions. I think we can all accept that this is the case and perhaps not have to assert that this is indeed an opinion on each occasion. I trust that, in your opinion, you may concur. Velela 20:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Valid high schools are notable. — RJH 00:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted by closing admin (all schools are notable vote) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn even if some bigwig once attended Catchpole 13:48, 5 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» 14:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yuckfoo and others. Kappa 04:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factually accurate. --Oldak Quill 22:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskeytits[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet the guidelines. Doesn't show up on allmusic.com either. JHMM13 21:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - having a band lineup and a weblink as the bulk of the article qualifies it as either vanity or advertising in my book. Either way, the act is nn. 147.70.242.21 22:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete prima facie does not meet WP:MUSIC -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canotch[edit]

Nonsense, there is no such thing as 'Canotch', the article was probably written by someone having a laugh. Galwaygirl 21:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - four-month-old "stub" of an article with no references. Incomplete information points to probable hoax, vanity, or attempt at a joke. Take your pick. 147.70.242.21 22:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neologism - No relevant coincidences with Whiskey on Google. No evidence it's used by more than two guys. -Meegs 23:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demir Karpat Polat[edit]

Fails to assert notability The JPS 22:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable (can a copy writer ever be notable?) Jtmichcock 01:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails to meet WP:BIO. The awards he lists are real, but they are for ads, and he was just one member of the teams that created the ads. -- Dalbury(Talk) 16:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Alderman[edit]

NN bio. IMDB credits him with being an exec producer on exactly one film. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not meeting WP:BIO with one film Orion's Cloud to his credit. 222 results for a Google search for "Justin Alderman" and he doesn't appear in the first page see [54]. Capitalistroadster 22:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Capitalistroadster. -- Dalbury(Talk) 16:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teen podcasters network[edit]

No obvious notability. 293 hits on google. Ben Aveling 22:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. Harro5 22:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Does not appear to be noteworthy enough. Jtmichcock 01:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delet NN. -- Dalbury(Talk) 16:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. I wrote this article (Me, Michael Fogleman). Originally I put up this article as a massive about. My thoughts are, if someone is looking for the Teen Podcaster's Network, they will find what they want with no biased information. The Podcast Network gets the same thing, why shouldn't the Teen Podcaster's Network? It just says what it is, who made it, and where to find it, nothing else. 68.160.157.98 01:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Michael Fogleman[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia is not a directory service. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentWell why is the Teen Podcaster's Network getting picked on if the Podcast Network does not? It should not be deleted because if someone wants to know about the network, they will find out about it. It's not slanted in any way whatsoever and should not be deleted. Just because it is "obscure" doesn't mean that people won't look at it. Wikipedia is so messed up, and it has strayed from it's original purpose- the beauty of everyone being able to edit it if they have a contribution. Shame on you for picking on Adam Curry. He was just trying to help. I defended Wikipedia from my history teacher, who complained about it. I almost got in trouble for it. I don't see why I did if you cannot do what you are supposed to be able to- put your two cents in. You exclusive supposed elite who spend your days editing Wikipedia are the only people who have any rights. While it may be fun, why can't a leading expert make edits? That's what I ask. I'd be interesting in chatting with you folks about it. Email me at [email protected] or skype me at commonercast. 68.160.180.33 19:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI have now gotten a user. My user is commonercast. Commonercast 19:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Delete NN vanity --rogerd 00:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Society of Baltimore[edit]

Very noble non-profit org, but not particularly notable outside of Baltimore, Maryland. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete until more verified sources are added.Gateman1997 00:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment blatant rip from their site. [55]. While there is no copyright notice, we can't assume otherwise either. Peyna 00:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup-- --(U | T | C) 08:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I think it's a borderline keep, but the text reads as close to non-neutral advertising and needs cleanup. — RJH 00:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we cannot keep information from external sites unless we have verification that permission has been given by the copyright holder. Chick Bowen 00:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klortho[edit]

Extremely non-notable band; don't meet WP:MUSIC. Harro5 22:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed with nom, delete. ESkog | Talk 23:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 16:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen (Braveheart)[edit]

An article about a minor character in the film Braveheart. I don't think a redirect is called for here, as the only article that links to it is Braveheart and that link was inserted by the original author of this article. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Braveheart was a popular film but I don't think it's popular enough to warrant articles on every character, especially those who didn't even rate a last name. 23skidoo 00:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:NOT. Gateman1997 00:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Jtmichcock 01:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmus, Alberta[edit]

Delete. I can find no evidence that Rasmus exists. The federal geographical names database does not have it, Google finds only Wikipedia and mirrors, and Over 2000 Place Names of Alberta (book) does not have it either. I suspect the article was created as some sort of vanity vandalism. Indefatigable 22:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Indefatigable. Unverifiable, probable hoax. Capitalistroadster 22:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Indefatigable. It's a shame that more than 10 people have worked on it without knowing. -Meegs 23:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probable hoax. 23skidoo 23:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probable hoax. Stats Can does not have it either. Luigizanasi 23:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Cinune[edit]

Google shows 5 non-wiki links - doesn't appear to be a significant musician worthy of inclusion Colonel Tom 23:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Naomi[edit]

see Naomi Cinune - doesn't appear significant enough for inclusion - at best, merge with Naomi Cinune. Colonel Tom 23:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of debate high schools[edit]

This article could go one of two directions: (1) It could devolve into an unresolvable debate about what constitutes "National Circuit", or (2) it will become a list of nearly all high schools in the United States, which is another article. Either way it doesn't really have a place here. The creator appears to have intended "List of elite high school debate teams" which is equally problematic. Delete ESkog | Talk 23:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no reasonable criteron established and also unmaintainable and inherently POV.Gateman1997 00:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and Gateman 1997. -- Dalbury(Talk) 16:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.204.27 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge - I think this could function well as part of the main debate page. I think it could be a useful resource for someone looking to get involved with the debate community, and I think that any bias issues could be resolved by simply adding a school you think has been left out. This isn't a list of awesome people, and I think it's unreasonable to expect that someone list all the schools in the country with debate programs. That being said, it needs some work.... 68.199.31.28 00:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brackenwood[edit]

A Flash animation of questionable notability, located at [56]. The creator has an article on Wikipedia, but that seems to be based on his career as a Disney animator and as an author. Tom Lillis 23:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Deltabeignet 23:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's also a massive copyvio, upon further investigation. Take a look at the website. Tom Lillis 23:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.This article is the exact description made by the creator of Brackenwood, Adam Phillips (animator). His permission would be needed for this publication.
  • Delete as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 00:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thought of creating this earlier, when I created his bio, but decided not to. If he keeps making Brackenwood stuff, and it keeps increasing in popularity as it has been, this might someday be noteable. Ditto on the copyvio. Dsol 21:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phatchown[edit]

Was listed as a speedy, but is technically a non-notable musical group and not a non-notable person. However, it might even be a hoax: the phrase gets only one irrelevant google hit. Either that or a misspelling, but barring new info: Delete. -- SCZenz 23:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, because we all really wish that CSD:A7 included band vanity. Peyna 00:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and also delete duplicate article Phat chown. Demiurge 01:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with deletion of the duplicate article. -- SCZenz 09:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity, non-notable. Jtmichcock 01:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- verifiable - its in original namespace - why should I care how notable it is Wikipedia is not on paper-- --(U | T | C) 08:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, how is it verifiable? And since you know that WP:NOT paper, you also know that WP:NOT an indescriminate collection of information. This is not the place to promote a little-known band. -- SCZenz 09:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Ewok Slayer apparently is just trolling all of the AfD's because he is upset about his article getting AfD'd and a lot of negative comments about it. Peyna 15:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- verifiable - It has its own website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.178.251 (talk • contribs)
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 07:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete band vanity, unverifiable (no sources other than the band's website). Chick Bowen 00:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have redirected Phat chown to Phatchown as a duplicate. The closing admin should apply her decision to both pages. Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was} SPEEDILY KEPT. What Uncle G said. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slave training[edit]

Previously deleted under CSD:G1, but isn't really patent nonsense. Redirect to Slave (BDSM). Owen× ☎ 23:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Slave (BDSM). Certainly is factual enough but it would be better as part of the bigger article. Capitalistroadster 00:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please only bring articles to Articles for deletion if you actually want an administrator to delete them. Redirection is not deletion. Uncle G 00:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to BDSM. Jtmichcock 01:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge into Toronto Raptors.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raptorschat[edit]

It's the official forum of the Toronto Raptors and it does have a few thousand members, but I don't think it is independently notable. Tom Lillis 23:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_2&oldid=1081091871"