Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 21 December 23 >

Purge server cache

December 22[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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The Journey"[edit]

This nomination was orphaned, so I'm relisting it. It's a hoax along the lines of Coverism. Kevin 00:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 23:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Building (Outpost 2)[edit]

Not encyclopaedic. - FrancisTyers 00:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 00:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the contents is more appropriate for a game manual or howto. --dcabrilo 00:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft, no context, basically just a list. Werdna648T/C\@ 00:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as all of the above --Mecanismo | Talk 01:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important for encyclopedic coverage of Outpost 2. -- JJay 04:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JJay. If absolutely necessary merge with Outpost 2Jcuk 06:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of gaming guides. Isomorphic 06:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isomorphic. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs A brief summary of the main buildings could probably be merged back into Outpost 2. Zunaid 07:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge' as per Zunaid. Essexmutant 16:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This information is included in the documentation. Please RTFD. Denni ☯ 03:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge any useful information then delete. Megapixie 05:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 23:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TechNation[edit]

nn website, advertising. No edits since last VfD in February - Cannot find old archive though. Werdna648T/C\@ 00:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Old VfD was on talk page: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Technation. Apparently it's now known as "FreddysHouse", but Alexa knows it as "BarrysWorld" with a rank of > 3,000,000. Constant name changes (at least twice since February) indicate a lack of stability. Forum has over 12,000 members, though. howcheng {chat} 00:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We really do need a CSD for nn forums and blogs. We get far too many through AfD. Werdna648T/C\@ 00:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable, not doing any particular harm by being here. Jcuk 06:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very low Alexa ranking, does not appear to establish notability. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 09:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even first result on Google for TechNation! ComputerJoe 14:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Little content, reads like an ad, NN. SorryGuy 22:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable biography - admin of an Internet forum.

Caydiem[edit]

Not encyclopaedic. - FrancisTyers 00:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • FrancisTyers, you don't have to vote in your nominations. As a nominator, it is understood that you believe the article should be deleted. After all, you went throught the troulbe to nominated it for deletion :) --Mecanismo | Talk 01:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the nominator doesn't type "abstain" or something, I don't think one should assume "delete". JMHO. ;) PJM 01:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible vanity.--Mecanismo | Talk 01:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. NN-Bios satisfy CSD A7. Werdna648T/C\@ 01:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per above. PJM 01:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Petaholmes (empty page). howcheng {chat} 00:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lupin the Thrird[edit]

Spelling incorrect Squilibob 00:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Redirect: It appears the page was already in the process of being redirected when you deleted it, in the future please note that it takes a while for redirects to redirect automaticly also please don't blank pages on AFD. It appears this was your first edit so I'm not holding it against you but I just thought you should know the policy regarding this page Deathawk 00:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). I suggest Joe Dolan (folk musician) as the move target. howcheng {chat} 19:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Galway' Joe Dolan[edit]

I strongly suspect this is a hoax. Joe Dolan himself seems to have been a member of Sweeny's Men, per allmusic.com (search for Joe Dolan), and the "arrived on the seventh day" line sounds distinctly unfunny-joke. Added by an anon user a year ago, and untouched since. Asserts notability, though, so not CSD. Shimgray | talk | 00:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aaargh - I was wrong, it seems. Andy Irvine's biography refers to their Joe Dolan: "Unfortunately, Joe Dolan left us to go to Israel shortly afterwards. He had been there in 1965, as a volunteer at Masada, "digging up history and living in a tent" as he memorably wrote himself, and with the start of what became known as the Six Day War, he headed off to give his support, arriving with typical Dolan luck on the seventh day!". This confirms it was a Joe Dolan from Galway, not "the" Joe Dolan, who's from Meath. Retract nomination; I'll reference the article, and it's probably borderline keepable (though under a different name). Shimgray | talk | 01:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 09:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Pedestrian) PingPong[edit]

Apparently an internet meme, no demonstration of notability- and as somone who spends considerable time online I've never heard of it, delete--nixie 00:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to a lack of notability. I got ~20 hits on google for this "phenomenon", almost entirely for small gross-out and sick-humour sites/forums; it has no place here. --Qirex 07:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Qirex — I couldn't find anything through Google establishing notability. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 09:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting information on how the stunt was performed; at the very least, the information can be verified and merged with an article on stunt techniques later. —Cleared as filed. 23:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete with no information worth merging. —Cleared as filed. 23:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Footbread[edit]

Very weird and apparently true but extremely non-notable with no reliable sources found on Google. howcheng {chat} 00:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Very, very odd. Geocities website definitely detracts from notability. Werdna648T/C\@ 00:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems to be real, but it appears to be some sort of foot-fetish thing. It’s pretty obscure with only 26 unique Google hits. Kind of funny, actually. You can buy this bread and get a video of a gorgeous model kneading the dough with her feet. I am tempted to vote keep just for the weirdness and humor of it. •DanMS 01:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 01:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, sadly. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge information into bread, using the feet to knead dough is a well-documented technique in some areas. I believe I have read that the ancient Egyptians did it that way. Crypticfirefly 05:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: this article is about "footbread Kenny" and his product, does not cite any sources that claim this is a well-documented technique, and only has a passing mention that Footbread Kenny "claims it is a traditional Siberian recipe and not perverted in any way". Now, which is the material you want to merge to bread, again? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies, I was thinking of his actual website where he explains that bread was kneaded in this way in Serbia. Perhaps Jcuk's suggestion of adding the info to the fetishes article would be better. Changing my vote to delete. But the kneading method probably should be added to the bread article. Crypticfirefly 20:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above (possibly noting it in fetishes article?) Jcuk 06:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and no merge, though this guy gets bonus points for originality. If there's anything significant to say about kneading bread with one's feet, it has very little to do with "Footbread Kenny".--Pharos 17:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As others have said, he is original. I've seen seen this guy about a year ago at a Victoria Farmers Market and he is a nut. His website is not about footbread, but showcases a guy with a serious mental illness. --Canadadry 04:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...from Hell[edit]

The title of the page is quite useless in terms of finding the content, and the content is a weird compilation of non-notable televeion specials, delete--nixie 00:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I wouldn't say they were non-notable, there are several programs in this series. Also, if categorised (like it is) then it won't be hard to find. -- 9cds(talk) 01:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable collection of tv series. Resist temptation to condemneth, so not ...from Wiki-Hell! BD2412 T 01:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per above. I'm an inclusionist, what can I say..... Spawn Man 01:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly exists. Itv seem to have it listed as just From Hell [1] Flowerparty■ 01:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, perhaps rename. Great stuff on this prominent series of TV events. -- JJay 02:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, shouldn't it be moved to a more informative name, like From Hell (television series)?--nixie 02:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable series. I think the name is fine. An name having inherent meaning has never been a criteria, especially in cultural articles. That's the job of the opening sentence. We generally only add things like (television series) if it is needed for disambiguation purposes. Turnstep 05:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but maybe rename or redirect with a more informative name; right now the title is just the suffix attached to all the different series, so it's confusing. Peyna 17:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you don't like the title, redirect it. --Ryan Delaney talk 21:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as author Sceptre (Talk) 21:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addressability[edit]

Transwikied to Wiktionary

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UNAMLAT[edit]

One of 3 articles (Felipe cz, Felipe CZ, UNAMLAT) promoting someone's Geocities homepage. Google search finds only pages derived from Wikipedia. Adunar 00:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 00:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all 3, Wikipedia isn't vehicle of promotion for obscure groups. Pavel Vozenilek 01:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three as not passing any notability criteria. Feel free to put similar groupings into a single AfD in the future as well. Turnstep 05:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom --Qirex 07:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --VT hawkeyetalk to me 23:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe cz[edit]

One of 3 articles (Felipe cz, Felipe CZ, UNAMLAT) promoting someone's Geocities homepage. Corresponding article was deleted from Spanish language Wikipedia [2]. Adunar 00:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity --Mecanismo | Talk 01:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all 3, Wikipedia isn't vehicle of promotion for obscure groups. Pavel Vozenilek 01:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom --Qirex 07:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per now (vanity) Essexmutant 16:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe CZ[edit]

One of 3 articles (Felipe cz, Felipe CZ, UNAMLAT) promoting someone's Geocities homepage. Corresponding article was deleted from Spanish language Wikipedia [3]. Adunar 00:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 00:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity --Mecanismo | Talk 01:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all 3, Wikipedia isn't vehicle of promotion for obscure groups. Pavel Vozenilek 01:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom --Qirex 07:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Life seems to affect him, but nothing shows his effect on society. Fagstein 07:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already redirected. —Cleared as filed. 23:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Fly of Despair[edit]

Spongebob fancruft. It's an object from a single episode. Is this really encyclopedic? The Magic 8-ball says, "Outlook not so good." howcheng {chat} 01:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the Spongebob episode has an article, merge/redirect to that. Capitalistroadster 01:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge, if necessary, as suggested above. PJM 01:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Capitalistroadster. Possible search term. Flowerparty■ 02:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge the important parts. -- JJay 02:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I love Spongebob, but this level of detail is over the top. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shanghaied and merge in the few bits of information not already on the page. Should really break up the Shanghaied page into a separate article as well. Turnstep 05:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've boldly created a new article from the information in the Shanghaied page, and merged in all the information from The Fly of Despair. All that is left is changing the original page to a redirect, but because it has an AfD notice on it, I'll let an admin make that call and close this AfD. Turnstep 05:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've gone ahead and redirected the page to the new episode article I created. Turnstep 18:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge, fan cruft - but no reason not to keep the redirect. Megapixie 05:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 23:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Alan Shields, Jr.[edit]

I'm bringing this over to the AFD rather than marking it for speedy as NN to get some feedback on this:

  • The same article under Robert Alan Shields, Jr. has already been marked twice for speedy delete today
  • Does the team think that being an executed murderer in itself qualifies for notability? The murder itself seems rather banal (If you'll excuse me)
  • The information on the page asserts notability through This article, but that has been created by the same author today. 'Uncensored' gets plenty of google hits, primarily from anti-death penalty organizations
  • The article author is herself an anti-death penalty activist (Just trying to establish points of reference, I'm not saying thats bad)
  • I cant see how an article like this can ever be NPOV, or ultimately what point it serves
  • MNewnham 01:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that executed murderers are notable. The articles can be NPOV through use of balanced sources. The identity of the editor is not important. -- JJay 02:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Should there be a limit, say, on who could have an entry? for example, only those executed in the USA since the reintroduction of the Death Penalty (1000 names)? Otherwise, there could be 2-3000 names per year added from across the world. MNewnham
  • No limits at all. We can handle two or three thousand articles per year. Then we can merge or listify them. The possibilities are endless. -- JJay 18:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. We delete articles for soldiers who died for their country. We certainly ought to delete this. There's nothing special about this man's case except to the family that mourns the loss caused by his brutal, greedy, and stupid crime. Durova 03:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The writer was interested in it. The death penalty is significant to many. More so than the detailed loggings of "The Apprentice" candidates! And that should be here too.

BTW - Why would anyone delete a soldiers memorial? As if sitting here writing articles on Wiki-pedia matter more than the life of a young soldier (In any country).

  • Strong Keep (under the title Robert Alan Shields, Jr.). Most murderers, and certainly all of the ones sentenced to death in the US, received extensive press coverage and become extremely well-known to the people living in the areas where the crimes were committed. ×Meegs 04:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suppose the family of the murdered victim creates a page. Would you delete that per WP:NOT while keeping the criminal? Durova 05:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it needs cleanup, or NPOV, there are numerous mechanisms on WP more appropriate than AFD . If the topic is verifiable (which this certainly is, with newspaper, television, and government records) and notable (which at least I think it is) it should not be deleted. ×Meegs 05:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You haven't answered my question. Durova 05:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, sorry, I didn't. I would not strongly oppose deleting a page about a victim provided an otherwise nn murder victim, provided they didn't become well-known because of their death. Murders, on the other hand, with their exposure in the media and many people's strong emotional reactions, enter the public consciousness, just usually not on a national or international level as with Albert Fish. Here was a AFD debate on a convicted killer and two victims from a few weeks ago. ×Meegs 05:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't follow your reasoning. If a murderer becomes encyclopedic because of hometown news and television coverage and government records, then why not the victim as well and for the same reasons? Why not a dead soldier who receives the same attention? Your standards are inconsistent. On December 15 we voted to keep this article because a particular convict received the death penalty under unusual circumstances. Note the comment that not even all death row inmates are notable, let alone all murderers everywhere. Durova 06:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notable murderers include Albert Fish and John Wayne Gacy, this is tragic but not encyclopedia worthy. KillerChihuahua?!? 05:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There should be exact same notability standards for convicted murderes as there are for regular people. Flyboy Will 05:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to meet notability and verifiability criteria. My beef is the new page with the "(murderer)" prefix: this is completely unnecessary, as we don't need to disambiguate from any other Robert Alan Shields, Jr. on Wikipedia. Turnstep 05:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Turnstep Jcuk 06:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The state sanctioned execution of prisoners in developed countries is so uncommon that the prisoners are notable enough for a wp article--Porturology 12:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment for the country in question this occurs on average nearly once a week. A general article on capital punishment or a referenced list is more appropriate for mundane instances. Durova 16:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge with Robert Alan Shields, Jr. --MisterHand 16:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No way are murderers automatically notable. I'm not basing that on any moral belief, it's just that there's too many of them with very little to differentiate them. --Last Malthusian 17:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Last Malthusian and others. At least take the (murderer) out of the article name. Good grief. --Fang Aili 18:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Executed murderers should not automatically be considered notable (Per Malthusian and others) ... this is not a memorial. In addition, POV statement in the article that attempts to establish notability by claiming that the subject had a role in significantly raising public awareness is disputable. Contributions to a Texas death row inmates' blog does not constitute "significantly" raising awareness. Likewise, almost identical article, Robert Alan Shields, Jr. should be deleted. Since an original nomination for speedy delete, the article has had the speedy tag removed and has been re-written to mirror this Robert Alan Shields, Jr.(murderer) article. ERcheck 19:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Turnstep. We only need one copy of this article on Wikipedia, so Robert Alan Shields, Jr.(murderer) should redirect to Robert Alan Shields, Jr. Hall Monitor 19:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Article has been moved to Robert Alan Shields, Jr. as per ×Meegs and others. Hall Monitor 18:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Executed convicts in the United States are notable simply because they were executed. There are only a little over 1,000 persons that fit this category in the last 30 years. These individuals are notable as part of the debate surrounding the death penalty in the United States. Nolamgm 19:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Membership in a club of 1000 does not make him notable. As a collective they are notable as part of the death penalty debate but not as individuals. 207.175.84.67 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It would be nice if executed prisoners were uncommon enough to merit articles. Sad to say, both the US and China seem to run assembly lines of sufficient production that executions are non-events. Denni ☯ 03:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per turnstep. Megapixie 05:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 23:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Traffic Management[edit]

Transwikied to Wiktionary Scrappy36 01:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's no difference between this article and a stub. The stub saves people the trouble of having to visit Wictionary and from the danger of not finding out about it at all. Primetime 07:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to Wikipedia:Stub, "A stub is an article that's obviously too short, but not so short as to be useless. In general, it must be long enough to at least define the article's title, which generally means 3 to 10 short sentences." This article does not satisfy that guideline. Who uses such a term? Who uses the acronym? Until there's some more information, delete. --Fang Aili 18:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The technology is patently real and worth an article. This isn't it. Yet. Jcuk 21:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Redirect to Wikitionary article ComputerJoe 21:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Internet forum. A hypothetical user interested in hearing about the phenomenon of off-topic forae would be better off being redirected to the main article than being faced with a blank edit box, so by the principle of least surprise it makes no sense to just delete without redirecting. So there, nyah. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, AfD is not the place to propose merging. Gah! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic forum[edit]

Non-notable. Merge with Internet forum? Bezthomas 01:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge the notable first sentence with internet forum. The rest is piled-on junk. Hedley 03:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. If it's worth reading about in internet forum, then it's worth reading about seperately as well. Primetime 07:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I agree that the substance is worth keeping (ie the first sentence), however I don't agree that means it should have it's own article. I can't see this becomming any longer than a stub, and it is better to keep all the information together at existing page rather than have stubs forking off for no reason much, in my opinion. --Qirex 07:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Qirex ComputerJoe 14:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect without merging to Internet forum, the one factoid people think is useful has been on that page for ages. The rest is just a magnet for random people to type about their discussion forum aliases. - Bobet 16:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge definition with Internet forum. Examples are not notable and not necessary. -- MisterHand 16:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef, information already exists at target of proposed merge. Redirect if admin determines the "merge" requires it. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, subject already covered at internet forum. -- Megamix? 18:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to internet forum. If really needed, this whole article could be thrown into one or two lines under the culture heading. Don't need descriptions of each and every 'interesting poster' on every major off-topic forum.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rijk Visser[edit]

vanity page. I find no reference for Rijk or his grandfather or a visser fortune. Google only brings up this page and others that reference itObina 01:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination & having rich ancestors on its own is non-notable. ERcheck 02:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. --Edcolins 08:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Vanity. nn ComputerJoe 14:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nn-bio --MisterHand 16:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a non-notable (and non-verified) bio. Turnstep 19:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. PJM 01:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete CSD A3 karmafist 04:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rock bands index[edit]

This is the worst page I have seen on Wikipedia, and should be deleted. It is not worth salvaging, since this index could be, and already is, covered far better by the category system. The whole purpose of a navigating page is to make it easier for the user to navigate wikipedia, and no amount of wikifying and cleaning up would stop this being anything other than an unwieldy longpage, which, as I said before, is unnecessary anyway, due to categories. Jdcooper 01:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh and furthermore, if this is deleted so should all the pages like Rock bands index a etc, but i dont know how to nominate more than one page in the same log, if anyone else could help that would be grand. Jdcooper 01:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm dropping a note to the author letting them know that there IS a category system. Werdna648T/C\@ 01:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #7 - Directories. Delete for all the rest of the tied articles (a-z). ERcheck 02:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 02:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete all the tied articles (Rock bands index a, etc.) as well, per nomination. --Metropolitan90 03:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per nom, and ditch all the sub-index articles as well. Stupid stuff. Reyk 04:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Well, it wasn't really, but that argument made the most sense, and the nominator didn't seem particularly clear on what s/he wanted to do. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eddress[edit]

Delete or Merge. Dicdef, nn neologism. Werdna648T/C\@ 01:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Wiktionary. 38,000 Google hits. In pretty wide use meaning "e-mail address".ERcheck 02:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please expend the 10 seconds to check Wiktionary first before nominating things for transwikification. Uncle G 03:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit harsh. Sorry about the incorrect terminology. What I meant was that the term is best suited to the Wiktionary. ERcheck 04:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into E-mail address. If it's valuable enough to read about inside "e-mail" then it's good enough to read as a stub. Primetime 07:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added the words also known as an eddress (from electronic address) to the first sentence of the E-mail address article. If there's consensus, I can redirect from "Eddress" to "E-mail address," as well. Primetime 17:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Dictionary definition = non-encyclopedic. - squibix 14:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've never heard of this phrase... ComputerJoe 14:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It can be found on these dictionary websites: [4], [5]. Primetime 16:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla: Final Wars (upcoming)[edit]

All information pertinent to the film already exists at Godzilla: Final Wars; this page consists only of a press release.

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

The result of the debate was deleted as a copyvio. BD2412 T 01:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Riding on Proton by Afonchenko[edit]

Transwiki to Wikibooks? Essay written in the first person, about a personal experience. Fascinating, but nonetheless... BD2412 T 02:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: If this is just a translation of the Russian page [6], isn't it a copyvio? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is - I had foolishly assumed that, being in the first person, it was translated and posted by the author! BD2412 T 13:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry. I made the translation. I thought that translating this article from a language which most readers of the English Wikipedia would not know, would be acceptable. Sorry. I thought that it was clear that I was not its author, since my name is not Afonchenko. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard 00:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only the author of an original work can release it for publication somewhere (even a translation). It is no difficulty to delete, however. BD2412 T 01:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 14:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Langsjoen[edit]

I started by cleaning this article up a bit, but then went to add a reference and discovered there was none! I am pretty sure this is unverifiable ([7], [8]), as a winner (even if disqualified) of a somewhat major international competition would certainly be mentioned somewhere, but this guy isn't. I've looked at several sources related to the event, including our own World's Strongest Man article, and there's no mention of him. As always, I would be happy if anyone could find a source during the AfD period. W.marsh 02:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. ~~ N (t/c) 17:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MisterMaggoT[edit]

Delete. Vanity page. Elf | Talk 02:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable +/- vanity. Ifnord 02:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete either as non-notable biography or attempt to contact as it lists his contact details at the bottom. Capitalistroadster 02:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-verifiable, non-notable person. Turnstep 13:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete vanity page. Essexmutant 16:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nn-bio. -- MisterHand 16:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Hedley.

Boxelder (band)[edit]

Non-notable band, no claims to notability. Spam two external links, one to home page and other to myspace.com. Ifnord 02:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. I put this page up to get it off of Boxelder, which I rewrote for disambiguation. If the result is Delete, I'll remove the dab stuff. The real "author" of the material about the band is User:RoadDoggFL. Tom Harrison (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, despite the purdy picture. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raptor Jesus[edit]

Moved from speedy deletion - seems non-notable but does turn up some Google hits. SCEhardT 02:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Teh delete. NN. BD2412 T 02:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --King of Hearts 03:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google hits have me believing this is a viable internet meme. And in the end days, we'll all be caught up in the raptor rapture.... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a "viable internet meme" with all of 161 unique hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Memecruft. Yes, I keep inventing new crufts. This is not a popular meme on the scale of O RLY or even Brian Peppers. FCYTravis 05:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Zoe and FCYTravis; not a notable meme. --Muchness 12:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable internet memes. --badlydrawnjeff 14:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asume by that statement that you mean that you don't care if this one is deleted, since it isn't a notable internet meme? Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
      • Nope. I meant keep, as I believe this is a notable internet meme. There's no need to twist what I'm saying, thanks. --badlydrawnjeff 16:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How does 161 hits makes something notable? Zoe (216.234.130.130 17:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
          • I get 987 for '"raptor jesus" -wiki.' It's more than notable enough for me. --badlydrawnjeff 18:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I get 968 using your search, but of those, only 150 are unique, which means the multiple occurrences are happening on the same site(s). Zoe (216.234.130.130 19:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
              • And that doesn't change my belief that this is a notable meme. --badlydrawnjeff 19:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • If your standards of "notability" are that low, what WOULD you delete as a non-notable Internet meme? By comparison, "O RLY" -wiki has 194,000 Googles, and "Brian Peppers' - wiki has 70,100 Googles. 987 is... Pathetic. That's not a meme. That's something someone made up in school one day. FCYTravis 22:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That picture is awesome. -- MisterHand 17:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your voting keep just because the picture is awesome? --Jaranda wat's sup 00:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 18:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote, but there is a much more detailed Raptor Jesus article available at Encyclopedia Dramatica. Hall Monitor 20:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Internet memes are their raison d'etre. Just because there is an article there is no indication that we should have one here. Zoe (216.234.130.130 22:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete- yes, the picture is awesome but non-notable internet memes do not belong on Wikipedia. Reyk 00:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is a notable meme. Yuckfoo 00:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete There seems to be alot of nn internet cruft lately. karmafist 23:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable Cruft --Jaranda wat's sup 00:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable internet meme
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.174.31 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 24 December 2005
  • Teh Keep its quite roxorz
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.89.249 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 25 December 2005
  • Delete. Having 150 unique hits doesn't raise this to the level of in-joke, let alone meme. --Calton | Talk 00:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep and Move to African Studies. Jaranda wat's sup 18:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Africanist[edit]

Transwikied to Wiktionary Scrappy36 02:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's no difference between this article and a stub. The stub saves people the trouble of having to visit Wictionary and from the danger of not finding out about it at all. Primetime 07:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand it to cover the history of the concept, notable Africanists, controversies and the like - just like the hundreds of other articles about occupations, which are already more than dictionary definitions. Calsicol 09:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Africanist is not merely a dictionary defination. --Ezeu 13:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC) See below. --Ezeu 23:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to African studies, which, because of our systemic bias, does not yet exist. u p p l a n d 14:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per Uppland. It annoys me that 'African studies' does not exist. --Ezeu 23:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 16:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What to do with the related article Africanism? At present it is a dicdef which is already included in Wiktionary. Punkmorten 19:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A difficult one. I say redirect to 'Africanist' if it survives (or to whatever it is renamed to), and explain the difference there.--Ezeu 23:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was transwikify Renata3 07:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dogwash[edit]

Slang dictionary entry be transwikied to Wiktionary. Link to relevant policy. wᴀc 02:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete Renata3 06:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mididrift[edit]

NN , note the cover upload summary the author made it himself on photoshop (!?) Melaen 02:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:Music. Durova 03:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable and I'm an inclusionist... Jcuk 06:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because, first and foremost, they do not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Add to this 1) No assetion of notability 2) "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (WP:NOT) 3) Doesn't seem verifiable except through original research: a google search using their "highlights" to eliminate false positives turns up one angelfire page and nothing else. Inclusionist or deletionist, votes need to be based on the article, not ones own general leanings. --Qirex 08:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:NMG. PJM 01:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic similarity[edit]

No meaningful content, and what's there wouldn't even make a good dicdef Hirudo 03:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 03:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just bad. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment sounds like an article that could be quite interesting, if it's referring to genetic similarity of a group of modern people (for example all people named Arlt in Traverse City MI) and a supposed single ancestor. Jcuk 06:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even a dicdef. There is essentially no content here. An article on this topic could be an excellent addition to Wikipedia, but this is not a usable substub to start such an article. ManoaChild 21:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian foreign contacts[edit]

No Vote Created by RoyLee, doubt veracity/NPOV/purpose of page. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Roylee Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is also Rods of ancient Egypt.
  • Keep but rename to "Foreign contacts of Ancient Egypt" or something better. If there's a nonsense on the page it should be edited out. Pavel Vozenilek 04:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems fairly well researched and not doing any harm by being here Jcuk 06:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing obviously POV here. Agree with renaming. Rhion 08:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no clear reason for listing here. --11:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no reason to delete this article, but the RfC mentioned by Hipocrite makes it clear that there is every reason to double-check contributions by Roylee. He is notorious for silently editing self-supporting webs of fringe theories into Wikipedia. Ancient Egypt experts should look at this article. — mark ✎ 11:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reahmicks[edit]

No results on Google or Yahoo. Assuming a start-up group. └ Smith120bh/TALK┐ 03:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as NN group under new CSD A7 Jamie (talk/contribs) 11:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 18:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nn-group. PJM 01:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We are non profit, we aren't a startup but an art project - reahmicks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.182.76 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete definately nn-group. Tom Foolery 00:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. It's already on Wiktionary, and in a better form. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decalibrate[edit]

Delete. Obvious dic-def. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 03:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism. Ifnord 03:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary then delete. Jcuk 06:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dictdef Jamie (talk/contribs) 11:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More boxen[edit]

Delete. This page seems to address a catchphrase-like usage which I've never run across in the past. Careful Google checking shows this use only being popular on the dslreports.com website. A page on the use of "box" as slang for a computer, including the pluralization "boxen", could provide something more than a dictionary definition, and document its historical use in computing in general. Having a page for such a recent, underused, and non-descriptive term seems pointless, I don't think this article belongs on Wikipedia, and there's no good reason to start a new page from the existing "more boxen" article. Flata 03:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. (For what it's worth, my impression is that "boxen" (by itself) is obsolete hacker terminology. In the days when the VAX was the measure of all things, there was a cultural device between VMS programmers, who pluralized "VAX" as "VAXes," and UNIX programmers, who pluralized it as "VAXen," hence by extension as non-VAX boxes began to proliferate they were called "boxen...") Boxen, currently a dab, could potentially be a borderline but legitimate article topic. The phrase "More boxen" is not. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My parents were killed by oxen when I was very young(although the doctors insist they had dysentery); this article just exacerbates the problem. Also, the plural of box is boxes. Whoever wrote this article isn't very good at English grammar. --The Amazing Superking 00:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with dpbsmith. A mention in the "Boxen" page as this being a phrase used irregurly is sufficient. There is not enough (nor I doubt will there ever be enough) content to warrant an entire article on "More boxen" specifically. As a second argument, should we also create pages for "Less boxen" and "Adequate boxen"? Taking an alternative route, I've got a friend who's always making up new phrases because he thinks it's funny. Let's create Wikipedia articles on them ALL! /failedattemptathumour 203.173.24.43 03:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jasnies[edit]

5 irrelevant Google results. Vanity. Delete if not Speedy. └ Smith120bh/TALK┐ 03:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It has yet to recieve media attention but it is a real movement. That and it in no way eclipses other sites. (added signature 03:49, 22 December 2005 12.211.75.94)
  • Speedy -- Vary 03:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Vanity. Non-notable. ERcheck 04:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not speedy. Significance is claimed but not proven. This is completely unproveable. Capitalistroadster 04:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speeedy delete as vanity and non-notable. If the movement ever gets significant media attention, a new article can be written about it at that time. --Metropolitan90 06:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. Could speedy under new CSD A7, but article makes complete bollocks claim of notability. Jamie (talk/contribs) 11:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, despite massive anon astroturfing. mikka (t) 18:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gang stalking, and now Gang Stalk Persecution Complex, Gang Stalk Persecution Stress, Brighting etc.[edit]

Note: If the consensus here is DELETE, Gang stalking, Gang Stalk Persecution Complex, Gang Stalk Persecution Stress, and Brighting will all be deleted.

The current content of this page is idiosyncratic, to say the least. Linked sites refer to "Electro Harassment Crimes", "directed energy weapons", and so forth. I suggest this page be deleted.

I think the following quotes are indicative of the author's POV:

Current participants brag of being above the law, and much evidence exists of complicity on the part of local fire and police departments which act as actors and anchor men of sorts when the latter are used to complete the job. The final phase is complete when the target makes the mistake of verbalising to the authorities some of the events that have transpired and are dismissed as being paranoid.
...
The above free web assessment tool helps the stalking victim assess the degree of mobstalking. Also more importantly it helps to recognize a case of MultiStalking and what actions to lookout for. There is a button gangstalkpersecutioncomplex This gives a list of feelings obtained from these actions to be used for medical consultation. Another button shows HowTheGangStalkVictim feels. This gives a great analogy on how the victim feels and is perceived by others. This is important to show family and friends to see what the victim is going thru.

Apparently, the author is upset about the replacement of [9] by a redirect. -- Karada 04:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone seeking to redirect to Street Theater has not read the article, which should be obvious even to non-readers that gang stalking is so much broader and more mainstream a concept than street theater. The effort at a redirect is designed to gut the concept of gang stalking of its more substantive meaning.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs)

Votes to delete[edit]

  • Delete as original research although there are sources available on the Internet - it is popular on Indymedia by the look see [10]. Capitalistroadster 04:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment only: there are remarkable similiarities in the prose style and page layout of many of the web pages found by that search, and the article itself. -- Karada 04:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that references to this article have been liberally spammed into multiple other articles: [11] (Update: much of this was by linking it in Template:Abuse -- I've now removed this link, but it will take some time for all those pages to refresh) -- Karada 04:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, lengthy similar screeds have been pasted into several other articles, for example cyberstalking, see [12], bully see [13], and so on. -- Karada 05:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There now seems to be a concerted effort in progress to add similar articles: see the recently-created Gang Stalk Persecution Complex, Brighting. Note the use of key phrases such as "Electro Harassment Crime." -- Karada 05:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. Pavel Vozenilek 05:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unacceptable original research. FCYTravis 05:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a hoax, someone taking a few actual terms from stalking and cyberstalking and mixing them with tinfoil-hattery and what I want, for whatever reason, to label as "quease". The Literate Engineer 05:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Capitalistroadster. -- Perfecto 02:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I observe that nearly all of the keep comments are the first edits of new anon IP editors, who just happen to have turned up at the same time, with remarkably similar POVs. Many of the "keep" comments below also appear to share a similar writing style and set of idiosyncratic jargon to the posted article. Also see Electronic Harassment (anti-personnel sense), an article with very similar content (electronic mind weapons, etc). created by one of the commenters below. -- The Anome 23:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of these; If this collection of beliefs becomes common enough then it can be added to one of the lists of conspiracy theories. At this point it looks like a one-man show. Tom Harrison (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - original research, supported by astroturfing. Tearlach 03:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the articles in their present form of conspiracy theory. mikka (t) 18:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gang stalking, Gang Stalk Persecution Complex and Brighting. POV original research. Any new articles would need separate nominations, unless they are candidates for speedy deletion as recreations of AfD deletions, as seems likely. Andrewa 21:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - without anesthesia. Renata3 21:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I notice that one of these articles has now been moved, by a relatively new user who has contributed only on this subject. I doubt this will change the outcome, or even delay it. No change of vote. Andrewa 05:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See also Psychotronics and this web page for what we are dealing with here. Andrewa 05:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 18:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A personal campaign by an editor, apparently the webmaster of http://www.fireflysun.com/, who is using several usernames (including Tai Streets (talk · contribs)) to insert similar material to many pages (including Stalking and Privacy). See also: "News Group-based Cult, Defamation League Hijacks Pop Trash "Encyclopedia" Wikipedia (en.Wikipedia.org) to Malign Victims". -Willmcw 20:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Drivel. Palnu 23:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research attempting to exploit Wikipedia as a soapbox, or can you even classify paranoid delusions of conspiracy as 'research'? I don't think it's coincidence that alt.usenet.kooks shows up prominently as one of the purported practictioners of so-called "gang stalking", and that's really all this article seems to be, a lengthy account of someone's delusions of persecution not-very-successfully converted into supposedly non-personal prose. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Antaeus Feldspar.--nixie 04:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes to merge[edit]

  • Very, very, week keep/merge... or something. Keep if the language can be cleaned up to be more encyclopedic, as this article family seems to be describing a group acting to coerce or threaten an individual, rather than an individual being threatened by another individual. Merge if possible into articles such as Cyber_bullying, Psychological_warfare, Stalking, Cyberstalking, Harassment_by_computer, Group_psychological_abuse, Gaslight, (etc... we do seem to have *quite* a few of these kinds of articles). Merge to a single article or title if somebody can suggest a good one. Ronabop 03:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/HUGE Rework/Delete Merge all of them into one topic. Also, most of the delete votes are unsigned and history reveals them to be by IPs in which this is their only contribution.

Votes to keep[edit]

  • Keep Gang Stalking is real and it destroys target individual's (TI's) life completely. Hundreds and thousand of people are being used to stalk a TI. TI can not escape from this perfect crime even if he/she moves to any part of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.95.151 (talk • contribs)
Keep. It's true. Read Psychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A. by Alex Constantine and other books on the subject if you don't believe it is. Wake up America! (Note: the italicised text above was interpolated by another editor, and is not part of Karada's nomination)
  • Keep as type of cyberstalking. For an example of gang stalking, see LJ Drama/Something Awful, Cruel.com and many others. This is probably more common than individual cyber stalking and it is a misconception that cyber stalking should be treated in the same way as regular stalking, as cyber stalking is usually actually gang stalking, as this article indicates. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: At the time of writing, this appears to be one of only two keep votes by logged-on contributors. The other is a very weak keep. Andrewa 23:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Gang stalking is a genuine tactic of harassment participated in by

many individuals targeting one sole person. All across the world, the tactics used are similar. This crime is coming to the attention of the public through the internet and publications. This is the time to insure that this covert crime is retained in the Wikipedia for reference. Delete all reference to persectution complex. This IS NOT a medically recognized diagnosis or sympomatology. R. Ross. RN

  • Keep - this is an excellent description and resource of a widespread phenomenon which is being conducted not only in the US - particularly Texas, California, Massachussets - but also in the NATO countries. This is being used as a method of political control which has been used for centuries by the Catholic Church, the Nazis, Ku Klux Klan and now widely associated with the "War on Terror" which seems to also be targeting citizens of countries who are opposed to political changes leading to Police State policies. Gang stalking/electronic harrassment is primarily being organized and run by retired police, firefighters, military, coast guard, and paramilitary types and is funded partly by HUD as well as black budget money probably coming from drug sales. There have been many important articles in journals, books, and websites on this activity and the best way to fight it is to expose it. Gang stalking is also widespread at University campuses - particularly the University of California where I have observed it, nuclear weapons labs (managed by the Univ. of California), and has been used against soldiers who want to leave the military or are opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Interviews available on the internet with Kay Griggs describe how her husband, a US Marine Colonel developed this and other practices to use against American citizens, and she has the manual for it. This should be taken seriously and the article definitely belongs on Wikipedia as it provides an important resource to the public.

Leuren Moret - International expert on depleted uranium weaponry and radiation

  • Keep. Gang stalking is a recognized Internet phenomenon. It is a related but distinguishable form of cyberstalking in that it cannot be explained purely on the basis of Individual Psychology. Gang stalking requires causes and conditions that transcend the individual, and social psychologists invoke such principles as groupthink, social facilitation, and deindividuation to analyze the structure and dynamics of stalking gangs.
  • Keep GANG STALKING, but DELETE GANG STALK PERSECUTION COMPLEX.

"Gang stalk persecution complex" implies people who experience gang stalking are mentally ill. That is DEFINITELY not the case, as anyone who has read the literature or experienced gang stalking knows only too well.

Anyone doubting gang stalking itself is a real phenomenon needs only to read David Lawson's book "Terrorist Stalking in America". A review, with a link to purchase the book is here:

http://www.multistalkervictims.org/terstalk.htm

Also read what Los Angeles psychotherapist Sheryll Thompson wrote while reviewing a book on stalking:

http://www.multistalkervictims.org/psystalk.htm

Also, the Toronto (Ontario) Rape Crisis Centre supports the work of the anti gang stalking organization CATCH (Citizens Against Technological and Community-based Harassment), the web site for which is here:

http://www.c-a-t-c-h.ca

For those who don't think electronic anti personnel weapons exist, see this link:

http://www.shoestringradio.net/5techs.htm

Five silent, through wall, no trace evidence electronic weapons which anyone with a bit of cash can have, not secret, do NOT require implants, and can utterly devastate your neighbour. One has been around for 30+ years, another 50 years.

Eleanor White, professional engineer, Hamilton, Ontario Canada

Gang Stalking is a Real vicious crime and exists all over the world. Brighting is a world wide tactic of Gang Stalking and a must Keep!! Gang Stalk Persecution Complex is the many real horrific human feelings caused by Gang Stalking and Brighting!! Must Keep!! So Please Keep Gang Stalking, Brighting, Gang Stalk Persecution Complex definitions and see the following URLs for reference!

http://ca.geocities.com/[email protected]/index.htm

http://www.stopcovertwar.com/victimnet.html

http://www.multistalkervictims.org/

http://free.dominoserver.de/culture/antivigilantestalkingsurveydiscussion.nsf

Don Russell, Adv Software Eng


  • * * * *

-- Bob Ness, journalist.

this is a real problem,just because i havent seen god i dont tell people they are crazy and need to be locked up,its the same thing i know its real because its being used against me.no i cant prove it but dont be so quick to dismiss things they may be true and mabye peoples lives are being ruined because of it.

Please keep Gang Stalk Persecution Complex From Dictionary.com There is no imaginary and no mental illness word or implied mental condition in the definition of Gang Stalk Persecution Complex

The Gang Stalk persecution changes the behavior of a person (a complex) and creates a set of feelings the victim has.

Complex - In psychology, a group of related, often repressed ideas and impulses that compel characteristic or habitual patterns of thought, feelings, and behavior.

Persecution - punishment or harassment usually of a severe nature on the basis of race, religion, or political opinion in one's country of origin

Please Keep the entry on Gang Stalking - Gang-Stalking is a real phenomenon. I should know. I am being stalked. The stalkers rely on the public perception that people who report (gang) stalking are "nutcases." The police routinely ignore this crime. People find it hard to believe that something like this could happen. That is an unjustifiable conclusion-belief. People need a more available public resource to learn about this crime. I don't care what you do about the [Gang Stalk Persecution Complex] entry, because this entry incorrectly feeds the idea that victims are mentally ill. The stalkers get a psychological "thrill" out of hurting people. Only increasing public awareness is going to stop or slow this phenomenon.

KEEP, i am a victim of gang stalking and electronic harrassment. by the grace of god ive survived this abuse for two yrs. i am stalked daily by large groups of people so when i hear of things like the deletion of this page i start to lose alittle hope that someday these life destroying crimes will ever be brought to justice. i can only speak for myself but i cant understand why anyone would want to dismiss something that so many of us Americans are claiming to be true. we are good people with familys that deserve the benifit of the doubt. please keep this page in tact. Robert R.

ɖkeep maybe change the name to group stalking(24.25.62.85 03:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]


Keep change name and explain more about this, as NEWBIES comming in do not fully understand what you are saying or what is really going on with this. Me i do understand. Even though the author is giving a medical term. for his or other's sake.. he/she is basically saying there isn't a madical term. for this as THE PUBLIC EYE has refused to see what is going on. And call the "victims" of this Looney or whatever the medical profession decides to term it. I do know know this happens. I am also a victim. although I am in a small town that just moved here just over a yr ago. THIS IS REAL PEOPLE> REALIZE IT! Get the word out! Help the ones who are victimized. www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cause_stalking

Keep this entry. This IS really happening in the United States today. With a government that thinks it's okay to listen to your telephone conversations and read your private e-mail as authorized by the president, why would you doubt that stalking of private citizens by more than one individual could be happening? It is very easy to simpy write the victim off as being "mentally ill" when in fact that is not the case at all. People need to wake up to what is happening in America NOW.

  • Keep or rework and /or move Gang Stalking.
    Why is it so hard to accept that stalking does not need to be done by one person? Some people do join to make a targets life miserable. In that mission these groups use whatever methods they can come up with. The goal -destroying the targets life - is what counts.
    Maybe change the name to group stalking and delete or rework the electronic stuff. Maybe rework the whole stalking subject: how many stalkers, their methods, if there is a group: how they form and how tight the group forms, their why´s for stalking and then the implications for the society.
    Add the electronics to "stalking methods".
  • Delete Gang Stalk Persecution Complex, Brighting
    These two subjects only adds weight on the targets shoulders
    • Christina / [email protected] Please keep. Gang stalking is a real phenomenom.164.65.231.6 15:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This article not only has intellectual weight, empirical merit, and historical significance, but it is also of immeasurable civic value -- a socially conscientious piece that can prevent naive folk from expressing themselves in the wrong news groups and, for those who have already done so, it could help dissolve their sense of isolation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.170.81.63 (talk • contribs)

    KEEP THE ARTICLE ON "GANG STALKING" AND DELETE THE ARTICLE ON "GANG STALK PERSECUTION COMPLEX," WHICH IS SEPARATELY ADDRESSED. My comments are as follows:

    The practice of gang stalking, or group stalking, is widespread both in the United States and abroad. The intent is to terrorize and intimidate selected persons purportedly for "kicks." In certain venues, gang stalking is referred to as "bullying."

    This type of discriminatory stalking (which appears to have a religious element) is invariably accompanied by violence. This is nothing new. One needs only recall the heydays of the Know Nothing Party in the 1840s, the events following Kristallnacht in 1938, and the lynchings which punctuated the segregationist policies of the Deep South during the early half of the 20th Century.

    Persons who are gang stalked these days must also deal with violence, including but not limited to recurrent breakings and enterings, recurrent vandalism of their property, thefts, and extremely brutal harassment by electromagnetic and acoustical weapons systems.

    This topic must be addressed, as it is a part of our "encyclopaedic" history and cannot be disregarded. The practice, so long as it continues unconstrained, shows holocaustic potential, which no doubt will be of interest to future generations of Wikipedia readers. 

    /s/ Julianne McKinney, author "Microwave Harassment and Mind Control Experimentation," as also posted on Wikipedia.
    If you were to create a userid, we could then see your contributions, and assuming you are making some your vote would then carry a lot more weight. Andrewa 23:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    KEEP: Gang stalking is a legitimate form of social crime and has been documented and reported on over the past 50 years using other terminologies. Current nominclature is "gang stalking." It is a serious psycho-social crime similar to mob violence but executed in more skillful and controlled manner. There are victims of this type of crime all around the world who seek public awareness of this crime. The Wikipedia has been timely in it's inclusion of this problem. Unfortunately, the water became "muddied" with the addition of "persecution complex" and brighting. Your responders who appeal to you to "keep" this page all agree that the "persecution complex" and the "brighting" needs to be delete....all except for the one misguided (perhaps) person who conceived of it and entered it. Please give the victims and those who work with them the benefit of the doubt long enough for further information to be forthcoming and posted. I am aware of TV reports and books pending and already available validating this problem. It's relevence in society seems to warrant giving this at least the benefit of the doubt. Thank you. /s/ Beth, San Diego, StopHiTechVigilanteAssaults.org

    KEEP

    Please sign your votes and note that, while anon votes do count, they don't count for very much. Andrewa 22:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep GANG STALKING (but remove “GANG STALK PERSECUTION COMPLEX".)

    As many very high on the food chain knows, but cannot or will not admit, Gang Stalking is quite real. As hard as it is to believe, even the tactic of the perpetrators using their children against those of the target has been confirmed by a child psychologist dealing with the resulting depression. Apparently, many of these kids start liking the people they are being used against and enter their psychological practice in order to assist with the resulting guilt.

    Why do some appear to have a hard time believing that what is widely known to exist in the school yard and work place has in fact transcended both?

    Mobbing is an important aspect of this crime, and the resulting pathologies are also well documented, but predominantly by occupational therapists. This was also proven by Dr. Leymann by using the same treatment modalities as those used for traditional Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

    As this has provided ample criteria for a differential diagnosis and treatment there is no need to create a new "wheel" as in the case of the persecution complex. Respectfully submitted. Rick Williams


    KEEPGANG STALKING (but not "GANG STALKING PERSECUTION COMPLEX").

    There have been so many cases of gang-stalking in the last 10 years or so that there should be no question about whether the term describes a real criminal activity. Anyone on the street and in the know has probably heard about it is already so why would you not include it? The crime works because it is usually an ongoing stalking of many against one individual and so hard to verify easily. But many have managed to get investigators to verify the facts of this crime. Also there have been videos capturing the crime in action. Any crime of many against one will be easy to dismiss and so dismissing this entry will help the crime to continue more easily. Please leave the entry so that victims of the crime can point to this entry as some type of evidence that they are not the only one making the claim.

    As far as the added "persecution complex", it seems to me that if you are unsure about the crime itself it is way too early to turn it into what the perpetrators have attempted it to be from the start--a tool to discredit individuals' reputations. We have "paranoia" and "persecution complexes" since Freud on. A crime that is perpetrated on an individual by a group is already heinous enough without helping them inadvertantly by creating a new name for a new "mental illness". If someone is in fact a victim of a "hate crime" would we also come up with a term like "hate crime persecution complex". I don't think so. It would be adding insult to injury. So I hope you decide to keep only "GANG STALKING" and wait for the mental health field to add the skeptical term add-on of "persecution complex" if they decide to. As far as I know the mental health profession has no intentions of creating this term at all. So it appears to be one persons' idea based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the words "persecution complex". Thanks. T. Josephine

    Keep But Clean Gang Stalking

    I agree that this article is extremely idiosyncratic and a lot of the edits are rambling, perhaps even from a troubled mind. That being said, many of the tactics mentioned and cited are a serious issue, and someone who wanted to do these things (for political, personal or psychological reasons) could certainly make life hell for an individual. I think such behavior would almost certainly come from a disturbed individual and/or a Lord of the Flies scenario, but the tendency of people to be cruel is well known, whether from movies like Carrie or real-world persecution. I do not envy whatever person wants to try to clean this up and keep it up, but I think there is enough good material in here to keep. Rorybowman 04:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Usenet-philes, Stalkers, and a Class of Wiki Admin[edit]

    The expansion of the article with the section of new tools provides an objective and verifiable statement of evidence for gang stalking and should not be removed. The individual aggressively removing this content is comporting himself like a stalker. Many Usenet-philes occupy roles as Wiki admins and abuse that authority for the purposes of preserving an unimpeachable image of Usenet. They even use words like kookish and screed, words used by alt.usenet.kooks kookunters to stalk all sources of unconventional wisdom on the Web, to describe perfectly objective and verifiable content that does not mesh with their personal preferences and loyalties.
    Meanwhile, absurd or hatemongering articles like Alt.usenet.kooks, Catholic Church of Wikipedia, and snuh receive support from Wiki admins. And not just support for the existence of the article -- just try to append a subsection that qualifies or deviates from the Primrose picture of the content. You will be edited with extreme prejudice and threatening with banning.
    Wiki is another resource for gang stalkers, and principles of group psychology can be applied to make sense of some rather bizarre behavior from Wiki administrators (especially those who are anonymous).

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs)

    KEEP, The information people state is correct, only the devices used against those who have been victims have had the concept of deniability built into the weapons. This was at the governments request. The government made the mistake of giving the information to industry, who have used these military style weapons against those considered undesirables in our society. In my home town the former mayor used these devices against anyone he wished, why? To shut them up, to dissent his wishes was to be a whistleblower and a troublemaker. He ran the city like his fiefdom, this has got to come out. The actions of our gov't against its own citizens. That is why I laugh when Bush touts his freedom and liberty comments in his speeches.Gov't at all levels know this is happening and do not want the general public to know what is going on, niether do the local thugs carrying out their commands. Little do they know that they also and their children will suffer under this, for when we are gone, the stalkers will look for other prey,, it could be you. That is equality what can happen to me can happen to you. No one is exempt. Look at Bush he's scared poopless, military missiles on our buildings, radiation detector's in Va. maryland and D.C., NSA active and domestic spying, Osama really got Bush on the run, I know one thing, I was and am terrorized by these thugs, and I wonder how Bush feels and congress feels being terrorized as well, I am not alone anymore. That is equality, so you see what can happen to me, definitly can happen to anyone as well. I say keep this on stalkiing,harrassment,, because it gives us a voice and when this does come out and it will, then we can use this to document how many were killed, abused, robbed, and their lives destroyed by these high tech weapons used domestically,, maybe then we will have justice.This in itself will be part of the record.. We must, You must keep this at any cost. B.J. Guillette


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 EdwinHJ (copyvio). howcheng {chat} 17:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Ship of Fools (play)[edit]

    Might be a copy violation. Might be a canidate for wikisource if notable. Might be vanity, poasted by the author. Banana04131 04:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is a copyright violation (see posted notice). Copied from http://www.chicagoabc.org/ship_of_fools.htm. -ACG 04:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given who the author is, I would be very surprised if it was posted by the author. This is not Wikisource material. Uncle G 04:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Copyvio Jcuk 06:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as copyvio, it's young enough for CSD A8 Jamie (talk/contribs) 11:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of MTVers[edit]

    Huh? As far as I can tell, this is some sort of list of people are part of the 'MTV Generation'. Bottom line, it seems to be original reasearch (at the very least) on the part of whoever decided these people should be on the same list. Delete --InShaneee 04:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, unless author or someone else wants to define 'MTVer.' - CorbinSimpson 04:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe if there was a source to cite, and this was an article about famous people who are closely tied to MTV... or something like that... but right now it's just a just a list of celebrities born from 1977 to 1984, and it's already covered in the articles devoted to those years, for anyone who's interested. --W.marsh 05:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.120.106 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. howcheng {chat} 22:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and Merge with MTV Generation article, I think the author perhaps created this list without realising it would be of much more use to integrate it within the MTV Gen article itself. I don't think the author intended to define these celebrities as MTVers but as people who grew up from the MTV Generation. Piecraft 01:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. PJM 02:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment please explain to me the necessity or encyclopedic value of List of Generation Xers? If this list is deleted I vote to delete the List of Generation Xers as well seeing as it is not truly a necessary list, as everything described by the nominator of this AfD is perhaps even more so relevant in regards to that list i.e. Bottom line, it seems to be original reasearch (at the very least) on the part of whoever decided these people should be on the same list, and it's already covered in the articles devoted to those years, for anyone who's interested. Piecraft 16:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The difference between the GenX article and this one is that the GenX article makes a decent attempt to define the criteria needed for inclusion into the article. The MTVers article just has a list of celebrities. If the author were to write out the criteria for inclusion into the article, then I would change my vote to keep. - CorbinSimpson 18:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fabhcún 18:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and Merge with MTV Generation article r430nb 12/24 If I change the title to Famous people born from the MTV Generation or something of the like, would it change anything? The purpose is to educate the public about those born in between Generation X and Y, which is a separate generation in itself. It's only fair since Generation X and Y have their own similar pages.
    comment the point is that there are no sources for this info, wikipedia is not a fourm for your ideas-Fabhcún 21:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, actually Speedy deletion. What the hell is a MTVer?? I don't see any use for this article. If this crap stays, you'll soon start seeing VH1ers, and BETers, and CNNers, and ABCers, and NBCers, etc. | QzDaddy 01:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the way this guy is talking. r430nb
    • Keep, but merge with MTV Generation - MTVers is a bad name for this article --User:Carie 21:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • After seeing the improvements made to the article, and the denotations clearly listed, I change my vote to keep. However, we should strongly consider whether 'List of MTVers' is the best name for this article... - CorbinSimpson 03:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI, clearly. -Splashtalk 20:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The White Snake[edit]

    Out of copyright (1884) but does not seem to belong in WP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I already put it up for a move to Wikisource. Daniel Case 04:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Screaming jelly babies[edit]

    Already transwiki-ed. No sources WP:CITE-ed, not encyclopedic, not a likely search query, not needed as redirect, not safe. I recomend delete. brenneman(t)(c) 04:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Its a genuine experiment carried out in Schools across Britain (the little country that ruled the world before America) Jcuk 07:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Common science experiment. I have added references. Capitalistroadster 08:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep The article needs more work, - who fist perfomed the experiment? Have there been any accidents? etc. The step by step instructions can probably go as they are already on wikibooks. But that is no reason to delete, only clean up. I disagree that it's not a likely search term. The experiment is well known by that title, if someone wanted to find info on it that is exactly what they would type into google. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep bu rewrite, inappropriate style. Kurando 11:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep please screaming jelly babies are encyclopedic too Yuckfoo 21:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • stub-ify. Leave a five-word pointer to the Wikibooks version, where screaming jelly babies shall live on in all their coolness, but no, it's not the sort of thing you consult a reference book for. eritain 22:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI and DELETE. -Splashtalk 20:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Paper chromatography of amino acids[edit]

    Unsourced, not encyclopedic, unlikely to be expanded, not a likely search term, not required as a redirect. I reccomend delete. brenneman(t)(c) 04:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    This AfD nomination did not gather enough votes for consensus, relisting. — JIP | Talk 09:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. From what I can comprehend of the article (chromatography not being my strongest field...), this seems to be more of a "how-to" article than an encyclopedia entry. – Seancdaug 10:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changing recommendation to transwiki to Wikibooks. – Seancdaug 17:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki to WikiBooks Werdna648T/C\@ 12:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki. Howto's belong on wikibooks (and I say that as a chemistry student). =- Mgm|(talk) 13:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change recommedation to transwiki. Edgar181 15:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Cheat 'O Matic[edit]

    Delete. Advertisement. Contains instructions for using the program. └ Smith120bh/TALK┐ 04:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    What's Delcheat? --Marco 11:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete While I could accept an article about cheating tools and program having a paragraph this is too much. --Marco 21:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep very well-known cheating tool.  Grue  21:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I removed this from the Personal computer game article, "During the year 1997, a visionary named Nick Shaffner would make a program called Cheat 'O Matic that would make cheating more convienent for people with personal computers and/or console emulators designed for personal computers.". It is not a widely used program, the coder was certainly not a visionary, smacks of advertising or vanity. - Hahnchen 02:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • KeepHe has no reason to promote the program since he hasn't worked on in since 1997. Also, it was simply written as a program for personal use, and he's the last person to ever be vain.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Zero0000 Jamie (talk/contribs) 11:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    MaxRange[edit]

    Apart from having no content at all, the title is also the username of the only editor. Probably created by mistake Kevin 04:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

    I deleted it. In future just add {{delete}} to such pages and someone will speedy it. --Zero 11:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 18:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Bou Keng Wan[edit]

    No context provided, despite requests to author on article & user talk pages. Appears to be fiction. Klaw ¡digame! 04:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Appears to be a Storm raider character, which is a notable Chinese comic series to the best of my understanding. I couldn't find a Storm Raider article on WP, so context could be an issue. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge keep Yes, looks like Fung Wan (Tin Ha comic series) is the comic in question. A reidrect would have helped me. Suggest move this content to the Fung Wan (Tin Ha comic series) article, put in redirect from Bou Keng Wan to Fung Wan (Tin Ha comic series). Keeps the content and adds the context. Do the same with Nip Fung. KillerChihuahua?!? 05:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Note that there are two other character articles that this user contributed: Nip Fung and Mou Ming. And this user did significant editting on Fung Wan (Tin Ha comic series), so the user's obviously interested in the topic. The last contribution was less than 10 minutes after I left the note on the user's talk page, so may I suggest holding off for a bit and seeing if the user can contribute more fully next time he/she logs in? --└ Smith120bh/TALK┐ 05:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • changed vote to Keep pending what the primary editor does - Mou Ming and Fung Wan articles are well developed. KillerChihuahua?!? 05:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, it's already a good article, and about a primary character in a major comic series. Kappa 05:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep please kappa is right here Yuckfoo 21:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Lambastard[edit]

    Obscure term, borderline nonsense Hirudo 04:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Seems to be nonsense since it doesn't seem to be a word according to dictionary.com [14]. Wikipedia also isn't a dictionary. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a private joke by "enlightened individuals"; no relevant Google hits. -- JimR 07:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Neologism, although it sounds vaguely familiar. Couldn't find anything of note on Google anyway. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete neologism Jamie (talk/contribs) 12:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Leaving normal[edit]

    Non-notable company. Not on stock index, can't find relavent independent Google hits. Relavent company guidelines └ Smith120bh/TALK┐ 05:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Squiptipadoogleboinkaflop[edit]

    This is a dictionary article in the wrong project, that is about a protologism that as far as I can tell has so far only been used by its creator. Uncle G 05:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as nominated, and nonsense to boot. -- JimR 06:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as nonsense. Borderline speedy. Jamie (talk/contribs) 12:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete nonsense. Incidentally, it "defines" what we are doing here. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete, because I'm a Squiptipadoogleboinkaflopper Sceptre (Talk) 19:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Elaborate nonsense. PJM 01:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Alteran Labs[edit]

    While well intentioned, this entry is clearly self promiton [15], Wikipedia is not self promotion. Furthermore, the site in question is a forum with 55 members, clearly failing WP:WEB proposal. --W.marsh 05:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. --Interiot 05:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold Off! the last sentence of the page says "This article is incomplete, it will be finished soon..." Lets just see what develops, maybe enlightening the author about NPOV. Jcuk 07:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete one of the many stargate fourms out there. No evidence of notability with only 55 members. QQ 02:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng {chat} 22:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Yellowknife dump[edit]

    Speedy deletion. Appears to consist entirely of copyrighted text from New York Times, International Herald Tribune, or both, plus a warning not to delete the page. Kragen Sitaker 05:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • If this had been caught within the 48 hour window, I would have speedily deleted it. The article is a straight copyvio of an International Herald Tribune news article. The copyright infringer was even good enough to preserve the IHT copyright notice. Uncle G 05:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Copyvio. Capitalistroadster 08:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This has been previously delted. Could an admin check the previous content and see if it's the same copyvio? If so, can be speedied as db-repost. Jamie (talk/contribs) 12:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I already checked. The previously deleted content was patent nonsense, just random letters, not this. Uncle G 18:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Tithe. — JIP | Talk 09:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    10%[edit]

    At best a dicdef and not the usual thing that 10% means anyway. BL kiss the lizard 05:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 09:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hankook Pizza Hut[edit]

    A grammatically-challenged article about a local Pizza Hut. --ApolloBoy 05:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete no brainer. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete NN branch of restaurant chain Jamie (talk/contribs) 06:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, major chain of restaurants. AFD is not cleanup, so let's not inflict more systemic bias than necessary. Kappa 08:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The organization is notable. The individual franchises are no more notable than the mom and pop restaurants they drive out of business. Durova 10:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mom and pop restaurants would be notable if they had 380 branches and annual revenue of 381 million dollars. Kappa 10:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then why is this only a three line sub-stub? Merge with the parent corporation. Durova 23:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's a 3-line stub because of systemic bias, which I already mentioned. Kappa 23:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep obviously this is about more than just a local Pizza Hut... but should be moved to Pizza Hut Korea, no? If it never expands beyond a stub at some point it might be merged to Pizza Hut. --W.marsh 14:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Kappa, bloody huge corporation. - Randwicked 15:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Just to clarify, this isn't a deletion on Pizza Hut, it's a deletion on a branch of Pizza Hut. karmafist 23:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and cleanup. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 16:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep $381 million turnover and growing fast. Calsicol 19:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep please to stop systemic bias here Yuckfoo 21:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I don't see anything notable about it. James084 23:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Pizza Hut. Not big enough or notable enough yet for an article of its own, but would be a valuable addition to info on Pizza Huts as a whole. karmafist 23:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge IntoPizza Hut. Barking about systemic bias is just plain (not going here so as not to invoke WP:NPA). Denni ☯ 03:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - the chain is notable, not the individual franchise. Can we stand 5000 articles on individual McDonalds franchises and 8000 Subway franchise articles? I think not. Instead, I'd suggest entering this -- and more -- in a section entitled "International Pizza Hut partnerships" in the Pizza Hut article. This should be sufficient to deal with Yuckfoo's claim of "systematic bias." B.Wind 04:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Individual McDonalds franchises don't pass WP:CORP. They don't make their own products which are distributed in several other countries. When they change their security systems, it doesn't get covered in ZDnet. Kappa 06:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep no brainer. -- JJay 18:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is not about a franchise, it's about a national subsidiary. --Pc13 17:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Looks like an article that can definitely be expanded and is notable enough to expand. Really should be stubbed more than anything else. Tom Foolery 21:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, preferably rename it to Pizza Hut in Korea or something like that. Hankook is the romanisation of "Korea" in Korean. Mr Tan 18:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was keep rewritten version. - Mailer Diablo 17:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    J. L. Hunter[edit]

    • Delete not notable. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not notable. Donbas 07:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. A 91 year old bank robber is of historical interest. -Ikkyu2 07:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I did a bit of a re-write to (hopefully) better highlight the encyclopedic qualities and found 3 very reliable sources in the process. It needs to be renamed "J. L. Hunter Roundtree Rountree" as that is his actual name. I won't do this now because I'm not sure what it will do to this discussion (I'm kinda new). Jaysus Chris 08:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The prison wasn't the only place to misspell his name. It's Rountree, without a D. Sorry about that. Jaysus Chris 08:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Looks like someone watched Going in Style. Durova 10:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, he's pretty notable. --Eeee 12:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and rename as per Jaysus Chris. Capitalistroadster 16:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep please thank you jaysus for rewrite Yuckfoo 21:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep after re-write. Nice job. TMS63112 16:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete both. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Beam, Matthew maisel[edit]

    Story about the tragic death of a 17-year-old skydiver. Except... no references, and I can't verify any of the claims are true. Such a death in America would doubtlessly be covered somewhere, but searching for the various names in the story yields nothing at all confirming this story ([16], [17], [18], etc.) --W.marsh 05:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was DELETE. The transwiki option appears unclear, but the author can discuss at the relevant wikis. -Splashtalk 23:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dancing Links Java Implementation[edit]

    Had a speedy tag on it at first, but due to the author's constant revision of the tag, I want to get some feedback by peers. Are Java messages supposed to be in this form on Wikipedia? If so, keep - if not, which I sincerely believe, delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. It might be appropriate however to keep the source code in another wiki. Wikibook? --Edcolins 08:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment move to wikibooks? Or wikisource, since it's source code... :) Jamie (talk/contribs) 12:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from the author I could not find the right place where to place this code.... It closely corresponds to the original paper by Knuth and it might be useful... Feel free to move it to the most appropriate place, but could we preserve the link to it from Dancing Links? Krage 16:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just want to add here.. The source code here is not a software, but rather a document describing the algorithm. Many complained that the page for Dancing Links doesn't explain the algorithm itself thus it is useless. This java code explains the algorithm in the term familiar to every programmer. The original paper by Knuth is somewhat difficult to understand. Krage 21:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can't we include the core of the algorithm in a more abstract way in Dancing Links, without posting the whole Java code? I think there is likely to be a need to explain the algorithm. The complete code will only help Java programmers. --Edcolins 10:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, source code listing isn't encyclopedic article. Pavel Vozenilek 23:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not expect such animosity here... the people commented here are not really experts ... I am surprised that wikipedia turned out to be such a unpleasant place... I will remove links to this page and cease contributing Krage 04:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Zwolf[edit]

    according to this page "Zwölf is German for twelve." which is true. its also all it says on the page. but the page is supposed to be about zwolf not zwölf. and zwölf's already in wiktionary. so this should go, right? BL kiss the lizard 05:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. You might want to check around for dreizehn, vierzehn, and funfzehn as well.. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - unless Zwölf has some cultural implications, it should probably be deleted. By the way, 4,180,000 on google check is pretty impressive. The only thing that I can think of is that it comes across as Z-Wolf, which may have some implications somehow (an imagined type of wolf? roleplaying?) I'll wait for more advice. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Zordrac, google ignores a lot of diacritics when searching, and "twelve" gets 81 million google hits, so I'm not surprised at four million for the German equivalent. Bikeable 07:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    *Keep as it is included in the German encyclopaedia here [19]. Rename to Zwölf. If it is considered to be good enough for the German encyclopaedia, then its good enough for the English one. Can we translate the German version? Note also German Wiktionary version [20] is different to German Encyclopaedia version. 12 must be of particular importance in the German language for some reason. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect to 12 (number). My mistake. No reason why we should have a German version in English when it seems to say the same thing in Zwolf de as it does in 12 (number) en. lol. Ah well. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Dictdef at best. Durova 10:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Not many people are going to search for this, so not redirect. Lee S. Svoboda 18:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is English Wikipedia. No need for articles with foreign language titles about topics already covered adequately in English. howcheng {chat} 22:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Why would anyone search for the German word for twelve in the English Wikipedia? Also needs to be deleted unless we are going to have an article for every numeral in every language in the English Wikipedia. •DanMS 04:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Agree with Howcheng. Tom Foolery 21:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to [Zwölf]. If you search for a German word, you should get German results...  The Steve  01:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Beverley De Gale[edit]

    She does not need her own separate article. She is already mentioned on her child's page and on African-Caribbean Leukaemia Trust Eeee 07:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Ben Devlin[edit]

    I've removed a speedy tag from this aticle as I believe it should be listed here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Keep. Seems a bit notable. Or you have other reasons? --Anthony Ivanoff 07:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      No I believe he is notable enough for an article. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 08:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete there are non-notable television producers you know... --Eeee 12:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep producer of notable programmes. Jcuk 21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. -- JJay 03:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - notable producer, but I'd like to see the sea of red become a sea of blue, and the article has been around awhile. B.Wind 05:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was speedy delete by Deltabeignet (CSD A7). howcheng {chat} 22:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Witalec[edit]

    • Delete - this is a vanity page. The author has refused wikification as well.Donbas 07:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Edcolins 08:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as CSD A7. Spends 3 pages, and doesn't claim a single notable thing.... Jamie (talk/contribs) 11:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete - clearly an CSD A7 JoJan 19:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy speedy speedy! howcheng {chat} 22:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    Visit Blue Fugu Software at http://bluefugu.biz.tm


    Benjamin Lindelof is a born-again Christian.

    Jesus is Lord!

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

    The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 06:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul H. Robbins[edit]

    Non-notable Canadian vice president YUL89YYZ 09:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete A7 ... vice-president of a Canadian company, that is. Canada doesn't have a president or vice president. howcheng {chat} 17:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]

    Kooking For Kids[edit]

    A series of cookbooks for kids. Might be notable if it weren't for the fact, that they can't be found at any online bookseller except the archives of the authors own defunct website (skaugbusinessservices.com). Delete Rasmus (talk) 10:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, sadly. These sound like interesting books, but they seem to be self-published and aren't even on Amazon. If whoever makes these happens to read this: you have a wonderful idea there, work on distributing more! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. howcheng {chat} 19:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was after weighing the various arguments, we're looking at a delete here, folks. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Joshua James William Skaug[edit]

    The site listed below is indeed defunct - but the authors website and listings with the Tourette Syndrome Association are not. His new web and contact information is gladly given out by TSA. They seem happy enough with his fund raising and he gives speaking engagements in Southern Arizona. I found him listed on the Sisters In Crime Authors website - which even included photos of when he was a featured speaker for them at a book fair. And, we found an article on him at the Green Valley Newspaper site listing him as a three time author at age 13. He has ISBN numbers. Keep He is verifiable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WritingCouple (talk • contribs) 08:39, 28 December 2005

    Only claim to notability seems to be writing a series of cookbooks for children (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kooking_For_Kids). The cookbooks cannot be found anywhere except on the archives of the authors own defunct website (skaugbusinessservices.com). Delete Rasmus (talk) 10:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. howcheng {chat} 19:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep seems verifiable, good enough for me (inclusionist!) Jcuk 21:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obvious Delete. Writing an unsuccessfully self-published cookbook doesn't cut it, and Jcuk seems to have mistaken Wikipedia for the local White Pages. --Calton | Talk 00:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Also, delete this photo of him: File:Joshua Skaug.jpg. dbenbenn | talk 21:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Abdomen (disambiguation)[edit]

    This dab page contains only one dab link, the other is a redlink. Furthermore, insects' abdomens are discussed in the primary topic article. Hence, the page is unnecessary. (delete) Neonumbers 10:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: it should be noted that "thorax" and "abdomen" are *not* synonyms, as explained on the thorax page (so the thorax link should really be removed altogether anyway). Neonumbers 00:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Jamie (talk/contribs) 11:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nomination. User:Ceyockey 16:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Needs more links for it to be a disambig page. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 16:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. There does not seem to be much point to this, unless someone is going to write an article on abdomen (insect). Even so, with only two links to disambiguate, there does not need to be a disambig page (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation links). •DanMS 04:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was keep. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to clean it up, hint, hint ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Honey (Mariah Carey song)[edit]

    The more I browse, the worse it becomes: yet another e-team lead piece of marketing that with sources would barely qualify for inclusion in MC's bio. Without sources and with a monstrous libel-in-waiting, this is clearly an AfD. I also seem to have enormous problems linking this to the appropriate deletion page.--HasBeen 11:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. In fact this should be a speedy keep. The community's position on this issue is clear enough that there is no sense in cluttering the article with the AfD template. Everyking 11:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No, the position is very clear: no verifiable sources, no article. The bukakke lie is hillarious but legally actionable. Similarly the argument that singles should be amalgamated into pop bios is going on right now at the water pump.--HasBeen 11:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It can all be verified pretty easily, though. All highly notable info. You don't go deleting a notable article because no one has bothered to source it yet; you add the sources yourself, or you wait for someone else to do it. The bukkake interpretation can either be sourced or removed; it is in no way an argument for deleting this article, and it certainly isn't "legally actionable". Everyking 11:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and cleanup. Crappy song, but still a notable single. --badlydrawnjeff 14:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and reference. Notable hit single. Capitalistroadster 16:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Number one hit single in the U.S. and Japan, and it also reached the top ten in several other countries. Article establishes additional notability besides that. I suggest that the nominator familiarise himself with the notability guidelines for songs before listing any more song articles at AfD. Extraordinary Machine 18:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per Everyking....why is this even up for discussion!? Jcuk 20:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep AfD is not cleanup. howcheng {chat} 22:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • E-teamers from hell... or heaven if you're Sony records I guess. So, a blatant commercial for a minor single from a half-recognised corporate recording popstar outside of the USA, without verifiable references gets its own page all to itself? Why should this information not feature in her bio? That's all I want addressed... Please do attempt to enlighten me, otherwise copy to bio and delete. Also, do join us at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) under Defending Wikipedia from commercial advertising...--HasBeen 09:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I find it unlikely that this article on an eight year old single is some sort of advert. The article is actually quite informative and looking at its history, some of the major editors seem to be coming from musically inclined backgrounds. The article could use some cleaning up, and definitely some sources, but together they do not equal an AfD. Tom Foolery 00:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Wether you like it or not, it's still a Mariah Carey # 1 single. I f you delete this one, wy no delete the other 16?
      • That's the point: the nominator wants to delete them all. Everyking 12:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep ditto to above posts. Crumbsucker
    • Keep, as per the majority of the above comments. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Naam Cafe[edit]

    Non-notable advertisement

    • Delete. This is unabashed advertising. It meets no notability requirements. Donbas 11:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Doesn't read like an ad. Let's see if any Vancouverites think its notable. "Fran's Restuarant, Toronto" survived a similar AfD last week. Jamie (talk/contribs) 11:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't think talk of a "relaxed atmosphere", or "If you have a relaxed morning (or evening), it is worth the time!" reads like an ad? I agree with what you say about Vancouverites, maybe, but it does seem to fail the Google test, and will need some hefty editing if it does survive. Robin Johnson 13:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Gees. Get the ads out of here, at least until someone writes a real article. --Fang Aili 19:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rewrite, but keep. I agree that this article needs to be rewritte, but I do believe it doesn't merit deletion. Having lived in the neighborhood for some time, the café does have a historic value (see the entry on Kitsilano), which IMHO merits keeping it in here.--FDedio
    • Delete NN. No demonstration that this cafe is in any way unique or noteworthy, or an important example of this class of business. As well, the fact that it lies in a neighborhood that has existed for some amount of time is not sufficient to make this cafe historic. Dxco 21:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Danny. This has been speedied six times in the last 24 hours. Perhaps an admin could {{deletedpage}} this and protect? Jamie (talk/contribs) 12:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Thomas Viten[edit]

    Vanity page and also patent nonsense. Ben W Bell 11:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete of course. I'm surprised it's not a speedy. Robin Johnson 11:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete. I did this as a speedy delete yesterday, but now it's back up with this notice: "Stupid Wikipedia Admins. You can never stop us! MWUAHAHAHA!! Sgn.: The Wikipedia Haxxer Gang". I'm sure the "Wikipedia Haxxer Gang" is very proud of themselves, and will be toasting one another as they sip their 2% lowfat milk at the elementary school this afternoon. --MisterHand 11:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result of the debate was MERGE to probably Star Control. I'm only going to add a tag, since it's clear how to execute this particular merge. -Splashtalk 22:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fred Ford[edit]

    Non notable game hacker jmd 11:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. And how does 'computer game programmer' suddenly equate 'game hacker'? Making Star Control 2 is pretty notable in my book. - Bobet 12:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'hacker' is a colloquialism for 'computer programmer' and has been for many years. Nothing sudden about it. jmd
    • Merge with Star Control... very notable game series, something of a cult classic. The problem with standalone bios of game programmers is that with the exception of what game they worked on, there's rarely anything non-trivial and encyclopedic to say about them, as is the case with this article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I added a couple of more games he has worked on (that have Wikipedia entries). If he had only worked on one game, a merge would be appropriate, in this case I don't think it is. - Bobet 12:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Toys for Bob. The same thing should be done for the Paul Reiche III article, which is only slightly longer than this one. Zunaid 12:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Merge with the games he's worked on. He hasn't done anything else notable, and I'm not sure working on video games is really all that notable. Are people who create insurance policies or car models considered notable? They also affect many peoples' lives. --Fang Aili 19:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 21:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Voldar[edit]

    Looks non-notable but might just be. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete nonsense or spam, I can't tell which.... Jamie (talk/contribs) 12:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - utterly non-encyclopedic JoJan 19:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Hilarious but non-encyclopedic, of course. --Fang Aili 19:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy deleted as CSD G4 (a re-post) and A7 (nn bio). Harro5 21:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was MERGE to Vanbrugh College. -Splashtalk 20:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Planet V[edit]

    An entry on a themed pissup night in some dorm at the University of York. Do consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club D, the competition in another dorm. Pilatus 03:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    * Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 19:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • personally I'd Keep, but at least Merge as per above Jcuk 20:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    JDLR[edit]

    this one JDLR in wikipedia. delete. BL kiss the lizard 04:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as a neoglism. Movementarian 09:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. Stifle 10:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    * Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Club RSX[edit]

    non notable car club

    • Delete per nom - Stoph 04:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The forums have 64,000+ members with nearly 8 million posts, but the Alexa rank is 71,281 and there are only 33 relevant links to the site according to Google. I realize it's a pretty big community, but they don't seem to have much impact or influence on the world outside them. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. 64,000+ members with nearly 8 million posts- Obviously meets blows away most of our guidelines. -- JJay 11:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    * Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep as per JJay. Meets WP:WEB in terms of size of forum. Capitalistroadster 17:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep as per JJay Jcuk 20:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. —Cryptic (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Schade's Yatsarim Call series of Books[edit]

    This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was non-notable books, fails google and amazon.com tests. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, speedily if possible - ad, possibly copyvio as well. B.Wind 01:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    * This nomination is incomplete. Relisting manually. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Non-notable. Books not available on Amazon. howcheng {chat} 22:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 20:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Creating chemical solutions[edit]

    This is a howto (already moved to Wikibooks), and we have percentage solution and molar solution, which has the content in an encyclopedic fashion. Pilatus 15:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, arbitrary how-to. What if I want a 32.3% solution? Gazpacho 18:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    * Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nomination. Edgar181 19:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's still sitting in Transwiki: on wikibooks, they've not "adopted" it yet. Jamie (talk/contribs) 21:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's because no-one has yet had the time to properly incorporate it into the School science module. Uncle G 21:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Joshua Nelson[edit]

    Vanity; clearly autobiographical though written in 3rd person; not notable --Quarl 21:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete, as there's no reasonable assertion of notability. -- Kjkolb 08:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    * Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - looks like vanity to me. CLW 13:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Josh's ruminations. Metarhyme 16:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as vanity. Should have been speedy, except some of the bollocks in the article has the form of a notability claim. Jamie (talk/contribs) 21:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, vanity. PJM 01:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nomTheRingess 01:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nom--nixie 11:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Molana Hakeem Muhammad Akhtar[edit]

    Tagged as speedyable nn bio, but "one of the great Islamic scholars of Indo-Pak" could be construed as a claim to notability, so I thought it best to bring it here... CLW 13:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    MC Dreamer[edit]

    Non-notable - link to Matthew Webb looks like someone else novacatz 02:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete NN for the moment; may all MCs achieve the notability they deserve. Billbrock 02:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    * Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    ʍWell, although the article is very sketchy, it's certainly of interest to those of us who are members. It's quite accurate. Why doesn't the article come up unless the colon is inserted after the worÉ

    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 15:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Move: Sam Fife[edit]

    Sam Fife takes a few google hits, the above title considerably less. NN religion thing. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • There's a lot of people interested in making this a good wikipedia entry, so I would give it a couple days. Still working on finding reputable sources for this info. What does NN mean?Absofsteel 8 10:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Not notable', generally shorthand for "An article of a subject that shows little or no evidence of being of encyclopedic quality or value." At least, that's my interpretation. Saberwyn - 10:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say that a religion which has existed for more than 40 years and has thousands of followers, a lot of who live together in communes, I'd call that notable (at least more so than the regular religious internet movement for which you just have to post to join). I would like to see some sources, before I vote to keep this, though. - Mgm|(talk) 11:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per references provided by, I think, Uncle G. - Mgm|(talk) 22:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This could be a decent article some day. It needs a lot of work, though. --jackohare 23:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd recommend to keep this page. The interest will grow rapidly from other Move related sites are compiling info to post here. - Dave Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grfsmiths (talk • contribs) 2005-12-15 01:29:53 UTC
    • Definitely notable; a recent Yahoo Groups devoted to this started in November 2005 and has several hundred posts a week (all valid posts, not post spam). This article needs work though. -kevininspace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevininspace (talk • contribs) 2005-12-16 23:30:38 UTC
    • "Keep" -This group currently has thousands of members, with many more ex-members. ~mar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.85.230.96 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-21 02:27:53 UTC
    • Delete. Not seeing notability - 247 google hits on "sam fife," some of which (two on the first page) are about an Australian athlete by that name. Couldn't find one news article on the preacher Fife. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that he died a decade an a half before the World Wide Web even existed, it will be unlikely that you will find an on-line news article about him. Uncle G 22:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the religion was in the news at all, its founder would likely be mentioned as well. | Klaw ¡digame! 14:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as lacking verification and reliable sources. howcheng {chat} 19:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep per mgm Jcuk 20:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a fair number of sources, independent of the subject itself, that deal with the subject. This religion appears to have been acknowledged by the world at large. Keep. Uncle G 22:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename and keep - religion is notable, but name of article should be changed as it implies that the article is primarily about its founder. Howcheng's suggestion of renaming it to The Move (religion) is most likely best, also to avoid an accidental reference to the legendary British rock group. Additional Wikification would not be a bad idea, either. B.Wind 05:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I chose The Move: Sam Fife because you get more google results for the religion with both "The Move" and "Sam Fife" in the search than with either alone. "The Move" is too common of a phrase. "Sam Fife" is too common of a name. Anyone who is looking for information about this group will likely type both into Google Search.

    • That doesn't matter. Google indexes the entire page, not just the title. Entering both as search terms will still turn up this article even if the title were "Bernie Bott's Every Flavor Beans". howcheng {chat} 08:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Arquivologia[edit]

    From WP:PNT, been there since November 30. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie 09:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Appears to be Spanish, and may well be an AFD. Stifle 12:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Portugese, not Spanish. It is about the importance of archives and study thereof in view of social changes in the last decades, if I understand correctly. I can't really put into context, though, but it seems to be an excerpt from a publication or some other work. Someone with a better understanding of Portugese should be able to tell if it has salvagable content. Solver 17:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is... complicated. I can translate it, but it will still make very little sense. The information does not have much context, and for all its worth, the prose is too technical and boring. --Sn0wflake 20:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is not worth translating. As Sn0wflake has said, it is too technical, written in a very 60's academia talk. Looks like original research, and I see nothing here that can be merged into Archival science. JoaoRicardo 07:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    * Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - is it written in English? No. Metarhyme 16:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whats your point? If it aint English it can be translated Jcuk 20:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you sure your AIW vote is to delete? Metarhyme 23:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. howcheng {chat} 19:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per Portuguese speakers who have posted. Jcuk 20:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 16:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Zweistimmig[edit]

    tongue-in-cheek article about a nn future game Dunemaire 10:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    * Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Stan Gable[edit]

    Was liised for speedy with {{db|Non-notable bio disguised as disambig page... should be redirected to [[Revenge of the Nerds]]}}. That's not a valid criterion for speedy deletion, so listing here. Reccomend delete. Jamie 11:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete - I found the culprit, there was a link to Stan Gable from the Revenge of the Nerds page. Someone probably thought they were being "helpful" by filling in the red link. Of course, this page had no content that wasn't already in the original. I removed the link from the main article and all that's left is to get rid of this bit of cruft. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 15:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    * Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - get rid of obscure fictional jock failed try at nerd. Metarhyme 16:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep character from a well known film, no different to Danny Zuko in my book. Jcuk 20:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Danny Zuko is the lead character from a ridiculously popular movie. Revenge of the Nerds doesn't have nearly the cachet that Grease does. I wouldn't oppose a redirect, however. howcheng {chat} 22:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was closed with a speedy delete conclusion. - Mailer Diablo 06:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Expansion Fleet[edit]

    This page, as seen below, was nominated for deletion in December, partly because the group is unnotable and partly because it read like an advertisment. The article has been recreated and speedy-deleted twice since then I believe, and yet still it's here again. I don't see how it's become more notable in a month, and it still reads like an ad to me. It does not cite good sources justifying its place here and I consider it to be vanity. I could be considered an inclusionist, but it appears to me that the majority of editors are not and so there is no justification for EF having a page of Wikipedia. - Hayter 13:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete again. I don't know what's going on with this page, but it's clearly not notable. And what's up with this message at the top of the article: 'Nomination for deletion of this article as stated in the template below is invalid, and should be ignored. Matter has been closed and any further discrediting/deletion attempts will not be tolerated.'? - squibix 16:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They will not tolerate us? Ooh, I'm shaking in my little space boots. Delete for the Nth time, protect against re-creation and block the users responsible. --Agamemnon2 00:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and protect against re-creation. Blocking only required if future problems occur with user.

    The re-posting of this deletion nomination here was an error on my part. I was unaware there was a seperate template for articles that have been nominated before. The current afd vote for this article is located here. - Hayter 23:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Expansion Fleet[edit]

    This seems to be nothing more than self-promotion by the group's creator. If EF is as successful as he seems to indicate then perhaps an article on it would be a worthwhile addition to Wikipedia, but I don't see it coming from this and as such, would recommend a deletion. It's very badly written and inconsistant in its presentation. Perhaps one day someone can make a better article on the subject but at the moment, it's just trash on the server. Hayter 12:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've never heard of this, and neither have my Trekkie friends. As a former purveyor of online RPGs, I'm impressed by something that's lasted since 2001, but hey, Maverick Hunter: The Technology Wars has been going since '96, and we still don't have an article--because we don't deserve one. Neither does this. Delete. Marblespire 01:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Agnte 16:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    * Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 16:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Advanced Information Management Software[edit]

    This is an advertisement obviously written by the company (created by User:Aimsoft and no one else has taken much interest in cleaning it up). Wikipedia is not self promotion. W.marsh 15:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    * Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Flash-gear[edit]

    My bot found this with an afd tag stuck on it and no rationale provided for deletion, but I can't just let it go with the generic bot message. It's a substub about a "website that specializes on unique gadgets that people add to fansites". Its creator mentioned its "high alexa ranking" when making the article. So far as I can tell, though, 4,252,424 indicates that exactly one computer with the Alexa toolbar visited the site exactly one time, at least several months ago. Delete till it glows. —Cryptic (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    * Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Self promotion. Obina 15:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete--nixie 10:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Murrell[edit]

    unfactual nonsence BobsterM 19:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    * Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • delete Per Howcheng.Obina 15:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Howcheng Jcuk 20:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hemorrhoids discrimination?" This should have been speedied a week or two ago. Delete as an attempt at a joke, hoax, or utter nonsense. B.Wind 05:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 20:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ethan Flatt[edit]

    Delete. Non-notable: marginal college football player; no pro prospect. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    * Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Deleteper nom.Obina 15:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nominator. Sliggy 17:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep verifiable, good enough for me....but then I'm an inclusionist Jcuk 20:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Started 12 games at quarterback, threw for 2,000+ yards. I think quarterback at Ole Miss is the second-most-important position in Mississippi behind governor. -- Mwalcoff 02:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    TelphinUSA[edit]

    Delete Advert for nn-company. Created by User:Telphinusa. No traffic information from Alexa. Gets 923 goolge hits. [21]. Interiot 15:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as advertising. — JIP | Talk 16:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    might as well get rid of Telphin also.--Gbleem 20:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    * Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was keep & clean up Renata3 07:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    RGMA Network, Inc. (RGMA)[edit]

    This article is nothing but self-promotion. Reyk 06:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is an "article" of an owner of a good number of Filipino radio stations and a list of call letters and service cities (apparently RGMA is the Filipino version of Clear Channel Communications). Deleting the article will add to the American bias, but the article cannot stand as-is. Clean up and expand the article. B.Wind 21:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: relisting on the 14/12/05's AfD listing. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    * Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep and Clean up as per above Jcuk 20:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Edwin[edit]

    WP:BIO, WP:V (no response from request from creator), WP:NOR, possible hoax. — Jeandré, 17:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Gets the coveted zero Google hits award. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC) howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, nn-bio. Kappa 05:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    * Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as nn-bio/nn-band. Could probably have been speedied, especially under new A7. Jamie (talk/contribs) 21:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. PJM 02:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no notability asserted, except that he is a friend of a notable person. B.Wind 05:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Boko[edit]

    Non-notable, and probably vanity. Dr Gangrene 17:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Google turns up nothing of note except for the site itself. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    * Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - quit clowning around :) Jamie (talk/contribs) 21:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Boko???What's that? 僕 maybe :) This should be deleted untill this bozo can warrant an article. --Marco 21:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Day hops[edit]

    Dec def אריאל יהודה 17:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    * Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep and expand. -- MisterHand 17:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This name is not the usual one. They are more commonly known as day pupils, and there appears, from research, to be plenty to say on the subject that isn't said at boarding school. See this, this (§ 2), this, this, this, and this, for starters. Keep. Uncle G 18:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and expand or possibly write Day Pupil article and merge with same when written Jcuk 19:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Sworn on oath[edit]

    Bachrach44 nominated this article for speedy deletion under CSD:A7. However, this criterion does not cover articles on bands so I have moved the nomination here. My vote is delete. Stifle 17:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete well, since I flagged it for sd I should explain. It doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. The only proof of their existence is at their page and myspace.com. I can find no review, performances, etc. (Except for the performance at their local high school which myspace.com mentioned. AFAIK, it's just more band vanity. --אריאל יהודה 18:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: I agree (in case it wasn't clear) with it being deleted, speedily or otherwise, but it wasn't a valid speedy tagging. Stifle 21:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • DELETE Unverifiable Jcuk 19:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete 'sworn on oath' + disestablishmentarianism gets 1 google hit, the wikipedia entry MNewnham 20:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete deletable as nn-band under the new CSD A7 Jamie (talk/contribs) 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 02:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Outline Studies of the Bible[edit]

    Appears to consist nothing but list to other articles. No need for independent existence. Delete. (The articles that it links to have similar problems but are not as severely so, so I am not adding AfDs on them right now; however, other folks are obviously free to.) --Nlu (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was keep Renata3 07:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    2.8_White_Trash[edit]

    Wikipedia is not an episode guide. Instead link to an external guide on LEXX main PageJisi 18:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, television episodes are a notable aspect of popular culture. m:wiki is not paper. Kappa 05:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, just as Wikipedia has articles on various Seinfeld episodes, then episodes to other less notable shows also have a right to articles on individual articles. Pepsidrinka 19:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep as per above Jcuk 19:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to, say, White Trash (LEXX episode), and expand. -- Grev 19:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per all. -- JJay 03:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As this article is fairly short, I'd lean toward a Merge to Season 2 of LEXX (or whatever season is appropriate), with an eye toward spinning it back out as a standalone article once it acquires a certain length. Failing that, Keep. -Colin Kimbrell 16:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Alessandra Rubi Streigard Villarrreal[edit]

    Unverifiable. I can't find anything about this person on Google, IMDB or AMG... which given the content of the article, you'd think would be possible. I've tried many different spellings, still nothing. Claims to have been appeared in various magazines, but just links to the main site of the magazine. I can find nothing to verify the claims of this article, but as always, I welcome editors to find some so we can keep this article, if it in fact is verifiable. --W.marsh 19:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, per nom; I can't find any mention at the magazines the page cites. Tom Harrison (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Obina 15:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete - name unverifiable, connection with Maribel Verdu unverifiable, orchid farms unverifiable, - a hoax MNewnham 21:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete We are all spinning our wheels trying to find a shred of verification. Save others the trouble. Chris the speller 22:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was MERGE to Cat. It's not at all clear to me how this material should be merged. Perhaps it needs rewriting first. So I'll just add a tag, and encourage those advocating the merge to act as they suggest... -Splashtalk 22:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Evening Crazies[edit]

    There is nothing to learn from this article that deserves anything more than being a small section in an article on cat behaviour.

    Apologies for forgetting to sign this nomination Paul Carpenter 21:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete both. - Mailer Diablo 18:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Jason Meckes, LockNToad.com[edit]

    Appears to be a nn vanity page of a webmaster Snurks T C 21:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Added his web site to this nomination. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both. Web site has no Alexa rank and only one link in, according to Google. Additionally, the site has not been updated since October 17, 2004 (that's right, over a year). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete for both. Jasmol 00:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom.Obina 15:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both per nom. Jamie (talk/contribs) 21:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per WP:BIO and WP:WEB respectively. Capitalistroadster 23:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both, per above. PJM 02:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Baba Virsa Singh Ji[edit]

    Vanity article on obscure person. Google test lists 404, which pretty much isn't a number of "biblical proportions" Mecanismo | Talk 21:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep by converting it to Stub. Google hits (587) notwithstanding, I think the claims are varifiable (Pushkin Award, Russian parliament, etc.). But Agree to flag for NPOV check as per the talk page. --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 09:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Have added Unreferenced notice. --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 10:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. I did find some news references to him [22] [23] [24] but I don't know enough about Sikhism to say if he's a person of any real importance. However, the Pushkin Prize is given to writers, so I don't see how he would get one. howcheng {chat} 19:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken. Have added it to Category:Sikhism_stubs in hope of drawing some attention. Suggest we take a call after giving it a week or two. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 07:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad Animals Studio[edit]

    Article on recording studio which reads too much like spam Mecanismo | Talk 21:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. This was set up by Heart. -- JJay 22:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't believe that everything that anyone associated to a band does is worthy of an article on an encyclopedia.--Mecanismo | Talk 22:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You also don't believe in doing much research before you nom. Many major albums have been recorded at this studio. -- JJay 23:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and cleanup. See this article in the Texas Monthly [25] "The lobby walls at Bad Animals Studio are lined with framed platinum records of Nirvana and Pearl Jam." Notable studio. Capitalistroadster 17:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep and cleanup Jcuk 18:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Capitalistroadster. howcheng {chat} 19:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per others. --Cjmarsicano 04:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It is an important studio....and even if it wasn't I think just for the sake of being complete we should have it. Flyerhell 20:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was redirect to scratchcard. howcheng {chat} 17:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Scratch ticket[edit]

    Advert for some brand of gambling game TimPope 22:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Qualified crew chiefs[edit]

    This is a list of crew chiefs at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. According to the article, they are technical staff (something like shift leaders) in charge of a team of Accelerator Operators that make sure that the equipment runs smoothly. As such they really son't meet WP:BIO.

    Folks, this isn't the directory of TJNAF. Pilatus 22:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete per nomination. Nearly contentless and non-notable. Durova 23:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. I can’t imagine why anyone outside the facility would want to look up this information in the Wikipedia. Anyone inside the facility would surely go to the personnel roster. Entirely non-notable. •DanMS 01:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - User:Spraggin page creator removed the content. Metarhyme 16:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete G7. If author blanked the content, he doesn't seem to object to its removal. howcheng {chat} 19:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a borderline G7. Meets the sprit, but not the letter of G7, whch requires that nobody else have edited the article, and there were some other (minor) edits. Delete Jamie (talk/contribs) 21:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cite WP:IAR and be done with it. :) howcheng {chat} 22:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it meets the Spirit of G7, then IAR instructs a speedy delete. Metarhyme 23:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Jesper Ottesen[edit]

    Not notable, only having been assistent coach for a minor football club. 134 google hits. I am Danish and have never heard of him. Thue | talk 23:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Nominator (sort of), copied from Jesper Ottesen talkpage:

    • Delete. un-noteworthy - born 1966, started career in 1972, is clearly someone taking the piss. BK Olympia 1921 is an unkown local town club, playing in the 8th or so, best Danish league. "widely respected and well-known" is made up too. The article is a hoax, no Google hits but mirror sites. Poulsen 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition, the article was started on March 3rd, 2005, and since nothing has been done to it, except, linkifying and categorizing, the article itself having absolutely no merrit.Poulsen 23:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. His employer is redlinked as well. Perhaps we're weak on Danish football articles, but I don't think an obscure ass't coach is the place to start. | Klaw ¡digame! 20:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete NonNotable. Obina 15:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per the Danes and Klaw. Sam Vimes 17:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete non verifiable Jcuk 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Non verifiable and non notable. --Maitch 19:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Michael Ewing[edit]

    NN scholar, possible vanity. Google search for "Robert Michael Ewing" -wikipedia results in 16 hits, 10 of which seem to be about a lawsuit over child support. Dsmdgold 23:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete in its present form. What kind of a "scholar" is he, professor, think tanker, or what? Has he been cited or covered by the press? Dsol 23:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable. Megapixie 14:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete non verifiable Jcuk 18:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete nn-bio. howcheng {chat} 19:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mustafa shabaan[edit]

    Claims to be vaguely notable with his acting appearance, hence not speedyable, but I'm not convinced of his notability. 146 Google hits, most of which seems to be mirrors of just a couple of articles.

    • Delete CLW 13:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC) CLW 13:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • deleteNN. Obina 15:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep verifiable Jcuk 18:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete --Hooperbloob 05:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the article's true, he seems notable enough to get an article — we have articles on American actors who've done just as much. End systemic bias now! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Luciana De Romana[edit]

    Zero Google hits for "Luciana De Romana" or "Luciana DeRomana". Lots of Google hits for "Luciana Paola", but they're all in Spanish, not English or Italian. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - yeah, Google for luciana romana (no quotes) and luciana model also turn up no related hits. FreplySpang (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Giovanni Navarria[edit]

    not notable and appears to be bio anyway.--MONGO 04:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete fails to meet criteria of WP:BIO. Generates 363 Google results [26]. His "claim to fame" aapears to be a paper published on OpenDemocracy.net [27]. Movementarian 09:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No assertion of notability (PhD students are not inherently notable). Pburka 01:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable vanity article. Megapixie 14:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete , wish it were speedy. Jamie (talk/contribs) 21:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was MOVE to Lexus GS430. The merge-or-not decision can be taken elsewhere. -Splashtalk 21:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Lexus GS 430h[edit]

    --JLaTondre 23:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)= Car doesn't seem to exist and if it did, "The" wouldn't be in the name PS2pcGAMER 05:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment There is such a car as a Lexus GS430 [28]. I don't know the policy on pages on individual car models, but a Move to Lexus GS430 might be appropriate. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • See footnote #7 in WP:CORP, for starters. The article in the Howick and Pakuranga Times that you've just hyperlinked to appears to be one such non-trivial published work from an independent source. Uncle G 21:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to clarify, my vote here is Move. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Haynes dumps all Lexus in their 92007 manual for Camry. Metarhyme 16:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and Move to Lexus GS430. This is a well-known car with dozens of reviews on high profile sites. Only the name is wrong. Deco 06:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep and rename as above Jcuk 18:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move as noted above Jamie (talk/contribs) 21:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to Lexus GS430. Pepsidrinka 00:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect to Lexus GS which is an existent page unlike Lexus GS430. Shawnc 01:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Lexus GS. If you look at the table on Lexus GS page and check the links, you will see that the Lexus pages already have a convention of talking about different generations of the same model under a single article on that model. Let's be consistent. -- JLaTondre 21:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Lexus GS -- Metarhyme 23:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This AfD is now two weeks old, and I think if there's a consensus, it's a slight one favoring a move to Lexus GS430 (5 votes) over a merge with Lexus GS (3 votes). Any strenuous objections to me moving the page? | Klaw ¡digame! 22:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is some precedent set with having articles for individual models, then move to Lexus GS430. If not, don't start a chain reaction, and move to Lexus GS. My .02. Pepsidrinka 23:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per my comments above, the precedent is the opposite way, but I'm not sure it matters too much either way. -- JLaTondre 23:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Caferu[edit]

    Was tagged {{db|Unverified, not significant, nothing links here.}} by User:Hu. That's not a CSD, so moving here for a vote. Recommend delete, as dictdef. Jamie 05:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Move to wiktionary? (if it can be verified as a genuine word , otherwise Delete)
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting again due to insufficient votes. — JIP | Talk 15:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Dic Def. Obina 18:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. As above. I love Japanese, but not that much! Dan 20:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was Delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Capitães do mato[edit]

    Was tagged {{db|empty, since it doesn't even define the subject. I would've moved some to the article of the person named, but there's no article on him and he doesn't exist on google.}} bt User:Bobet. Not WP:CSD so moving here for a vote. Jamie 05:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. Something odd about this article. It reads like a little chunk copyvio'd from somewhere -- no hits on Google but could be from a book. Literate but inconsequential and context-free, like a fragment ripped from Palmares (quilombo), Capitão do mato or Jürgens Reijmbach (should be Jürgens Reijmbach not "Jürgen" apparently). What little info is there certainly doesn't belong under that title, presumably the plural of his job title -- and just possibly a chapter heading in some book? Flapdragon 13:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, I placed the speedy tag on it, since it provides zero information about the actual subject of the article. Reading that, do you get any idea on what a Capitães do mato is? But since the page's already here, it won't hurt to wait and see if someone can get something useful out of that. - Bobet 01:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting again due to insufficient votes. — JIP | Talk 15:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandor Woren[edit]

    Non notable. AFAIR, unsuccessful political candidates are generally viewed as nn. No other claim of notability is made. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

    • Delete. Even the opponent to whom he lost doesn't have an article. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:05, Dec. 15, 2005
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep verifiable public figure Jcuk 18:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. howcheng {chat} 19:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Jamie (talk/contribs) 21:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into articles on the races in question. I wouldn't say unsuccessful candidates are necessarily non-notable, but there's bound to be little outside information available about a Libertarian state-legislative candidate -- Mwalcoff 02:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Futallaby[edit]

    Author says it's not notable. So... yeah. Ashibaka tock 06:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 15:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ghorban Tourani[edit]

    Recently-ish killed Christian minister in Iran. I speedied this originally as there was no assertion of notability - now there is (questionable) notability asserted per some media attention. Google pulls 47 hits, just 2 with quotes for Ghorban Tourani - Ghorban Tori pulls more. But with due respect, every murder victim is not inherrently notable - while this case may be slightly different, I do not believe it is enough. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not delete 1) Notability - Google actually scores for "Ghorban Tori" 633 hits[29], a search including his middle name "Ghorban Dordi Tourani" further 35[30] (for "Ghorban Tourani" alone admittedly only 2 dt a initially publicised misspelling) 2) International importance - The current regime in Iran has a history of persecuting the Christian minorities, but had ceased being very aggressive about it after a murder wave in the mid nineties. This has been now under the new president rapidly worsened. His murder happened to co-incide with a new attempt by the EU to engage Iran on Human Rights, was widely reported and led to diplomatic protests. 3) Importance for Iranian/Middle Eastern Church - huge. The first Turkmen martyr amongst other things. In summary: the man is notable and important enough to warrant an entry unless Wikipedia wants to be centred on what and who is important in the West. Refdoc 10:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment: The google count is still rising (now at 677 for "Ghorban Tori" and 41 for "Ghorban Dordi Tourani".Refdoc 07:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet more comment: The google count for "Ghorban Tori" is today 12.700. Do not tell me that this is not the result of some notability. Refdoc 22:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment: There is something like systematic bias [31]operating here - a Iranian internal news is going to be of little newsworthiness outside and subsequently not easily found in search engines like Google. Christians in Iran are ignored/persecuted minority - furtther pushing such news down the list of priorities. In view of these two points I would think that any internal Iranian news which "made google news" - even if limited - is notable by definition. Further - it made secular news papers like the Swedish Dagen[32]. Refdoc 16:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Christian martyr. Metarhyme 17:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep notable. -- MisterHand 17:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep notable enough for me Jcuk 18:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Google News has only 6 news reports, all in Christian news outlets. Doesn't seem to have attracted the attention of any MSM publication. howcheng {chat} 18:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Christians in Iran - not notable by himself, but the chain of events that led to his death is notable in the context of governmental persecution of non-Islamic people. B.Wind 19:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep notable.  Grue  21:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep notable obviously - not sure whether I need to relist my vote, but it stays unchanged Refdoc 09:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    San Diego Bike Club[edit]

    Delete. Not notable except for one famous member. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was REDIRECT to PlanetSide. There is probably grounds enough for deletion here, but there is some sense in a redirect to PlanetSide, as a common mispelling. -Splashtalk 23:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pulsed Particle Accelerater[edit]

    As much as I love PlanetSide, I really doubt we have need for more than the main article. This page is not a good candidate for a redirect as it is misspelled. You can call me Al 14:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was no consensus. howcheng {chat} 07:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Woostercollective.com[edit]

    User:BenAveling tagged speedy delete for spam, but that's not a criteria. Created subpage for that user. Enochlau 11:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per whoever tagged it as a speedy. Stifle 23:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep woostercollective is a major street art website and the article was created for this http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Legal_Sony_graffiti_advertising_backlash .anyway if it could be keeped for a couple of weeks until the story has finished that would be good. After that i suppose i dont really care.i suppose i really created it for the opposite reason of spam to allow people to see what the site about with out visiting it. It is also for some dead links on other pages street art]being one of them.

    Note: relisting 16/12/05, which is apparently the 15th for y'all. I never before believed that AfD was holding us back ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 00:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Devar-toi[edit]

    notability Melaen 15:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as vanity. If this were one person instead of an act, it probably would have qualified for speedy. No attempt to demonstrate notability or notariety (self published CDs are also known as vanity recordings"). B.Wind 00:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete Long live {{nn-band}}! howcheng {chat} 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete under new CSD A7. Jamie (talk/contribs) 21:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    IMGrammarBot[edit]

    bot un-notability Melaen 15:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Only 12 unique Google hits. Not particularly notable. However, bot was written by User:Wild Bill. I've notified him of the AfD. howcheng {chat} 18:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain I'm not sure if it should be deleted. The notability of it according to Google is indeed questionable, but it has become relatively influential on AIM; see some very dated IM stats (recording the IMs it has received, not chat messages). It harasses tons of people every day by handing out thousands of grammar corrections. If the article is voted to be kept, I'd be glad to help expand it. -Wild Bill 04:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete--nixie 11:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    The Seattle Raptor[edit]

    This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was nn, advert. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The Onion is a notable satirical newspaper. This is not. No Alexa rank and no links in according to Google. Fails WP:WEB by a longshot. howcheng {chat} 18:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. May become notable. Isn't there yet. Durova 22:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Jewell[edit]

    un-notability, vanity Melaen 15:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Set a one-week deadline to clean up and attempt to assert notability; otherwise, Delete. B.Wind 01:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Is there something notable here? -- JJay 21:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete nn-bio -- MisterHand 17:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The guy exists, and is verifiable by the usual methods. Jcuk 17:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete A7 howcheng {chat} 18:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The week has passed, but aside from the much-needed Wikification of the article (thanks to Jcuk), it is still without references, and the notability threshold still has not been reached. Reluctant delete. B.Wind 19:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as {{nn-bio}} / CSD A7 Jamie (talk/contribs) 21:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Gibson and dj show[edit]

    no pertinent google search result with "Gibson and Dj" PBS -- Melaen 16:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unverifiable Jcuk 17:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A buddy sitcom that aired on PBS? I doubt it. No results in IMDB, Google, anywhere else. Complete bollocks. howcheng {chat} 18:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Complete bollocks. Even if I got that wrong, the article itself claims the show was obscure. Let's see that it stays obscure. Chris the speller 22:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Killgasm[edit]

    non notability, vanity Melaen 16:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - even if the band were notable, there's precious little here, too little to be even a stub. B.Wind 01:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable. Megapixie 14:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. howcheng {chat} 18:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, is a speedy under the new rules but we could always wait until this AFD is closed. Punkmorten 19:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete under new CSD A7 Jamie (talk/contribs) 22:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Luminaire[edit]

    Advertizing, non notable Melaen 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete It's a technical term for an electric light fitting and I'd have refactored it as such, but that would be a dicdef. So in the end, delete. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep seems verifiable Jcuk 17:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete WP:NOT a directory. howcheng {chat} 18:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete--nixie 12:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete, then restore four most recent revisions. Mindmatrix 21:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Martirano[edit]

    non notability, vanity Melaen 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I went to high school in San Clemente with this guy. He was kind of nuts. Good guitar player though wayverunner

    • Group has red "link," and up-and-coming musicians generally are less notable than their groups. Delete as vanity. B.Wind 01:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, I have rewritten the article. Martirano is also an italian commune with a quite old history --Melaen 16:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You shouldn't rewrite an article to be about something entirely different while the AFD is active; the band article is now permanently embedded in the edit history. You should have let the AFD run its course and then written up the valid topic after the vanity page was deleted. Bearcat 20:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and recreate to eliminate history of original article. The current version needs to be expanded greatly if it's to survive an AfD vote. B.Wind 19:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you mean that the current version, as it stands, warrants deletion? Punkmorten 19:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, Howcheng said it best. I'm not sure the new version is quite encyclopedic, but since there is a chance of possible expansion, I'd like to give the author of the new version an opportunity to do so. B.Wind 20:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The new version is not optimal, but not bad either. It's a quite valuable addition to Wikipedia. Punkmorten 21:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete then restore rewritten version. howcheng {chat} 19:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and recreate to get the bollocks out of the history Jamie (talk/contribs) 22:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and recreate Does not make clear sense, especially the last sentence. Poorley written so should be redone66.92.14.198 09:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Privet Drive Networks[edit]

    non notable Harry Potter community Melaen 16:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    R. D. Augusto[edit]

    poet without having published a single poetry book Melaen 16:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Quarter Past Punk[edit]

    Non-notable/vanity - Rudykog 17:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. -- JJay 19:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable. Megapixie 14:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Vanity, does not meet WP:MUSIC, 5 google hits. Punkmorten 19:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete under new A7 Jamie (talk/contribs) 22:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was A7ed. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Pender House Project[edit]

    Not encyclopedic subject. Not notable project. feydey 14:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as non notable Megapixie 14:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete under the revised A7. Have tagged as such. howcheng {chat} 23:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Utopia theory[edit]

    Looks like an original essay. I can find no reference to Tahir Iqbal as an economist on google. It's been marked for cleanup since Feb - but nobody has made any significant contributions. Delete as original thought. Megapixie 14:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was 'Speedy deleted' . -Doc ask? 16:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Phoenix Nightly[edit]

    "we cannot be sure of his genuine name" and "He was said to have trained with MI5 at one point whether this is true is yet to be known" and "He is now believed to be enrolled within a college in Britain again little is known about him so we do not know if this true". A martial arts prodigy that nobody knows anything about? Riiiiiight... You can call me Al 14:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nonsense. DEL! - Randwicked 14:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete - Incoherent nn bio. Donbas 15:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedied - as patent nonsense Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 16:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was A7ed. - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    NERDZILLa[edit]

    Article is about an apparently non-notable band; there are no Google hits for nerdzilla+"clay greer". See also Geekzilla and its own AfD page. This might even be speediable now, but I don't know how obvious lack of notablility has to be for bands. - squibix 14:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 21:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Christmas on Sunday[edit]

    Delete - per nomination. There's already information on the cycling of the Gregorian calendar. This is, well, pretty unencyclopedic IMHO. D.valued 14:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Aargh. Wrong text in box is why there's two edits. D.valued 14:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I see no problem with this little factoid. - J.Cantara (added as 65.175.175.236 (talk · contribs), user's first edits in months}
    • Keep - As author, I was intrigued by the subject of when does Christmas fall on Sunday. I was unable to find any information on the web, so I set out to analyze and research the subject. Yes, there is ample info on the cycling of the Gregorian calendar, but none specificly regarding Christmas. - Jbunker 16:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, WP:NOR if you want to call it original research. AfD subst was removed by anon IP user.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 17:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Would you consider it acceptable to link this article from the Leap Year page? Don't_bite_the_newcomers- Jbunker 18:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Rasputin AXP. Is there some reason we should care when Christmas falls on Sunday? howcheng {chat} 18:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - If we Keep should we also not have articles on Christmas on Monday, Christmas on Tuesday, ad nauseum?? Madman 20:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Rasputin. Flyboy Will 20:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Rasputin and nom. Christmas always falling on December 25th, it does not have behavior that is different from that of any other date. The behavior of Easter, Hanukkah, and Eid ul-Fitr might be more interesting. For example (warning: trick question): how often do (Western) Easter and Passover fall on the same day? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can say that Eastern Easter *always* is after Pesach... :) D.valued 05:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Rasputin and nom. I see no real useful information here. James084 20:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I surrender! Thanks to all for your input. And, BTW: Merry Christmas to all! - Jbunker 21:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 21:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Spydefense[edit]

    Apparent advertisement -- MatthewDBA 14:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it better now? It is no Advert, just info. (unsigned comment by Malvin (talk · contribs))
    Comment. It still reads like a company spiel. You'll have to be more neutral. - Randwicked 14:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Please help. (unsigned comment by Malvin (talk · contribs))
    Comment See the discussion page for this article. I'm adding some thoughts there. -- MatthewDBA 14:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you. SpyDefense is freeware and have unique interface and design. (unsigned comment by Malvin (talk · contribs))
    • Delete. I tried to edit it down to a more NPOV article, but removing the POV bits of user interface description kind of makes it no different from other antispyware apps that aren't Spybot or Ad-Aware. I highly doubt this article can be salvaged.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 17:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge In my opinion, no particular antispyware program should have it's own page. All of these pages should be merged into one article about anti-spyware or simular.--Marco 21:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Trojan Brain Pony[edit]

    original research. non-notable neologism. take your pick. Randwicked 14:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was DELETE. We should not be negotiating over WP:V. -Splashtalk 21:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Great Serpent of Sumeria[edit]

    I nominated this a few weeks ago, and it was kept because of a lack of consensus (see first nomination and talkpage). The article has gone through superficial cleanup and some "references" have been added. The problem is that the references do not actually support the content of the article. There is no evidence that anybody at any time has believed in the existence of the mythical creature described by the article, or that it is attested in any genuine Mesopotamian sources. u p p l a n d 14:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete The references simply do not support the article. It is currently unverified. The third reference is total deceptive - no page numbers, just a pointer to a book. In any case references to myths found in modern fictional works would not support the key contention that this was an ancient myth. The article could be true (I don't know) but unless it can be verified (and it has been given plenty time without that happening) it ought to be deleted. Please don't vote keep unless you can supply real verification - in which case, I'd vote keep too--Doc ask? 16:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak delete the word AZAG or AZAG THOTH do seem to mean something like great serpent or large snake, but thats about as far as it goes. If anyone can provide more proof I'll vote keep but for now its a weak delete. Jcuk 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Madman 20:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Nice article. Seems to be lots of evidence for this. For example see discussion of serpent worship in the Encyclopedia of Religion. [33] -- JJay 03:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is not whether there are mythological serpents, in Mesopotamia or elsewhere, but whether evidence can be found of a particular one that fits the name and description in this article. Tiamat already has an article. Let's get rid of hoaxes, unless they are notable enough in the world at large to be kept and described as such. To be clear, we need evidence of a serpent that:
    • fits the description of "a giant snake that was said to encircle the Earth, and to control various natural elements and cycles", and
    • is Mesopotamian and known by a name resembling "Great Serpent of Sumeria".
    Anything that fits only parts of this description just doesn't count, because those creatures are all already covered elsewhere. (Shit, why didn't I just redirect this crappy hoax somewhere?) u p p l a n d 07:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    We could redirect this to Tiamat (although it wouldn't be a great redirect) but, since I'm now sure it is a hoax, let's delete it first. The 'encyclopedia of religion' ref doesn't work for me, what I can read seems only to verify that Tiamat of Sumeria was called a 'great serpent' - add that to the Tiamat article if you want, but it does not verify this article. What is the rest of the 'lots of evidence' that JJay mentions? --Doc ask? 08:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    JJay can correct me if I am wrong, but I assume he just looked at the "references", each one of which appears to verify one minor part of this article (just as the Enc. of Rel. may seem to do), but none of which actually verifies the main points. My frustration comes from having to nominate an obvious hoax twice to get it deleted, and still getting "keep"-votes in the second nomination, despite two clear explanations of the problems with the article earlier in the discussion. The hassle in having to do this makes turning the next hoax I find into a bad redirect to something vaguely similar a very attractive alternative. It showcases a fundamental weakness in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is half-decent in the Natural sciences, as the Nature evaluation showed, because creating a believable hoax or adding some other crap to an existing article there is just much more difficult, but it will never get good in the Humanities unless this weakness is dealt with in some way. u p p l a n d 09:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I don't really see this as a hoax because there are so many different descriptions of these serpents floating around depending on the source. Maybe this is taken from The Encircled Serpent: A Study of Serpent Symbolism in All Countries and Ages. Furthermore, it would have been a great help to me if the nom had mentioned Tiamat in the nom. In any case, the encyclopedia of religion cited above says that Tiamat has seven heads. Our article on Tiamat does not mention this. Who is right and who is wrong? Since I do not intend to research the question- because I doubt there is any one answer- I will now change my vote to Abstain.
    • Delete for being unverifiable. --Apostrophe 07:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was A7ed. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Kenan Tarabishy[edit]

    Notability? Article doesn't make sense anyway. Recommend that it is deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - added DV tag, since it's nn/bullshit bio. Vanity bios should get the {{dv}} treatment. D.valued 15:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - NN/Vanity Donbas 15:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - Complete Bollocks Jcuk 17:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy delete for all of the above. B.Wind 19:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    'Tis speedied. Deltabeignet 06:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Providence Place. howcheng {chat} 22:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Providence Place Mall[edit]

    Delete - per nomination. Does not appear to be a notable location. D.valued 15:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep large, well-known shopping malls. This article, which looks to be in fine shape, is about a mall which seems perfectly "notable" with 50,600 Google hits [34] and 35 recent news media mentions [35]. --W.marsh 15:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoa, on closer inspection, this is about the same building as Providence Place. Merger is needed, adding the appropriate tag. --W.marsh 15:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There, I've performed a quick merge. --W.marsh 15:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, redirecting to Providence Place is what I think should be done now. Providence Place Mall is a plausible search term. --W.marsh 21:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge as per W.marsh Jcuk 17:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep well known malls as they serve thosands of people.Gateman1997 17:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Gamaliel 19:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep easily important enough. Calsicol 19:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and Redirect to Providence Place. (The merge was completed already). All malls of this size are probably notable, but this one was also the centerpiece of a dramatic urban renew project in the 1990s. ×Meegs 21:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep please this is well known and has received media attention erasing it does not make sense at all Yuckfoo 21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Providence Place. Capitalistroadster 23:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Providence Place; not sure which way it should go. This is a major development in downtown Providence. --SPUI (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and/or redirect as above. Radiant_>|< 01:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Very important. -- JJay 03:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Providence Place as merge completed. -- JLaTondre 21:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Anorexia head[edit]

    Neologism, not really used anywhere that I can tell, all uses are incidental [36]. Not a real medical condition, as far as I can tell. No sources cited. --W.marsh 06:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Jewpublicans[edit]

    There are dozens of bad anti-semitic puns that can and have been made, such as "Jew York City" or "Jew Orleans". There's nothing special or notable about this one, it's a mere dicdef and it only gets 56 or so hits on Google. The creator of this article, J7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has committed numerous acts of mischief and outright vandalism (for only one example, see[37] [38] [39]) and has been blocked. -- Curps 00:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 19:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Markus Ruby[edit]

    • Delete Not significant. Jendeyoung 07:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and expand. Verifiable brand name. Jcuk 17:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I get ~800 hits on Google, many of which are eBay. I vote for Delete because the article is almost complete devoid of content and is just a definition. Madman 20:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep please jcuk is right Yuckfoo 21:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless someone can explain how this brand passes WP:CORP. howcheng {chat} 23:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep until nom explains why he/she created the article. -- JJay 02:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Pirate Pickling[edit]

    This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was speedy redirect to Simpsons Christmas Stories. howcheng {chat} 18:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Springfield Christmas Stories[edit]

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

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Insurance IP Bulletin[edit]

    Not notable. Possible vanity or commercial advertisement. This online newsletter or bulletin is not notable. Google test not complied with. Moreover, the author of the article, Nowa seems to be the editor or a co-editor of this bulletin (See the similar name of the guy pictured on this page [40]). The paragraphs of the article which do not specifically relate to the Insurance IP Bulletin but to "insurance-related business method patents" may be moved in a section of business method patent. Edcolins 15:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 15:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Per comments on talk page. Although from a standpoint of Bulletin readers they would characterize it as important, I agree than an outsider, such as from a Google perspective, might not agree that it is important enough for a separate Wiki article.--Nowa 20:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 21:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nortel learnit[edit]

    It seems to me that this is just advertising (thought non-commercial), please add more info to prove me wrong. -- Aleph4 15:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • weak delete NN technology charity run by Nortel founded in June 2005, a successor to 'kidz online' which has no wiki entry. little online activity, sounds like one of those corporate 'feelgood' things. Maybe an entry on the Nortel page is more appropriate MNewnham 20:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Nortel. -- JJay 02:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 21:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    TEACCH[edit]

    Article makes no assertion of notability, and is only an explaination of the acronym. From Googling I gather that this is a North Carolina organization only. [41] It might be notable, but the article has no content. Delete unless improvements are made. Change vote to keep upon comment by Daniel Case that topic is notable, and improvements made by JJay. --Fang Aili 15:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep and expand Jcuk 17:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and expand. This approach is used very widely with autistic children. Article should make that clear. I don't have time right now. Daniel Case 18:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above. -- JJay 02:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Question Why do we keep articles that have no content? According to WIKI:STUB (which I realize is a guideline and not policy), states, "A stub is an article that's obviously too short, but not so short as to be useless. In general, it must be long enough to at least define the article's title, which generally means 3 to 10 short sentences." This article, in its current state, does not satisfy those criteria. --Fang Aili 14:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Expanding an article is really not too difficult. I added a few lines from the link you provided at the top of this page. I'm sure you could have improved the article on your own, but please feel free to add more info now. -- JJay 14:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't answer my question. And you can be "sure" of whatever you want, but I know nothing of autism or autism therapy and did not feel comfortable adding to this article. My concern is that people come to Wikipedia for information, and if they arrived at this article such as it was when I nominated it, they would think, "Wow, that was stupid. I'm never using Wikipedia again." This is why I said to delete unless improvements are made. Thank you for adding the appropriate information to avoid that. I'm still not sure if the topic is notable, but most people in the wiki community probably lack the expertise to make such a determination. --Fang Aili 15:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for withdrawing your nom. I'm not an expert on autism, I merely took some info from your link. Your point about visitors to wikipedia is well taken, but my concern is more about not driving away contributors who might be able to improve the contents or add expertise, starting with the many tens of thousands of stubs. You never know when the odd visitor is going to see a stub, think "wow, that was stupid", and then spend the rest of their day improving the article. I hope some of those people will be able to bring substantial improvements to the TEACHH article in the future.-- JJay 16:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - If TEACCH really is a widely used approach, then edit the article on autism to reflect that. Endomion 14:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 19:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Vienna Cup[edit]

    No such thing as Vienna Cup that I can find record of. Bigdottawa 15:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep [42] Try here for starters Jcuk 16:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, as it is a real (defunct) competition. Carioca 18:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I dare say it would be better known if a little local difficulty hadn't broken out in Europe in its inaugural year. Calsicol 19:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'keep please it does not make sense to erase this Yuckfoo 21:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Jcuk. howcheng {chat} 23:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep- but someone tell me what sport this is about. It is soccer, right? Reyk 00:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is soccer. Carioca 19:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was speedy keep. —Kirill Lokshin 16:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Kurdistan[edit]

    many of Turkish provinces listed in so called Kurdistan. Find a map and look it. There nowhere so called kurdistan and these provinces not anywhere but in Turkey. Please delete and lock this topic. This is an terrorist ideology which killed thousands of innocent people Uncloaker 14:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Neutrality. howcheng {chat} 23:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Downloafing[edit]

    Delete, non-notable neologism created as of THIS MORNING.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 16:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Leave it alone!

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

    The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 19:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Ed Poor[edit]

    Vanity article, created by, guess who, Ed Poor, delete--1 use 17:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the reasons given in the nomination aren't very good. However, I'd nominate this for deletion myself if it hadn't already been done, for lack of verifiability and significance. I urge those considering the deletion question to think about the merits of the article rather than the nomination or the author. Friday (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep not a vanity article, the person this is about has been dead 40 years. Also co founded a major government associated company.Gateman1997 17:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, seems to be marginally notable :-) However, move to the full name and then delete the resulting redirect. Lupo 17:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Grumman article mentions five other co-founders, shall we have stubs for those gentlemen too? Endomion 17:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and expand. Needs more about Grumman. Capitalistroadster 17:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. We should add articles about his co-founders as well. Grumman was a huge and important company.Gateman1997 19:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move It is a vanity article, sort of. (Our Ed says in the edit history that it's his "gramps".) Probably notable, but needs to be at full name, where it was originally (till our Ed moved it.) Xoloz 18:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see much verifiability or significance here. Delete unless this situation improves. Friday (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. NN. --Fang Aili 18:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep Marginally notable. Try to keep the article creator out of the debate - it really doesn't have anything to do with the situation. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Gamaliel 19:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appears to be notable only as one of five co-founders of Grumman Aircraft - recommend merging this article and the ones for the other co-founders into the history section of Grumman. This is definitely not vanity. B.Wind 19:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to Jake Swirbul, the only reason he was a "co-founder" was that he invested a small amount of money in it. I see nothing to indicate he's a particularly important part of Grumman Aircraft history. And, it most certainly IS vanity to write articles about one's self or one's parents, but as pointed out above, articles should be considered on their own merits. This person appears to have been of purely local interest, so in my opinion is not very encyclopedic. Friday (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Friday's comments above. Ed Poor deserves one sentence at best in the main Grummann article. Flyboy Will 20:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Grumman Aircraft per Friday, but only under his correct name (not "Ed Poor") per Lupo. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep please this is a notable person of long island Yuckfoo 21:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and expand. -- JJay 02:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, another tiresome improper listing. Dan100 (Talk) 20:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per above. Banes 16:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for above reasons, but it may help to give more references, etc. --King of All the Franks 16:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There has been a massive comment-spamming effort by an anonymous IP attempting to keep this article. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Merge anything of substance into the Grunman Aircraft article. --Improv 16:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Incidentally, I wish to note that it seems unusual for such a young account to be nominating things for deletion. 1 use, who are you, and why are all your edits relating to Ed Poor? --Improv 16:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obvious Unregistered users can't create new pages, and since an AfD is a new page...Unregistered users can't create AfD pages, even though there is nothing official preventing unregistered AfD creation--1 use 06:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, seems to be encyclopedic enough. However, Ed doesn't necessarily have the best judgment: a few months ago he added a mention of himself to Charles Lane Poor (who was a notable astronomer). -- Curps 16:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. In my opinion, this article is not a vanity article because it is written about a person who died 38 years ago. Even though the creator of the article may have the same username as this article name, it is not a vanity article since a dead person cannot do so. The article does need to be expanded however. --Peter McGinley 17:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. I think that spamming user talk pages to try getting help in this discussion is a very bad idea. :o) Hégésippe | ±Θ± 17:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP! Notable individual! Merry Christmas and Peace to all! Dwain 18:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not notable in the least.Gator (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Co-founder of Grumman not notable? That's a ridiculous notion. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 00:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply -- It does indeed sound pretty ridiculous until you learn what B.Wind and Friday pointed out, that he was one of five such "co-founders" and that his contribution was a modest financial investment in the company. Then it's not so ridiculous to think that maybe he deserves a mention in Grumman Aircraft and possibly a redirect under his correct name (i.e., not "Ed Poor"), but not a full article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why was a notice of this discussion deleted from my talk page? Dominick (TALK) 22:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • See above notes by ESkog and Curps regarding wide-scale spamming of such messages -- and if the message left on your talk page [43] was a representative part of that campaign, it was not only a massive spamming but a massive violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith: "Editor's contributions singled out for his faith, please help keep this notable article". 172.159.25.124 (talk · contribs) is allowed to think that the article is notable if he chooses but he cannot go around accusing other editors, without any sort of evidence, of "singl[ing] out" Ed's articles because of his faith. Ed Poor's faith is not the issue; the notability of Edmund Ward Poor is. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Being chief beancounter for an aircraft company -- not engineer, CEO, president, etc. -- doesn't count for much. --Calton | Talk 01:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, per Friday.--Sean|Black 06:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. Agree with ESkog's comments. AnnH (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect - Stoph 15:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. anon spamming is not good, but Grumman was large enough for a co-founder to have some notability.--SarekOfVulcan 23:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 21:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Glennoar[edit]

    Looks like a vanity page: It's about someone's fandom RPG character which does not appear particularily noteworthy for Wikipedia. Amphis 16:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete unless we can have an entry on my World of Warcraft character. -- MisterHand 17:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Hilarious. --Fang Aili 18:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 21:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Rainwound[edit]

    Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Interiot 17:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is my first article, so I don't really know completely how the site functions. I got all of my information about the band Rainwound at the official websites. There are samples on the internet and a thousand views to the MySpace page alone, which is a pretty new page. It is not an article to promote my band, because I am just a fan providing this for informational purposes. I would appreciate any help you would be willing to give, but please do not delete this speedily for it was a lot of work, typing, and figuring out how to work this system. Thanks!

    --Oinkness 17:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply] 

    I am a member of my own two bands, check them out sometime! (with a link to Rainwound)
    As far as notability goes though, if you can show that your one-person band meets any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC, then it could be kept in the encyclopedia. --Interiot 18:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Oinkness, since you say you don't know how the site functions, I have taken the liberty of putting a short welcome message on your talk page. --MisterHand 18:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you MisterHand! Now I just must figure out how to get there! ;) As far as notability goes, there are a few things notable which I will list for your viewing pleasure, and you can decide from that wether the article may stay or not. I understand it is up to you and I will hold nothing against you for doing your job, for you seem to do it honestly and very effectively!

    • Has been prominently featured in any major music media. - Rainwound has been featured in some internet magazines, and participated in interviews. You can't quite call that Major media, but it is underground media... Rainwound is an underground band working it's way out into the public musical conciousness.
    • Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. - Brandon S. is a member of a local band called Terranova, and also a band called Harvist localed in West Virginia. Harvist is distrobuted by a label called "Dark Horizon Records". Their work can be purchased from Amazon.com apart from other various locations. A side-project by Brandon S. called Satanic Dirge is to be featured on a USBM compilation sometime in January and also recording a full-length debut for label Appalachian Stronghold. It's not extremely notable as far as Jessica Simpson or the current popular superstar or whatnot, but as far as USBM and underground music goes, it's probably somewhat notable. :)
    • Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. - ...I think the style is unique, but I don't want to toot my own horn here.. It's a mixture of progressive rock and black metal, and video game music.. something that is not commonly done, so it may be prominently representative of a notable style. Rainwound and TerraNova are both located in Burgettstown (City) and are the most varied as far as musical content (rather than the basic punk rock or hip hop that dominates the area).
    • Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. - Radio appearances are currently in negotiation and being sorted out. I think there is an internet radio that already plays songs, and also songs by Satanic Dirge. Still, not major radio network, but depending on who listens it may be heard nationally since it's on the internet and available for anyone.
    • Here's one more, I don't know if it applies - Has been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer that qualifies for the above list. - I was notified by a member of Mourning Glory (note: not the wikipedia one) that they were influenced by Rainwound, and wrote a song called Raven Dawn which was more progressive than their usual material.

    Thank you, and I hope this helps out a bit. Of course the band is working to become more notable, I think that is the goal of most bands, if not all. Everyone wants to be heard! When the final recording is finished, it will be sent to a major record label like InsideOut Records (Prog label), Nuclear Blast America, Century Media, or Roadrunner Records... pretty much the top heavy labels at the moment. --Oinkness 19:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is a huge difference between sending a recording to a major label and having it released, especially for a band's first release on the label. "No contract" usually means no release, especially so on the major national-level labels. B.Wind 20:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Errr ok just a quick clarification here, when I say USBM, I am referring to United States Black Metal. Sorry about the confusion. --Oinkness 19:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Withholding "vote" 48 hours in light of above assertions. However...
    1) All of these assertions would be more effective if they can be distilled into the article and documented with appropriate references. It may be difficult for underground bands, but then again, notability is a part of WP:MUSIC, and that means demonstrating notability is difficult for groups in this genre of music. Underground media by its nature precludes this as a whole.
    2) Notability is not based on what a band (even a one-person band) is going to do. It's "What has it done?" or "What is it doing now?" If you're conceding that it hasn't been discussed in major music media yet, that hurts the article's case.
    • So I just need to add all the accomplishments of the band into the article? --Oinkness 02:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    3) If the band has not yet made a release on a nationally-distributed label or charted on a national sales/airplay chart, notability cannot be attained on this count.
    • Does it count if the release is distributed nationally by the band? CDs have already been sent to all corners of the U.S., and overseas! --Oinkness 02:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    4) A one-person band reflects the notability of the person who is it. To assert notability of the band is to assert it of the member as well. This has yet to be demonstrated here.
    5) Harvist is equally difficult to demonstrate meeting WP:MUSIC as you can't use yourself and your connection with Rainwound to satisfy the notability criterion when you're using your membership in Harvist to establish notability of Rainwound. At least one must stand by itself in order to use that provision of WP:MUSIC. The same is true of Satanic Dirge.
    6) Your article doesn't demonstrate that your act has become "the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city" - and, again, the city itself must be considered. If the city is New York City or Seattle or Miami, it would have much more weight than Huntington, West Virginia, or Chillicothe, Ohio... or Redding, California.
    7) Negotiations for radio performances are different from actual performances. "Major radio networks" must be at least regional, not local, in scope... and the WP:MUSIC specifically mentions "national."
    • Wouldn't internet radio count as national if the stream is viewable from any country or area? --Oinkness 02:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    8) As for the last category that you cite, since Mourning Glory's article has yet to demonstrate that Rainwound is one of its influences, this cannot be applied... yet. Also, I am not sure that the Mourning Glory article would survive an AfD vote should one come up... yet. I'll leave that issue for others.
    • Mourning Glory The Mourning Glory I speak of is not the one featured on Wikipedia, but one from Texas. All I have is a quote from the songwriter saying he was influenced by Rainwound's music. --Oinkness 02:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless WP:MUSIC can be demonstrated in the article with the appropriate references, I'll be returning in 48 hours to urge a speedy delete as a vanity article written by the one member of the band. I wish you the best in trying to get the article encyclopedic, and I hope this commentary helps. B.Wind 20:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. The band was formed less than a year ago and has yet to release a recording. Unverified claims to satisfy WP:Music are meaningles and in this case implausible. Allow them the regular five days to prove otherwise, just to be fair. It can't hurt. Durova 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply from Oinkness to Durova. The full-length demo which is about 77 minutes long can be ordered simply by sending your address to me, and I ship them out for free. Most people use a P.O. Box. I don't have any samples available on the website, however you can currently stream the Christmas bonus track, and one other acoustic song during the Christmas season from the MySpace site. Early February - the other songs will return. --Oinkness 02:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Thanks to the author Oinkness for your courtesy, your information, and willingness to work with the consensus of Wikipedia editors. Please don’t be discouraged if the article is deleted and please continue to contribute to the Wikipedia. We need more editors like you. •DanMS 00:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! I'll try to figure out what I need to do to save this article... if it gets deleted, I'll try not to get discouraged! I'll try to learn more about this system as well and possibly make many more contributions in the future. --Oinkness 02:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE: no attempt has been made in the last 48 hours to make the article encyclopedic (see my multipart comment above); therefore, I urge an admin to close the debate and speedy delete the article as vanity. B.Wind 20:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how to make it encyclopedic, but I would if I could! --Oinkness 15:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    William E. Bell[edit]

    If there is such a thing as a non-notable professor, I'd guess this is the poster child for it. The fact that he received his docorate from a fictional university doesn't help (I assume the anon editor meant NYU, and not the non-existent UNY, but who knows?) Xoloz 17:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was A7ed. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Seth Banner[edit]

    This vanity article has been wiped and degenerated into a debate between wikipedians. Draeco 17:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Vanity article to begin with, and general stupidness to follow. --Fang Aili 18:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete nn-bio --MisterHand 18:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete with extreme prejudice. With text like that he's just begging for this. Daniel Case 18:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete was nn-bio, now no content (ESkog)(Talk) 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nuke with sanction. The conversationalists can use instant messaging like the rest of us. B.Wind 20:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete I have tagged the article for speedy. Chris the speller 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete , take your pick: {{nn-bio}}, {{nocontent}}, {{nonsense}}... Jamie (talk/contribs) 22:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Starboard Cruise Services[edit]

    Advertising for a non-notable company. Google search shows that the first sentence is part of a job ad. Hitchhiker89 18:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. I don't care how notable a company might be; posting promo text here is not going to impress me. Daniel Case 18:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. --Fang Aili 18:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and cleanup. -- JJay 02:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. --Apostrophe 08:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Ad. Gamaliel 08:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    The Demos[edit]

    Promotional and possible spam. User has recreated this article under different names with pretty much the same text Daniel Case 18:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I am Roger Rothenberger the writer of the page Demos - A new fourth branch of American government proposed in book "Beyond Plutocracy". I agree that this page should be deleted. It is not written as well as it could be written. When I received the Wikipedia notice that the page was below standards I attempted to improve it by rewriting its text and by using a better name for the page: The Demos.

    My principal purpose in writing the page was to introduce a new definition for the term demos. If you think this is too promotional, then you should delete the page The Demos as well. But please read it first before deleting it. I really am attempting to introduce a new definition for the term demos. Whatever your decision, thank you.

    • Wikipedia's not the place to introduce your new concepts. It has not achieved notability on its own. Daniel Case 18:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Perhaps transwiki the first 2 definitions of demos to Wiktionary, if they're not already there. --Fang Aili 18:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as original research Jamie (talk/contribs) 22:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was KEEP, but observe the nature of the debate is largely justified by the previous AfD rather than the article itself. -Splashtalk 21:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Assistant teacher programme of the Educational Exchange Service[edit]

    Advertisement for some obscure/NN organization (and not even the organization, but some part of it) Paul 21:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Sports Guys, from where it has been copy-pasted. -Splashtalk 21:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Scott Kaplan[edit]

    Article doesn't really establish notability beyond being a local broadcast celebrity. Also seems rather non-NPOV. You can call me Al 18:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was NO RESULT, the nomination was really just asking for either a different redirect or an RfD. -Splashtalk 22:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dargah[edit]

    Reason why the page should be deleted Gwaka Lumpa 18:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    This page is currently a redirect to "Tomb". A tomb is a place for the dead, a Dargah is a place where Sufis live, train, worship, the nearest European equivalent being a monastery, except a Dargah would not normally be somewhere to live permanently in celebacy. There may be tombs there, but it is not itself a tomb, anymore than a house is a bathroom or a motorway is a signpost. Therefore it should go.

    I'm not knowledgeable enough to create even the stub of an article, but at the moment it is a redirect which is just incorrect. Gwaka Lumpa 18:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    redirect corrected, issue closed? Gwaka Lumpa 13:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Even ignoring the sock puppets, there are 5 delete votes and 3 keep votes, which is not enough for consensus. — JIP | Talk 06:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Konstantine[edit]

    This article should be deleted: Poorly written, POV, self-contradictory, unreferenced article about a fairly unknown song, that is above all not even notable. Any note-worthy information on this song might as well be included in the appropriate album articles or the Something Corporate article, but the song itself does not qualify for an article of its own. HarryCane 18:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete -- article even asserts that the song is "unknown." -- MisterHand 18:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, although I'm intrigued as to why this unknown song has such an extensive edit history. Flyboy Will 20:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and cleanup. -- JJay 02:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - the song itself is a momumental piece of the band's history, and well known inside band circles. It is only unknown because the band traditionally shunned publicity.
      • The above unsigned vote was done by an anonymous IP (User:81.179.78.163) with no other contributions to Wikipedia, and might be a sock puppet. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The song is not unknown because "the band traditionally shunned publicity", but because it was never released on an album with a print run larger than 1000 copies. Also, your saying it is "well known inside band circles" stands in direct contrast to the second sentence of the article ("The song is relatively unknown, largely because it has not been released locally to the brunt of the band's fanbase."). As for the band's history, I find it far less significant than any of their singles, for instance. HarryCane 13:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, or merge with Something Corporate, the song is clearly the band's most popular song, see google results --User:Carie 15:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm in agreement with this. It is a song that, upon listening to, people (such as myself as I did just now) may go directly to Wikipedia via url hoping to find more information on. This is not just any old song, as anyone who has listened to it can testify to. At the very least it should be merged into the Something Corporate page with its own header.
    • Delete, the song does not justify an article of its own. What little would be left of this article after proper cleaning up might as well be included in the related band or album article. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep ryan-d 06:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep this article! (AJGrant) It provides insight into one of my favorite SoCo songs. Perhaps you should merge it with your Something Corporate entry.
      • The above vote was done by a new user with no other contributions to Wikipedia, and might be a sock puppet. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nominator, else merge and redirect to Something Corporate. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 23:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or Merge: This song is a starting point for many fans of the band (including myself). The song, despite no major album release, is a big hit on P2P networks, which has had a big effect on the band's popularity. 99% of the band's fans worship this song - clean it up, and if necessary merge/redirect. thomazhole 1 Jan 2006
      • The above vote was done by a new user with no other contributions to Wikipedia, and might be a sock puppet. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, Clean or Merge TheDriver959 This article is about an amazing song that the whole fanbase of Something Corporate knows. I myself started with this one and worked my way into the band. Andrew McMahon so much as said himself that if it wasn't for the number of fans that adored the song, the band would never play it because it's so long. The article explains the depth of the song and just how many different points of view one can see by listening to the words. And everyone can relate something in their life to this song, be it happy or sad. Konstantine deserves an article of it's own, and if not then it at least deserves a fair mention in the Something Corporate entry.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A7. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 04:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Zatte vrienden[edit]

    useless text and publicity LimoWreck 18:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete - very speedy. Madman 20:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete under the new CSD A7. Jamie (talk/contribs) 22:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Seems to be a porn site. I can’t read Flemish, but all the ads on the front page of the website are for other porn sites. •DanMS 00:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • well, only the ads are like that... the rest of site consists of some ordinary discussion forum, and some useless trivia/news. nothing the keep on wiki anyway --LimoWreck 01:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Deltabeignet. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Ancient Wind[edit]

    Non-notable band. Fully admits to only having one fan. Tried to do a speedy delete, but the page's creator keeps removing the db-band tag, so I'm going this route instead. Vote: Speedy Delete -- MisterHand 19:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete unless somone can provide some kind of source for this OR they get signed to a sweet, sweet record deal on Metal Blade.--Hraefen 19:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as {{nn-band}} under the new CSD A7 Jamie (talk/contribs) 22:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as non notable band and delete images. Capitalistroadster 23:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete, minus sockvotes. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 19:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Paz Itzhaki Weinberger[edit]

    Vanity. NN. Only 39 google hits. No hits in any biographical database I searched. Gamaliel 19:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Delete per nom. ComputerJoe 20:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as vanity. Borderline speedy. Jamie (talk/contribs) 22:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This article is exactly what wikipedia is all about
    • Keep Good article, interesting and informative
    • Keep Accurate data, known person
    • Keep No reason to delete this entry. He is one of the richest men in the middle east. Google in cases like his is a very bad indicator.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Harro5. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Thatte[edit]

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

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

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

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

    • Delete website promotion. Zzzzz 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as NN family under new CSD A7. Jamie (talk/contribs) 22:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Colin Plumb[edit]

    Completing nomination for anon user. The following is copied from the article's talk page. No vote. howcheng {chat} 22:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    This guy doesn't really merit a wikipedia entry under modern cryptographers. He has not published anything in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuanXonValdez (talk • contribs) 12 Dec 2005.

    Yeah, a quick Google doesn't bring up much — can anyone show otherwise? — Matt Crypto 17:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he may have been involved in the development of GOST. He's cited in the appendix of Applied Crypto by Schneier. Other than that, it looks like he's just implemented a few things in the early 90's. Is the goal to list any modern cryptographer, or only notable modern cryptographers? JuanXonValdez 21:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    GOST was a Soviet Union government standard, so I very much doubt if Plumb was involved in developing it — I suspect he merely wrote an implementation of it. The goal is to list notable cryptographers, but, on Wikipedia, deletion of articles is often more trouble than it's worth; my usual tactic is to ignore non-notable topics. — Matt Crypto 11:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose "notable" is always debatable, but it's a shame if that means that there are going to be irrelevant ego-entries.

    I don't think this guy merits a Wikipedia entry, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.22.72.61 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, possibly as speedy, since claiming to contribute to PGP isn't exactly claiming notability. Flyboy Will 22:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as {{nn-bio}} Jamie (talk/contribs) 22:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Borderlien speedy. -R. fiend 16:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - he has contributed to this or that, but what specific thing did he contribute to make him notable? Endomion 16:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Dwain 19:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There's a function in GNU's Java Crypto package that implements an algorithm of his -- he apparently did a popular port of MD5 as well, but he's not listed in the MD5 article. I can't tell if this is enough to keep, but I really don't think it's speedy territory.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Wikt. -Splashtalk 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hot Stove League[edit]

    Neologism Ifnord 19:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Move to wiktionary a dicdef neologism (53,000 google hits including scraper sites) Zzzzz 21:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete dictdef Jamie (talk/contribs) 22:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to Wiktionary. This is no neologism, but I can't see a full article coming out of it. -- Mwalcoff 03:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki - term has been around for decades, but this appears to be a dicdef. B.Wind 06:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am the author and the reason I started the article was because I was hoping to find out how the term originated. Since there was no article at all I started this one. I can reasonably see how it is more appropriate for Wiktionary, as it is just a (fairly common) phrase.--Gangster Octopus 18:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Questionable ahadith in sahih bukhari[edit]

    The title, in addition to its obvious capitalization mistakes, is inheritantly POV. The author admits to taking the information from a third-party site that is copyrighted. The article is completely unencyclopedic in its listing of hadith and then an immediate critique on the aforementioned hadith. Delete. Pepsidrinka 19:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. total nonsense. Zzzzz 21:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not nonsense, but definitely original research. howcheng {chat} 22:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Big three. -Splashtalk 22:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Big Three[edit]

    Neologism +/- original research. Ifnord 19:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - Not sufficiently notable. Endomion 19:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Big three, which contains about 20 big threes. Calsicol 19:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Big Three. The term is quite notable to the professional wrestling community and is quite commonly used. NickSentowski 21:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per Calsicol. howcheng {chat} 22:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect Jamie (talk/contribs) 22:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per others. Shawnc 01:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Motion Will be Redirected on Monday, DEC 26, 2005 unless objections are raised first.NickSentowski 21:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect - well know term should be merged into the redirect --- Paulley 15:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as is used in other contexts Robdurbar 00:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect - the term is often used, though perhaps not often in this sense. Anyone looking for the term should end up at the disambiguation page, not here. --Badger151 09:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Adrian Benton[edit]

    Asserts notability as poet. google 'adrian benton' +poet returns 11 hits. Assume vanity MNewnham 19:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Coming Through[edit]

    I'd call this a pure ad for a Swedish vehicle company, with little context, short enough almost to be called linkspam. They do claim to have a notable product. Xoloz 19:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. Endomion 19:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per nom. «LordViD» 20:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was DELETE. The title is plainly unsuitable for a redirect as it is inherently going to imply POV on its target. Those opting to merge should be aware that there is virtually nothing in the article that can be usefully merged. The title also implies that the content of the article results in potential: this is pure interpretation, and original research which is explicitly disallowed. The delete arguments made here are significantly much stronger than the keep. -Splashtalk 22:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Romania's potential[edit]

    Please anyone who votes "merge", specify whether you want to delete or keep an entry as a redirect to whenever you "merge" info. Actually, as of now, there is no info to merge. --Irpen 22:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • del No content. No context. mikka (t) 19:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't agree until it will be ended the discussion first. Let's wait a while to see the result of the discussion. Bonaparte talk 20:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Completely idiosyncratic non-topic; just a desperate & useless call for attention - AdamSmithee 20:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Strange topic and strange article name. No potential for the article under this name anyway. Importance of Romania for the European Union might be made an encyclopedic article by someone one day, but there is nothing in the Romania's potential article that might ever be useful for that. Accession of Romania to the European Union is already there. Also, no need to keep the redirect, an extremely unilikely search entry. --Irpen 22:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge - Why not create a new section in the Romania article and see what progresses from there? James084 21:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually Accession of Romania to the European Union covers the topic better than this article, so one wouldn't have what to merge. If someone feels the topic needs more information, he can add it in there - AdamSmithee 21:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Keep and expand. Article clearly has not been given time to develop correctly. Nomination seems to have shutdown ongoing discussion on talk page. -- JJay 03:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may now change to "strong keep", but there is no meaningful discussion at the talk page. mikka (t) 04:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, thanks. Strong keep per mikka and my comments above. -- JJay 04:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I am totally bewildered. Folks who vote merge: did you happen to peek into the article? What is there to merge? Here is the whole content: mikka (t) 03:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Romania's potential in EU is given by its size. As the 7th largest nation in EU Romania has a great regional power. Main issues:
    economical power
    geostrategical location
    cultural power
    population size
    • Delete. Seems pretty crystal-bally and originial research. --Apostrophe 07:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: POV. --King of All the Franks 07:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete original research --Ghirla | talk 09:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep- Here may be disscussed a lot of issues, mikka didn't let enough time to expand it. Now is only a stub guys! You have to help to extend it. -- Bonaparte talk 15:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Agree with Apostrophe -- totally, totally, totally emtpy. --Node 17:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either redirect to Accession of Romania to the European Union or delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Even the title suggests only original research content. Pavel Vozenilek 01:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Deltabeignet. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Ancient Wind (band)[edit]

    Article on an amateur band, who has released a demo album and records in a "home studio" picture included. JoaoRicardotalk 20:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was MERGE to Zhou dynasty. I will just add the tag; this clearly needs someone knowledgeable. -Splashtalk 22:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Zhou kings[edit]

    Duplicate of info contained within Zhou dynasty Madman 20:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    do they? ok, undid redirect. vote Merge into Zhou dynasty Zzzzz 21:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. howcheng {chat} 22:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect then, or merge if there's anything useful in it. Jamie (talk/contribs) 22:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    NetRaptor.org[edit]

    Not notable website, alexa rank 1,813,835. Article states that it's one of many Sonic the Hedgehog fan sites so there's no special claim to notability. - Bobet 20:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was deleted by sole contributor. mikka (t) 21:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk talk:Mikkalai[edit]

    Speedy delete, empty article in the main namespace that looks like it was intended to be created as User talk:Mikkalai/Temp or something within the User talk: namespace. Page is protected, so I'm not able to put {{db-empty}} on it. Author's own talk page is protected so I'm not able to notify them of the issue. Interiot 20:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • The page is protected against trolling in my user space. If you cannot do something, don't. Respect other people's intentions. mikka (t) 20:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • User talk talk:Mikkalai is in the mainspace though, not the userspace, that's why the issue came up. If it could be moved to something starting with "User:" or "User talk:", there'd be no issue. (though in addition, Wikipedia:Protection policy says that "Talk pages and user talk pages are not protected as a rule, except in extreme circumstances.") --Interiot 20:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right. I am about to leave on vacation and don't want garbage floating around my page while I am gone. mikka (t) 20:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete and padlock as recreated deleted page. It was recreated one minute after deletion by admin. B.Wind 20:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You obviously didn't encoutner this kind of problem (developer's problem). Let me demonstrate it for you. Just go to User talk talk:Mikkalai and start clicking "its talk page" links. The problem is with the implementation of substitution of templates placed at talk pages which refer to "its talk page". mikka (t) 20:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. I deleted it, asince it attracted attention, and I don't want to waste people time. mikka (t) 21:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Bourque[edit]

    Wikipedia is not a memorial MNewnham 20:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep and expand the story has made to several news sources, so it's fairly notable...depending on how things develop I suppose. --MisterHand 20:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctant delete per nom. Military people who died in the line of action don't automatically get Wikipedia articles without having done something that set them apart from other military personnel before they died. B.Wind 21:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Here's a case where something is totally verifiable but still unencyclopedic. howcheng {chat} 22:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Sounds like an important international incident - "Canada is demanding answers into the killing of a Canadian peacekeeper in Haiti." [44] -- Astrokey44|talk 23:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. -- JJay 02:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Big news coverage on developing story that may affect Canada's relationship with Haiti. Does that make Bourque less important than, oh say Peter Braunstein? -- JJay 12:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Braunstein argument is a red herring; if this incident greatly affects the relationship between Canada and Haiti, it should be mentioned briefly in the appropriate article(s) involving one country (or both). Better yet, it could be distilled and added to either Peacekeeping or Royal Canadian Mounted Police... or both. B.Wind 17:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not that kind of an encyclopedia. Flyboy Will 10:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, as per Howcheng. Please explain what encyclopedia lists the names of every killed soldier in the world. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or merge. Article does not support notability of this individual, if there is a wikipedia article about Canadian peacekeepers in Haiti, perhaps some content could be merged into it. — Eoghanacht talk 10:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep What do you mean that kind of encyclopedia? Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and the insensitivity to this is of great concern. These pages were created out of respect for both living and fallen warriors and your wish to delete them concerns me. You have made this a political issue, which it is clearly not. A few rogue Vandalizer admins who are trying to shape Wikipedia in their own image should not be able to wield power in such a negative way. Who is watching the admins? Have their backgrounds been checked to ensure they aren't prone to disrupting the ongoing development of a true open-source encyclopedia. Seems some users and admins here have been abusing their power beyond reason. As you can clearly see by this category here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Canadian_law_enforcement_officers , there are others who are working to provide information on both living and deceased law enforcement officers. Please do not delete pages before you are aware of the full political implications of such an action.CelebritySecurity 17:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: A police officer doesn't deserve an article just because they exist(ed); out of the four articles filed directly in the category you note rather than subcategories, only one, David Gordon Cheverie, strikes me as a person clearly deserving of an article. And even then, he's notable because he was a recipient of the Cross of Valour. "Killed in the line of duty" does not make a police officer automatically notable -- that argument only holds water if the officer being killed in the line of duty somehow had lasting real world effects, such as inspiring a major new federal law that stiffened the penalties for killing a police officer. Valérie Gignac, for example, simply does not merit an article at this point. The RCMP officers killed in Mayercourt back in March don't merit individual articles (although the incident probably deserves one.) Wikipedia is not a memorial; it's an encyclopedia with specific standards for what belongs or doesn't belong here. Bearcat 05:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep To those that suggest these articles and infobox be deleted, Shouldn't you begin the process of deleting all similar law enforcement officers from this website? Also, please note that the infobox has been written with proper code designating whether or not the officer is deceased or not. It is not intended as a memorial, merely something written to acknowledge the contributions of law enforcement officers, much in the same way celebrities and politicians are listed on this same website. (this unmarked comment was made by CelebritySecurity. May I remind you that you only have one vote? --Tokle 01:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • Keep, I don't see why we couldn't keep such articles as this, it's not like we've got a lack of space on Wikipedia. I think there's a bit too much apetite for deletion around here. It should be moved to Mark Bourque, though. --Tokle 01:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever's done with this (and I frankly don't much care), fix the title if it's kept. Bearcat 05:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for substantial national media coverage of this specific person. Also, this article shows there is some material about his life preceeding his activities in Haiti. Also, in googling for this person, if you exclude the word Haiti, you get a number of articles written in the 1990s about his work related to international drug trafficking, which writers found signficant long *before* his death (the article I linked to was written after his death, but others were written before). --Rob 18:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I cannot understand why this article would be deleted. The death of this peacekeeper in Haiti was widely covered in all major Canadian media as a top story. To Canadian readers, the topic is quite relevant. If this is not relevant then most of Wikipedia would also need to be deleted. I thought the point of wikipedia was that it would be more broad than the typical bound encyclopedia. There are a great many people who would benefit from this entry. I am a little skeptical about the political motivation for deleting this. The article itself does not seem to take a position on Canadian peacekeepers in Haiti but it is plausible that someone opposed to such a mission would be unsympathetic to the death of this man. It is an important fact to note.Someguy963 01:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comments. As a member of a family with people in uniform, I feel I should step up and explain a couple of things here. I have no political agenda to which Someguy963 referred. We need to start with the premise of my vote: Wikipedia is not a memorial. This rule is put into place so we don't have thousands of articles for people who were murdered, died of accidents, or died while in the service in a country's military. My vote is not a lack of sympathy on my part - far from it as several relatives of mine have died in the service of their/my country. So, let's put that argument aside once and for all.
    While that premise holds, it doesn't mean that the deaths of specific military personnel cannot be mentioned in Wikipedia. It means that: A) if their activites prior to their death set them apart from other military personnel who died in service to make them sufficiently notable while alive, they should have an article; and B) if the activity that caused their deaths is itself sufficiently notable, then the person should be mentioned in the context of that activity and in the article discussing the activity, not necessarily in a new article for that person. When I look at these articles, I ask myself, "Which is the bigger story? Was this part of a bigger picture?" and go from there as to the proper location of the article in question.
    In addition, references and mention of instances of A or B above must be made in the article itself, not here as the AfD reviews primarily the article, and many people participating in an AfD judge the article as written first, last, and foremost. Those who are saying there are additional references (and information) to further justify keeping the article should add them to the article NOW, before close of the AfD. B.Wind 12:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but this isn't a biographical article, it's memorial, something that looks like it would show up in a weekend newspaper feature section. I'm sorry for his family's loss, but this isn't the place for it. Delete. --Calton | Talk 01:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 21:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Sonia Perez De Perez, Rosario Perez De Perez, Richard Rodriguez Mendez[edit]

    Hoax. For some reason people keep reverting anon blanking of these pages without bothering to check what's written on them afterwards. No google hits beyond wikipedia on any of them. - Bobet 20:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete all three as attack pages. B.Wind 20:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    SCSI command[edit]

    Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Interiot 20:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • ... and neither is this article. I see nothing in this article that comprises instructions to the reader for doing anything. Uncle G 20:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had always taken that part of WP:NOT to mean that it covered technical manuals as well, since it covers "how-tos" and "instruction manuals". Minutiae from technical manuals had always struck me as not notable enough on their own, as I hadn't seen x86 instruction codes, or individual protocols broken out, or individual keywords from random languages, or documentation for third-party APIs, etc etc. While verifiable, things like that don't seem notable enough to me, unless they specifically have backlinks to more notable articles, and are necessary to explain them (eg. argument of perigee). --Interiot 21:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep just one article of many to do with SCSI, looks ok to me Zzzzz 21:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete as listcruft Jamie (talk/contribs) 22:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment there's a whole category of other similar articles at Category:SCSI. should they all be put up for deletion? whats special about this one? Zzzzz 23:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, listcruft. Aim of encyclopedia is to provide overviews, not to replace technical manuals. Pavel Vozenilek 23:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Mirror Vax 01:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Nice list. -- JJay 02:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Huh? Renata3 04:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and reformat factual and finite. Wikipedia is not paper. Megapixie 05:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I created this page because I could not find any such list in the SCSI manuals. It is existing information, presented in a new way. neilm 05:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This article is a great resource. I can easily envision this reference being helpful.
    Comment above unsigned comment by User:Joe.g made at 9:09GMT, 23 dec. Zzzzz 10:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into the main SCSI article. Firebug 07:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    For the first deletion nomination for this list, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heroes (0th nomination).
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 11:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    List of heroes[edit]

    • del a very loosely defined list, bound to grow infinitely: "People traditionally recognized as heroes." Every person ever awarded by a reasonably high award in every country has a right to be here. We already have categories for these. mikka (t) 20:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I agree with the nomination. I believe this page should be broken down by nationality and there should be some type of requirements for each article about how to get onto the list, because from what I see now, it will be just a list of names. Remember, one man's hero can be another man's worst nightmare. Zach (Sound Off) 21:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Iether Delete or Add me to the list, your choice. --Marco 21:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Inherently POV and unmaintainable. howcheng {chat} 22:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as POV listcruft Jamie (talk/contribs) 23:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 23:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete- listcruft. Reyk 00:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Entirely POV. Just remember, there are several million people to whom Osama bin Laden is a hero. Shall we add him to the list? •DanMS 01:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a shame that some anon worked on it for 3 moonths only to get it deleted Renata3 04:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, then move list of fictional heroes to this location. -Sean Curtin 06:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Toetapp[edit]

    This is an article on what would seem to be a most bogus sport which exists between a few friends. Quote: "the sport was invented in Truro, Cornwall several years ago when a group of friends were hanging out at Malpas Park". The article was written by User:Agros, and there's no coincidence that Agros is listed as a famous "tapper". LInks to a .tk website, but on my talk he claims he's been approached by a TV channel about the "sport". Looks a big hoax to me, but we'll see what debate ensues. Harro5 21:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete not notable. Only 15 hits at Google. -- MisterHand 21:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as bollocks sport Jamie (talk/contribs) 23:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete another bored student nonsense. Renata3 04:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Do not delete' We are not students. The main group consists of a two policemen, a stockbroker and various other workers. It is an insult to suggest wwe are bored students! Although the number of google hits is not very high that doesnot mean that toetapping is not a real sport. All extreme sports have to start somewhere. Give us a break guys. If we weren't for real we probably wouldn't bother defending our right to the page. However even if you do have to delete us please stop suggesting we are students!! Thank you.
      • Comment - that is all very good. But Wikipedia has certain standards for the articles. One of them in notability. And while your sport might be real, it is not notable (not popular, not well-known) to be included on WP. When you'll get your fame, please come back. Renata3 15:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 16:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    ESPN Arizona Cardinals Message board[edit]

    fails WP:WEB, article admits that only a few "regulars" exist (ESkog)(Talk) 21:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - Message boards are, by and large, unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 21:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete - This is vanity at its finest. I saw it on RC, and was about to nominate it for afd myself. karmafist 21:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable message board which fails WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 23:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as User:Karmafist noted. Pepsidrinka 00:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Renata3 04:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 16:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    1 St. Clair Avenue East, 2 St. Clair Avenue East, 1 St. Clair Avenue West and 2 St. Clair Avenue West[edit]

    One line stubs about non-notable apartment buildings in Ontario, Canada. How exciting. Not useful, and unlikley to expand further. Harro5 21:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. I have been thinking the same thing. --YUL89YYZ 21:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all as NN buildingcruft. I know the intersection, and the buildings truly are NN, and ugly to boot. Most buildings in Toronto that have pretensions of notability have at least a chessy name rather than just an address. Jamie (talk/contribs) 23:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all. The anon who created these has long been noted among some of the Canadian contingent for his problematic edit history and his almost pathological inability to discern the difference between existence and notability. Bearcat 00:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all. What Bearcat said. It's possible that there might be something noteworthy about these office buildings (perhaps noted for their particularly appalling brutalist architecture), but there is nothing in the articles to suggest that is the case. Skeezix1000 00:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or else add separate articles for all apartment buildings everywhere. •DanMS 01:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and expand. -- JJay 02:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 02:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I'm pretty strongly in favour of having many articles on buildings, but for these ones there seems to be virtually nothing interesting to say about them. - SimonP 21:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 16:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    10,000 Yards[edit]

    Unverified and without context, this article has been unchanged for months. On the talk page, a user says it doesn't appear on IMDB, and there are no related Google sites. This is too small a film to get a Wikipedia entry. Harro5 21:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Atomic Runners' Collective[edit]

    Silly, unreferenced vanity article, totally unencyclopedic. Possible BJAODN candidate though I suppose. --W.marsh 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Mildly funny, but delete--Hraefen 21:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a Harvard student, I can confirm that ARC does, in fact, exist, and the charter cited is indeed real. The club was started for casual runners to come together, and is not a varsity sport, but the information is accurate. The pictures, of course, are not. I vote keep. --Smee 22:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (Actually by 69.113.75.204 (talk · contribs). Smee (talk · contribs) has zero contributions. Uncle G 23:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
      • As a Harvard student, you should know that "because I said so" doesn't cut it as a citation: maybe one of your profs will let you borrow his or her copy of the Chicago Manual and you can see for yourself. --Calton | Talk 01:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'll change my vote to keep if it is rewritten in a tone expected of an encyclopedia and a source is cited (some type of at least somewhat notable publication) but something tells me this won't happen.--Hraefen 22:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. howcheng {chat} 22:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per above Tom Harrison (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - those students at dorms have nothing better to do. Renata3 04:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: OK, even though I'm not the original author of the article, nor am I a member of the club, I will attempt to add references, as required by Hraefen above. These references are pretty easy to come by, simply do a Google search for "Atomic Runners' Collective". --Smee 16:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Is there some sort of contest at Harvard to see who can get the Stupidest Encyclopedia Article Ever into Wikipedia? D-bag Football, Nick Rose Day, and now this? And if that photo of the Japanese girls in go-go boots are a) runners, b) part of this alleged ARC, or c) at Harvard, I'll eat my hat. --Calton | Talk 01:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Audio Circus[edit]

    Bio of a band's trials and tribulations... gives no evidence they have releases or a label or otherwise meet WP:MUSIC's guidelines. W.marsh 21:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep They got profiled on BBC.. see [45]. howcheng {chat} 22:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems to be a page where any local bands can add their own profile: [46], "Check out some grassroots talent or give your own band or music making a plug." From what I can tell it's not any more difficult to get listed on there than on say, MySpace. --W.marsh 22:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aha, did not know that one. Speedy delete under our new A7 then. howcheng {chat} 23:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, I didn't know yet that CSD had changed again. --W.marsh 23:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable band, possible speedy. Capitalistroadster 23:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy.--nixie 08:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was keep - Izehar 16:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Battle of Earth[edit]

    Tagged for speedy deletion as "(OR: introduces a neologism)". I think Keep because "battle of Earth" gets 63,900 google hits and we have articles like President of Earth. Kappa 21:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    *Delete - Article assigns a new name to an existing battle called the Battle_of_Sector_001 which was a movie fight in deep space on a line towards Earth. Article then mixes in a "Battle of Terra" from another genre (games not movies), whose associated link does not mention anything about a battle of Earth. Author has created a neologism and through original research is linking disparate fictional battles under that cognomen. Endomion 22:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

    Addendum: - Apparently there was a Battle of Earth link on the Wing Commander page after all. I still say delete unless the article is re-written to reflect only the Wing Commander context, which is the only documentation. Endomion 22:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - excellent job fixing the article. Endomion 03:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 22:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jane Musoke-Nteyafas[edit]

    Is this really a notable person? She is suposedly a poet, writer, columnist and playwright – but has not published any works. She has written a couple of articles in a non-notable(?) magazine. What do you reckon? Ezeu 22:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Addition: The reason why I suspected this article and nominated it for deletion is because the first edtions looked like a CV, and the person who initiated it shares the same name with the subject. --Ezeu 00:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • weak keep - seems regionally well-known MNewnham 22:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - "Her first poetry books "Daughters of the Earth" and King David's Rhymes are currently awaiting publishing." I think her Wikipedia page should wait as well. Tom Harrison (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep verifiable. Jcuk 00:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I'm inclined to the belief that a writer I've heard of has to be notable to some extent for me to have heard of them. I'm just not well-connected enough to have heard of a non-notable writer — I don't have hip literati friends, I don't go to poetry readings, I don't spend my money on underground litzines. Though I can't particularly recall where I'd heard of her before, I have heard of her, so by definition that means she can't be a nobody. That said, in the absence of any concrete evidence as to where I would know her from, I can really only vote weak keep. Bearcat 00:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete as per nom. As Tom Harrison says the page can be recreated once her book(s) are published. Dlyons493 Talk 00:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and cleanup. No reason to delete this. -- JJay 02:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - clean article listing a bunch of exibitions. Renata3 04:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I think a lot of wikipedians have a gross misunderstanding of the artist community. An exhibition or a publication in local magazines are not notable. My mother, for God's sakes, has her horrid poetry published in a whole bunch of local papers. Flyboy Will 09:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Autonomous architecture[edit]

    Seems like a cut and paste of a paper of some sort, but I can't find the original. Anyway, as an encyclopedia article, this has lots of issues, mostly POV ones (there's a "conclusions" section at the end. Not coherent at all in its current form, possible original research (since it's drawing conclusions and whatnot). W.marsh 22:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect to Architecture. This looks like a draft of someone's paper. The title is legitimate, but essentially all the content has to go as original research. Tom Harrison (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, essay. Pavel Vozenilek 23:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, don't redirect Renata3 04:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Projectplace (software)[edit]

    Tagged for speedy deletion with no reason given. [47]. This product seems to get a lot of google hits and to have been the subject of a CNBC documentary, so I brought it here. Kappa 22:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I don't see how this software is any different from any other project software. howcheng {chat} 23:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Notability? Renata3 04:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put on the speedy tag without a reason because I thought it was obvious. It's almost purely an advertisement and not particularly notable. Delete. You can call me Al 13:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 23:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    MYSTYLe art[edit]

    NN Pair of artists, if they were musicians they'd be speedied MNewnham 22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete of nn groups is allowed under new CSD A7. We just don't have a template for it to avoid template creep. (It's not common enough...) Just use {{nn-bio|group}}. Jamie (talk/contribs) 23:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete A7 covers "person or persons." howcheng {chat} 23:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 16:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    SCTech[edit]

    This seems to just be two teenaged kids's pet podcast. Not notable, vanity. -℘yrop (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 16:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Arsenal F.C. Supporters[edit]

    Listcruft, endless, unverifiable MNewnham 22:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as really bad listctuft! Jamie (talk/contribs) 23:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 23:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It had been decided long ago on Talk:Arsenal F.C. to eliminate the list of notable supporters. howcheng {chat} 23:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - listcruft/unverifiable (see previous discussion at Talk:Arsenal F.C./archive#Famous_Arsenal_fans). Qwghlm 00:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename as list of well known Arsenal supporters and you might have a reasonable list. Beats me why anyone would support 'em though.....*G* Jcuk 00:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Somehow I dont think Osama bin Laden is an Arsenal supporter! The rest of the list appears to be made up and has many more people than mentioned here [48] -- Astrokey44|talk 00:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete utter toss --Stalfur 04:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete Izehar 15:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    PopBop Records[edit]

    Record label with apparantly no artists or releases, scores 0 on google 'popbop record' MNewnham 23:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • speedy Renata3 04:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete. No attempt at demonstrating noteworthiness. One sentence does not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 06:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable rock band. Capitalistroadster 23:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Dross (band)[edit]

    Fails notability test. See WP:MUSIC. VT hawkeyetalk to me 23:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 15:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Dreamchasers[edit]

    advertising Melaen 23:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Chung Ling High School. That is very hard to sensibly merge. It's in the history if anyone wants it. -Splashtalk 22:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    DoubleCLiCC[edit]

    secondary school magazine , NN Melaen 23:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge with Chung Ling High School when it has enough content to merge with anything! Jcuk 00:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with the school article -- Astrokey44|talk 00:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per above. -- JJay 02:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - there is nothing to merge! Renata3 04:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was DELETE. Obviously, I'm ignoring all the forgeries by the anon, after which things are pretty clear. -Splashtalk 22:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    James Crabtree[edit]

    The article said he gained fame regarding his writings about Iraq, but the Google test seems to say otherwise. [49] (Note - there are quite a few hts for just "James Crabtree," but I think that refers to a number of people with that name.) I can't seen to discern anything at all noteworthy about this guy - he's a Marine captian who's posted on a few political blogs... I discovered this article when I was checking the user contributions of Algore2008, who had been making some blatantly orginal-research and potentially slanderous edits to the Alex Jones (journalist) article. But at any rate, since this person doesn't seem in any way notable, I say Delete. Blackcats 23:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep - it's a tough bordeline case. I am voting keep because the article is quite clean. Renata3 04:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see how it's borderline. 618 Google hits is pitifully low for a blogger! I get more than that for my own name and I don't even have a blog. Blackcats 04:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - relisting for more feedback. Blackcats 07:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC) and Blackcats 09:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge the more significant content into Politics1.com, the web site where his writings were posted. --Metropolitan90 08:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Notable blogger, Guardian contributor [50]. -- JJay 21:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to weak delete. Blackcats makes some good points about the Guardian article + the guy's blog is lame. However, I do think his dispatches from Iraq got some attention at the time, although the radio coverage is impossible to assess. -- JJay 22:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • How do you know that the Guardian author is even the same guy??? The Guardian article was about bloggers, but nowhere do I see the author identify himself as a blogger. Crabtree is a very common last name, and James is one of the most common first names. His supposed claim to fame is that he's written about Iraq, so the relevant Google hits should mention "Iraq" along with his name - but only around 600 do. Hmmm...well maybe some list his writing about "anbar" provence but not "Iraq," (Only 2 do [51]) or perhaps the city of "Fallujah" (Only 7 do [52]) or even his home town of "Austin" Texas (Only a little over 300 do [53], and I'm not even sure all of these are about the same guy). (Note - I excluded "Iraq" for all of those searches to avoid duplicates of hits from the original search.) But at any rate, even a non-noteworthy blogger would be likely to have a whole lot more relevant Google hits than this Crabtree guy does - given the nature of blogs and their ability to create a lot of redundant Google hits. So I have yet to see anyone give any evidence that this blogger's inclusion here is anything but vanity! Blackcats 22:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update - A few more links here - This is his blog. This is his blog profile (it matches with his Wikipedia article), and it doesn't say anything about writing for the Guardian. Here are the sites which link to his supposedly noteworthy blog [54]. I hope this will clear up any ambiguity and confusion. Blackcats 22:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete "James Crabtree" iraq gets fewer Google hits than "Guy Chapman" cyclist. The guy is apparently less notable in his chosen sphere than I am in mine. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • deleteNon notable.Obina 10:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nom.--nixie 14:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Seems like lots of good info. Heard him on the radio a lot here in TX.--Creelcreal 11:10, 28 December 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.209.254 (talk • contribs)
    • I've been on the radio, too. Not just local radio, BBC Radio 4. And I score more Google hits than he does. And if anyone created an article about me I will laugh heartily before AfDing it :-D - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I might be the Pope. Since we can't verify your statement above, can you create an article on yourself and then nominate it please? We need to debate this...although if your statement is true, I might very well vote Keep. -- JJay 19:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep I work on Capitol Hill and his updates via politics1 were well read. Lots of folks, and not just the damn GOPers. I work for a very liberal CA Dem, and we read it a lot. --TeresaC 13:49, 28 December 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.209.254 (talk • contribs)
    • Keep I have taken the libo to merge this piece into the politics1 piece. Still, I rather think it should remain. It seems clean enough. Not sure if that blog was one he used or not. The poli1 link is good though. Lots of writing and photos. Fitzmaurice 13:52, 28 December 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.209.254 (talk • contribs)
    • Weak keep Not bad. Some good info. Maybe a re-write? This is no place for grudge matches or whatever is going on here. Not sure. I'm open to debate. --figgy4fight 15:54, 28 December 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.209.254 (talk • contribs)
    • Strong delete, non-notable blogger. Was inclined to vote weak delete or weak keep, but this obvious, blatant sock puppetry by an anonymous user reaks of vanity bio and is extremely bad faith. (Is it even called sock puppetry if the comments are all made by the same account, or just lying?) --Quarl 02:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition, of 204.65.209.254 (talk · contribs)'s contributions that I looked at (there are many), I classify all of them as simple vandalism, sneaky vandalism, or blatant POV (example: [55] - repeated 3 times). I suggest something be done about this user and all articles he edited be checked for vandalism and POV. --Quarl 02:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was A7ed. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Groszek[edit]

    vanity, not enciclopedic in any way Melaen 23:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 00:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete -- Astrokey44|talk 00:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy. Textbook case of vanity. Renata3 04:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as CSD A7. (Unless of course "his dad gets angry when stuck in traffic" is a notability claim...) Jamie (talk/contribs) 05:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was Delete. JWSchmidt 20:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dimillios[edit]

    restaurant, NN Melaen 23:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Abstain due to annonying abreviation used in nomination. Would otherwise vote delete because of lack of verifiability. Kappa 23:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Apparently a converted ferry boat. Agree with Kappa re undesirability of one-word nominations. Dlyons493 Talk 00:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Nom not clear. -- JJay 02:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete nn sub-stub. Stop acting per WP:POINT when saying nomination is not clear. Just look at the article and everything becomes instantly clear! But agree, longer nominations are much better. Renata3 04:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article was originally created by a sockpuppet of Maoririder, for what that's worth. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and seriously, if you disagree with the nomination, do an Abstain or a Comment, don't vote Keep out of spite! Flyboy Will 09:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was keep - Izehar 16:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Clone (voting)[edit]

    Everything mentioned here is already (or should be) mentioned in strategic nomination. Being a page with a disambiguating title, it shouldn't be turned into a redirect but outright deleted. Dissident (Talk) 23:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - your removal of the links from Bloc voting and Single Transferable Vote made it harder to see why this is actually useful in context. Proposing a clone may be one possibility as a strategic nomination, but the concept of clones goes wider than that. --Henrygb 23:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you expand on that? I see no reason why anything mentioned in clone (voting) wouldn't end up being duplicated from strategic nomination. Even worse, the exact definition of a clone is a very delicate technical issue, with me even just now having tightened it up in strategic nomination. What's the use of having an article that's effectively equal to an earlier version of another? -- Dissident (Talk) 00:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - per Henrygb. Blackcats 00:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- Markus Schulze 10:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral - As it stands now, the clone article does look like it should go in Strategic Nomination, however if there is a use for clones not relevant to strategic nomination and not currently mentioned in the clone article, then that should be mentioned in the clone article. Would anyone care to nurture the clone article? Scott Ritchie 11:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Drini. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Cookie Mongoloid[edit]

    band unnotability Melaen 23:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Izehar 16:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Jean Oury[edit]

    NN see [www.cliniquedelaborde.com/ ] Melaen 23:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep A poor article needing cleanup but this person seems clearly notable - One of the pillars of institutional psychotherapy according to fr.wiki [56] Dlyons493 Talk 00:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per above Jcuk 00:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above. -- JJay 02:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 16:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    IGetter[edit]

    advertising US$25 software Melaen 23:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was delete. JWSchmidt 20:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Michaelpyro[edit]

    Should be userfied to User:Michaelpyro. In fact, it's already at User talk:Michaelpyro. Wasn't sure if I could just move this myself, so brought it to AfD instead. howcheng {chat} 23:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete, no plausible claim to verifiable significance. Kappa 23:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yap, speedy. Some guy desperately needs a place for self-expression. Renata3 04:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was DELETE, as copyvio. -Splashtalk 22:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hounslow Language Service[edit]

    Advertising. Fails WP:CORP. howcheng {chat} 23:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's copyvio of [57]. If it wasn't copyvio it should be kept or merged as an important part of the education service proved by Hounslow Local Authority. Kappa 23:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • rewrite and keep Jcuk 00:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was no consensus - Izehar 16:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Per WP:IAR I'm reopening this decision. I count 7 delete votes to 2 non-meat keep votes. Discounting single-digit-edit-count users is well within parameters for ballot-box-stuffing. 7-2. That's a consensus. Article is deleted. FCYTravis 09:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    RebelForums.org[edit]

    Yet another non-notable bulletin board made up of WP:NOR vios and fancruft. Delete. karmafist 23:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Has an Alexa Rank of 4,876,900, which is actually worse that the Alexa rank of my personal website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It’s worse than mine too, which is 671,505—and is not particularly notable. •DanMS 04:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom: pointless and self-promoting --VT hawkeyetalk to me 03:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and don't forget images - 165 registered members. Cool logo though. Renata3 03:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep. Googled Rebel Alliance Forums, found it ok. Anti-establishment 13:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It. The board is unique in the way it is managed and operated. Its growing steadily and people are commonly interested in its history and operation. It deserves to be more than a petty subsection of che-lives. Gent
    • Keep It. The Rebel Alliance Forums have only been operating for a short time and will surely grow in due time. If we keep the article on Wiki, more people will become aware of the site and help it grow even further. As Gent pointed out, we deserve to be more than a sub-section of Che-lives. Makaveli
      • Comment User's 3rd Edit [59]. He put in this edit under 172.188.121.205. karmafist 18:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep it, it's informative, it's a place for people to discuss their ideas and it's innovatively run. it's growing in numbers every day and has plenty of potential that people have the right to access to information about it. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 88.111.206.225 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It. Rebel Alliance is a young board, but one that is growing. It is indeed unique in it's management, and the democratic nature of it's member participation. The constant attempts to malign the board are tiresome, and more than a little sad, really. Regardless of people's personal opinions/history - the last thing the left needs is fewer voices and forums for discussion. Attempting to have Rebel Alliance deleted from Wiki is foolish, vindictive, and counterproductive. Keep it. User:por ahora —the preceding unsigned comment is by Por ahora (talk • contribs) 19:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep --Revolución (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Unencyclopedic forum with an article full of stupid Message Board Drama (tm). FCYTravis 03:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete - Recommended purely due to my own personal hatred of sockpuppetry. Daykart 05:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. nn (My 3,676th edit) --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was keep - Izehar 16:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Joshua Silver[edit]

    vanity Melaen 23:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep and cleanup. The WHO say a billion people need glasses. If he can help - he's notable. Dlyons493 Talk 00:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cleanup - quick google verifies him as Oxford prof who received some awards for his optics. Renata3 03:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and cleanup. Notable professor at Oxford who has won awards for innovation in affordable eyeglasses. -- DS1953 talk 06:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the debate was keep - Izehar 16:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Meinakoz beach[edit]

    advertising Melaen 23:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result of the debate was delete Izehar 16:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    New Protein Bar[edit]

    advertising Melaen 23:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • delete. The same info was included in Dar es Salaam anyways. The bar seems to be real, but I don't think it qualifies as notable (of course, I lack local knowledge and google seems to be quite inadequate in this case). Renata3 03:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_22&oldid=1081091897"