Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 24 December 26 >

December 25[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 00:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rasor Elementary School[edit]

Delete. This is a non-notable elementary school in Plano, Texas. I am from Plano and can think of no reason why Rasor, or most any elementary school anywhere, is notable. The article has only been edited by two users: the creator, who just registered recently and only has 2 page edits, and an anon IP that wikified some things. -Scm83x 00:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If edited it too and I'm from Georgia and I have loads of edits. It's a nice article. Golfcam 01:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Number one, there's a category for elementary schools in Texas, and number two, I wish I had this newfangled wikipedia thing when I was a little girl, I would have written about my school. Endomion 02:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the schools in the elementary schools in Texas are K-12 schools (and are in all 3 categories elem middle and high), had a bombing/suicide occur there, or have multiple famous graduates. Please look at how much Rasor sticks out in this list at Category:Elementary schools in Texas. I see absolutely no reason why Rasor is notable. None. -Scm83x 03:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. I removed some non-relevant material. --Quarl 02:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please don't list schools, as there is a sufficent body of voters on AfD that will vote to keep any school article. See WP:SCH. It's not notable, but there's been enough debate on AfD on the subject already.--Prosfilaes 02:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per precedent already set for all schools. Jcuk 02:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you cite the precedent? Where is it said that any article with school in it can be kept automatically? -Scm83x 03:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precedent implies practice not a rule. There will probably never be a policy which says that because some users won't stand for its introduction, but school articles don't get deleted anyway. Bhoeble 04:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a nice article. It just needs to be expanded. -- JJay 02:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons already given. Bhoeble 04:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Strong Delete. Even though I'm a 1997 Rasor Elementary School alumnus myself, I absolutely cannot see any use in keeping this article. As for the content, there is very little information regarding the school itself. Most of the information is about John Henry Rasor, his family, his properties, and related developments in the history of Plano, Texas. Sure, it's a nice backstory, but it has nothing to do with the school. We don't stick all our information about Todd Beamer under an article about the post office that was named after him. We don't put Martin Luther King's information under an article about one of the many streets named in his honor. If this information is relevant, it should stand on its own in another article. With regards to relevancy to Rasor Elementary, all but the first three and last sentences should be removed.
Those voting "Keep" will then argue that the content can always be changed, but that we shouldn't delete the article itself. I've seen the massive debates about school notability, and I normally side with those who want to keep as many articles as possible. I usually hesitate to delete most school-related articles. However, it's important to note the structure of Plano's school system - there are 45, unindividual, non-notable primary schools, with more being built all the time. The secondary schools are big enough to justify an article, but this article simply does not - think 45 articles with no notable information except their location and founding date, unless you want to include the fact that, say, Mendenhall collected the most aluminum cans in such and such year.
Others want to go on "precedents" or "implied practices." The implied practice on Wikipedia is not to have a separate article on individual schools in a massive, bureaucratic school district. If you search for directories of schools on Wikipedia, the best listing you'll get is one of New York's high schools. Would we possibly want a listing of each of the hundreds and hundreds of New York City's primary schools? No! Primary schools are largely nonnotable when you single out one in a massive web of dozens or hundreds of completely standardized buildings.
Finally, when we look at the category it's listed in (primary schools in Texas), there's nothing that allows Rasor to stand out on its own. There's been no bombings or shooting, it doesn't cater towards a special group of kids, there's been no long history of tradition - it's not even unique within its own school district!
I believe that most of the school-related articles on Wikipedia should be kept. But there is a limit to me leaving a "Keep" comment when something is this nonnotable and the content is this offtopic. -Rebelguys2 06:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with all of the positive feedback above. Plano is one of the few places I know where all of the schools are named for local heroes/pioneers/etc. so it would be nice to know about the namesakes. Maybe people will write about the others as well? If a student at say George Washington High School or Martin Luther King Middle School (i.e. those who are at the New York City schools mentioned above, most of which are simply named after numbers anyway) can look up more info about his school's namesake, why can't a student at Rasor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.210.234 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I just looked at some of the other local school district's articles and there are several schools that have their own entries without even saying who the namesake is - simply stating BLANK is a high school in the BLANK Independent School District. The private school articles (check out Greenhill's) also don't add much. The Rasor article does say something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.210.234 (talk • contribs)
I went ahead and struck out one of the two preceding "Keep"s, as they came from the same person one after another. Regardless, they were unsigned by an anonymous IP user, so the votes technically shouldn't count. I'll go ahead and respond, regardless:
Your argument fits well with my vote for deletion. You're saying that a student should be able to look up the namesake of their school, which is precisely why I forked the information to John Henry Rasor as you were writing your comment. The article about the person should stay at the person's own article - not one about a school. Why don't we create an article about "Rasor Boulevard," then, and stick his biography in there? We don't because it's irrelevant and in the wrong place.
Finally, you argue with other examples of school-related articles. Greenhill school, for example, is notable because it is "the region’s first co-educational independent school." It isn't much of an article, especially with lines like this, "Philip Kafka - Graduated in 2005 with a major in women studies and a minor in throwing parties.," but it has at least a very minor degree of notability. -Rebelguys2 06:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with John Henry Rasor, per arguments set forth by Rebelguys2. KillerChihuahua?!? 08:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per arguments above. Unmerge later if, by some tragedy, this school becomes subject to major media news coverage. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:25, Dec. 25, 2005
  • Keep and Merge to district if/when article created per WP:SCH. --Rob 13:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Proposing to merge an article about a school into an article about a person shows a complete disregard for the category system. CalJW 15:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see how merging this article shows a complete disregard for the category system. When this article was first put up for deletion, it mostly contained information about the person, John Henry Rasor, rather than the school. After the massive debates at WP:SCH, many contributors now automatically vote keep to school articles. I am often an inclusionist when it comes to school articles myself.
As a result, it simply comes down to the debate about whether we should delete schools - NOT a debate on how categories work in Wikipedia. WP:SCH argues for the merging of this article. I've followed many of the recent talk pages in WP:SCH and Schoolwatch, and they often agree on keeping high school articles as they are. However, the custom is to merge schools like this into the district page. You will see that many of the often knee-jerk "Keep" voters here have agreed that this article should be merged with the district article - this is all in accordance with WP:SCH and all of the customs we have seen on Wikipedia thus far. -Rebelguys2 20:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rebelguys2, you may disagree with the votes of others, but you needn't insult them. Please consider being WP:CIVIL. --Rob 21:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my comments, and have struck out the offending line. In the heat of this debate, I let the unintentional holier-than-thou attitude in the back of my head through. ;) Again, I apologize, as I am rarely one to intend to insult people. I hope we can continue this debate civilly. -Rebelguys2 21:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion as CSD A7 JoJan 16:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orcs of Dominion[edit]

Seems to be a NN association of players on a certain server in a MMORPG.. --Mysidia (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - for the same reason a chatroom article or blog article would get zapped. Endomion 01:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Preost talk contribs 04:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 04:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 05:30, December 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per apparent failure of WP:WEB. Move to Speedy delete, under new, shiny CSD A-7 extension to encompass unremarkable groups. I believe a fifteen member MMORPG gaming clan qualifies. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 06:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Saberwyn. Thesquire 08:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedily as a gamer guild vanity of type A7. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:28, Dec. 25, 2005
  • Speedy delete. Non-notable clan --Quarl 10:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. I tagged is for speedy deletion per CSD A7. Lets see what happens. Movementarian 14:05, 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, well, I think it's a delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indianpad[edit]

Not in the top 100k sites on Alexa.. it seems to me the site is not popular; being a recently-created Digg clone is not an indication of being notable enough much to merit an article, IMO. --Mysidia (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I agree with what was said above, plus it appears to be advertising as the user that created the page has only one edit... and it was the Indianpad page. Deskana 00:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It seems enclopedic. Luka Jačov 01:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a teensy blog with bandwidth problems. Endomion 02:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Preost talk contribs 04:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 04:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only is there no Alexa data at all, but there are only 7 Google results, 3 of which are part of the site itself. --Joel7687 08:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Quarl 10:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Zookman12 19:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination -- Ganeshk 22:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per not notable enough VegaDark 00:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with many a Christmas wish. gren グレン 03:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - NeoJustin 05:26, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems it was deleted earlier & has been re-created. It is a blatant Spam with 13 links from 1 page. The whois shows it is registered under a fictitous non-existing address/telephone.

Whois Address is 11, Indian Street Whois Tele no is +1.1111111111 Fax: +1.1111111111 JimmyNet 06:01, 29 December 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 slow and steady delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson Gothfraidh[edit]

vanity, not notable Ronabop 00:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted - the accurate way to put this is, patent nonsense :) FCYTravis 04:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy of Terror[edit]

The kind way to put this is original research. Endomion 01:08, 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 has carried the field. Note that most objections stem from the original researchiness of the current article, or the belief that the article should not stand on its own. I see no reason why a similar list (with references) couldn't be placed in the Star Wars article if anyone feels like making the effort. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Impacts of Star Wars in films (was List of films imitating Star Wars)[edit]

Hopelessly POV attack list. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Wikipedia articles of the listed films indicate they were so-and-so's answer to Star Wars. Endomion 01:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
imiatating is a necessarily pejorative word. If it were "Impacts of Star Wars in film" that would be encyclopedic, as the word impacts shows that the matter is not concrete- not to mention that the article talks about older movies being re-released when starwars became popular. And hey, I just changed the title, and am editing the introduction to make it clear that the article does not mean that these films were made soley to be like starwars. None of these actions is an endorsement of this article.Lotusduck 02:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Lotusduck, but you should not assume bad faith, it so happens that I've seen and love almost all of these films. I do think that being rigorously NPOV in this case actually obscures the historical phenomenon that is being brought up. Endomion 04:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Documents copy-cat aspect of film business. Needs a new title and better introduction. Message for nom- nothing is hopeless. -- JJay 02:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nom could have left more than ten minutes to editor to work on article, or as a matter of courtesy left message on talk page. -- JJay 04:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was going to say that, but having the article nominated so quickly took all the wind out of my sails and I didn't care anymore after that. The old biter bit routine I guess. Endomion 05:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm sorry you were treated like that. Certain noms seem to enjoy treating everyone as vandals by tagging articles as fast as they can. They assume bad faith on the part of the editor and make no effort to explain their thinking prior to adding the AfD template. Instead of weeding out poor or borderline articles from the site, this type of approach mainly succeeds in driving potential valuable contributors away. -- JJay 05:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Can merge any encyclopaedic info into the main Star Wars article(s), but this article is not itself encyclopaedic. --Daveb 04:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Preost talk contribs 04:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be original research; and if there are reputable sources for this, this absolutely does not need its own article, and should be a footnote to the main Star Wars article. Flyboy Will 04:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree - original 'research', per nomination. Drmandrake 04:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename, and expand. There's no question that Star Wars has had an impact on film. -- MisterHand 06:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parts of the title are notable enough to be on Wikipedia (as Impact of Star Wars). This article isn't. --Apostrophe 08:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research doesn't belong here. Pavel Vozenilek 08:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into main Star Wars article Jakiah 10:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Lotusduck. Scoo 10:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - May be OR, and anything usable should be merged to Star Wars -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In it's current form the article merely lists science fiction movies released after Star Wars claiming that there was an impact. Whilst I agree that Star Wars had an impact on later films, it didn't start the craze per se. It could just as easily be argued that the original War of the Worlds film, or even the original radio broadcast, started the science fiction craze that spawned Star Wars, Star Trek and the like. Also the lack of credible sources on the subject may prove that the article can never be successfully recreated. Movementarian 14:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Star Wars. Article title verges on idiocy. Xoloz 20:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, and none of the "findings" are substantiated. As a list, it's just POV, and if a film was influenced by Star Wars, or made a response to Star Wars' box office success, the influence should be mentioned on the film's page. --Pc13 22:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it stands the article provides no references or proof that these movies were in fact influenced by Star Wars at all, and thus constitutes original research. Zunaid 14:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. User:Zunaid is correct. Preaky 23:27, 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 speedy delete, but deleting admin forgot to close. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy filippini[edit]

This article is a hoax. Delete Golfcam 01:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - hoax, the "lack of bearded clam" is the first giveaway. Endomion 01:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - bad hoax. Drmandrake 05:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete ludicrous. --MisterHand 06:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. --Joel7687 08:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Hoax. Are people just inserting random nonsense here to see how long it lasts? --Wingsandsword 08:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax --Quarl 10:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. There is not a provision under CSD for speedy deletion of hoaxes. Movementarian 14:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a CSD for patent nonsense however, which this clearly is. --MisterHand 15:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • CSD G1: "Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes." I don't think this qualifies as patent nonsense either, if I am interpreting CSD G1 correctly. Movementarian 15:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN JDoorjam 16:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please enter votes that make sense to others unfamiliar with your acronyms.--Aleron235 16:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added wikilink to help with the confusion. Movementarian 17:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • :: ahem :: "Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense" -- that is, exile it to BJAODN, the Elba of Wiki hoaxes. JDoorjam 17:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • with due respect, Aleron235, BJAODN is mentioned near the top of Wikipedia: Articles for deletion as one of the accepted options for deletion nominations. BL kiss the lizard 02:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Aleron235 16:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely ridiculous.--ViolinGirl♪ 18:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. This must be made up... all of it... Zookman12 19:37, 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 looks like a keeper. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thou shalt not give Hitler posthumous victories.[edit]

Quoth, "Since World War II this has been a popular but unofficial addition to Jewish Talmudic Law." There is one hit for the phrase itself, and the minimal contents could very easily be merged into the Hitler article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is a precipitous nomination that ignores my edit note: I have been having computer problems and need to reboot frequently. There are over 26,000 Google hits for the phrase as stated this way [1]. This is known by several terms including the 614th commandment, a representative sample of which will appear in the final draft. The original title is a direct quote from Emil Fackenheim, the statement's original framer. I request withdrawal of this nomination. Three sources including National Public Radio are already cited within the article. Durova 01:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 613 mitzvot Endomion 01:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ABSOLUTELY DO NOT MERGE WITH MITZVOT. While this may or may not have merit, it does NOT belong there. JDoorjam 16:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. ABSOLUTELY DO NOT MERGE WITH MITZVOT. While this may or may not have merit, it does NOT belong there. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is accually in clear violation of one of them, the one that goes some along the lines of "thou shall not add or remove". 220.233.48.200 23:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not merge this neologism with the 613 mitzvot. Fackenhein was not God. IZAK 04:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Please at least wait for the article to be written before calling for a merge. Three of my recent new articles have been featured on "Did you know...?" I'm less than halfway through a first draft. Durova 01:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My only hassle with the article, Durova, is the long name -- no one would type that into the search box to find it. Here is my reasoning: There is an article titled The Eleventh Commandment but not one titled Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican Endomion 02:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • When it's completed it will have redirects from other formulations such as 614th commandment. People usually paraphrase the concept, which makes the title a challenge. Please assume good faith in the meantime. Durova 02:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, there you go, start the 614th commandment article, copy all your content to there, and then redirect this article to the new one. Endomion 03:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • As you can see from a few responses, this evokes strong reactions among the people it concerns most. To address this important subject requires caution and taste. Durova 21:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is absolutely no such notion in Judaism as a "614 commandment". This was all purely an invention, a neologism, from the mind of Fackenheim, where it should be re-deposited. IZAK 04:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep Let the guy finish writing his article, and stop pestering him. Wikipedia will not collapse if you give this guy a month to write his article. Travb 02:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice approach to obviously important subject. I wish the noms here would start following the wiki commandment- respect thy fellow editors. -- JJay 02:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Durova's comments. TerraFrost 02:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is an important and well-sourced subject. Carioca 03:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but as noted, it's gonna need some redirects and serious linking for anyone to ever find it. I found "Jews are forbidden to hand Hitler posthumous victories", "the 614th commandment is: to survive", "Thou Shalt Not Give Hitler a Posthumous Victory", "Do not grant Hitler a posthumous victory", and the fuller piece of the original text (which would make a *really* bad article title) "...we are first commanded to survive as Jews, lest the Jewish people perish. We are commanded, second, to remember in our very guts and bones the martyrs of the Holocaust, lest their memory perish. We are forbidden, thirdly, to deny or despair of God, however much we may have to contend with Him or with belief in Him lest Judaism perish. We are forbidden, finally, to despair of the world as the place which is to become the kingdom of God, lest we make it a meaningless place in which God is dead or irrelevant and everything is permitted. To abandon any of these imperatives, in response to Hitler's victory at Auschwitz, would be to hand him yet other posthumous victories"..... etc. Ronabop 04:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My user page links to the other articles I've created. A quick browse should allay your concerns. One step at a time: these categories and links will come after I finish editing quotes from several rabbis, a Catholic professor of theology, and a Unitarian Universalist minister. To invite readers prematurely - before the sections and quotes are balanced for NPOV - could give deep offense to people who lost family in the Holocaust. Durova 04:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, verifiable, encyclopedic. Flyboy Will 04:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm sure the most proper title for this article will be figured out down the line, so I'm not really worried about that. Durova's clearly explained himself enough with regards to the legitimacy of the aritcle and his intention to title it as properly as possible. Some of you guys are simply too trigger-happy with your AfD nominations. - Liontamer 04:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic. Drmandrake 05:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepper Liontamer. Let's give the article some time to develop. Movementarian 10:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First draft done. Getting some rest before the tweaks and proofreading. I welcome feedback now. Regards, Durova 10:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article seems to be underway, keep as per Flyboy & others. Scoo 11:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, extremely well-written article so far, and a work in progress.--Aleron235 16:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it can not be added to one of God's commandments. But throught the power of the Sunheadren, it could be added to the 7 Rabbincal commandments. I am willing to change my vote if this was change to reflect this. 220.233.48.200 19:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: this is one reason why the title is not 614th commandment although Rabbi Fackenheim did propose it by that name. The introduction explicitly states that this is unofficial. If you can find a reference that adds it to the 7 Rabbinical commandments I'll add a mention to the article. I welcome suggestions and contribution that would add to balance and NPOV. Would you really delete this important subject over a technical objection? Durova 20:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: ripped from my reply on my talk page: You misunderstand me, I was saying this couldn't be added to the 613 (thou shall not add or remove). The only thing possible would be to the 7 (I do asume you know what the Sunheadren is). And that in itself is not that possible. It can't even be called unoffical, that is a clear violation of "thou shall not add or remove." This person you call Rabbi, has not got Smicha (Rabbincal Degree). Do you call some wacko on the street doctor, just because he calls himself a doctor and use him as a doctor? Do I hear a no? Why do people make weird exception for the title Rabbi? Don't give a person a title that needs a degree that they don't have. 220.233.48.200 22:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unless I'm mistaken, he was a Reform Rabbi as well as a professor of philosophy. I would gladly change any relevant reference if that proves to be false. Your criticism appears thoughtful and I would like to include it in the article. Please provide a reputable source that I can cite in the text. Bear in mind that Wikipedia has articles on ideas that aren't true such as phrenology. A good Wikipedia article doesn't endorse a controversial idea. It just reports both sides fairly. That's what I've aimed to do - literally overnight - and it's unrealistic to expect perfection so soon. I hope you support this article and help to make it better. Durova 23:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I found four reputable sources that confirmed he was a rabbi. Please comment on article talk. Durova 00:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • He is just like that wacko on my street that calls himself a doctor, but hasn't got a doctor's degree. He has not got a valid Rabbincal degree. Please refer to Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, chapters 63 - "The Prohibition of Deceiving Others with Words and Misleading Others." And look up the laws of what Smicha is in the big Shulchan Aruch. 220.233.48.200 09:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per other keepers above. Logophile 01:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Let's review what we have for a moment - it's a phrase which sums up the thesis of someone's book. Wonderful. Give the author a page, the book a page, but the phrase doesn't deserve an entry. (Heck - it's an admitted neologism for crying out loud). Secondly, the page is filled with things which are blatantly false - Some Jews regard it as an addition to Jewish Talmudic Law. - some Jews also regard Elvis as still alive, but that's not how we do things on WP. There is absolutely no normative claim under which this can be considered an addition to talmudic law. (For those of you don't know, the Talmud was written between 200-550 CE, and as such, it's a little hard for any 20th century person to be able to claim an addition). The claim that it's another mitzvah is also nothing more than a misinformed joke. People frequently like to joke about the ""1th commandment" or the "614th mitzvah", but the truth is it's just that - a joke, or a phrase used to convey the importance of something with no real fact behind it. Take the worthwhile info and merge in Emil Fackenheim, but the rest of this page is poppycock. --אריאל יהודה 03:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nomination is about the existance of concept which has been addressed. Title and content concerns can be addressed sepearately. novacatz 04:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • COMMENT About the new title Do not give Hitler posthumous victories please don't use copy-and-paste to perform moves (correct me if I'm wrong but it looked like that. Also, it's be better if the move waits for this AFD to be closed, so there wont be dangling pointers (and this debate can still be linked) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, especially to admin I've done a move/redirect to a more NPOV title. Please double check to make sure I've done this in accordance with AfD policy. To other editors: I've added a new section about terminology to include the passage from Deuteronomy that some editors believe Fackenheim violated and I've made other edits to address this unintentional POV issue. POV is not grounds for deletion and I am responding to concerns. Durova 06:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well - I tried. Looks like someone didn't like the idea. By the time I finished composing that comment there were two pages redirecting to each other. I reverted to the last version under the old title, but as soon as this leaves AfD this will move to a new name. Regards, Durova 07:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm justp pointing that I think it was a copy-and-paste move, not the proper way to preserve article history for gfdl compliance, so I undid it. I'm not opposing the move per se. And as it was stated above, this debate is about the content not the title. Again, I may have been wrong thinking it was a copy and paste move, if so I'll move it back. I'd just prefer to wait until the afd closes (which determines if the content is suitable or not) and then we can use a proper move to the new title. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I wasn't sure it was done correctly. The hasty AfD nomination has made an ambitious article harder. No early draft on this topic can achieve the balance and good taste that the subject demands. User:220.233.48.200 convinced me the title was POV in a way I hadn't anticipated. Durova 08:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. I've heard of it before. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 11:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Emil Fackenheim in condensed form. It has not exactly started living its own life. The intro is quite POV, but that can be corrected. JFW | T@lk 16:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per JFW. This is not an encyclopaedic topic, it's one man's opinion. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per JFW. I have yet to see that this is any more than a proposed commandment. Until it is adopted by a wider body, it's better to be merged into an article discussing the person who proposed it. B.Wind 20:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge per JFW. Alternatively, if there is a wider issue to be addressed, should there be an article called (something like) "Judaism after the Holocaust"? This would be about reaction to the Holocaust by a culture/religion, rather than by Israel (which is already covered) or individual Jewish people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackyR (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Both by importance and by length, this seems to be worthy of its own article. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could write a 90kb article about my cat, but that doesn't make her worthy of an article.--Sean|Black 02:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not funny. Unless notable, it will be properly put for deletion. OTOH, if a concept is important and the article describing it is sizable, why merge? Do we keep all articles describing concepts to the biographies of their authors? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't trying to be funny, and you missed my point. The length of the article is not relevant, because, if you put effort into it, you can write a very long article about anything--Sean|Black 00:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it was you who missed the point. The factor of importance was repeated several times, but you kept ignoring it and changing the subject. For shame. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Huh? "The factor of importance"- the only one mentioning importance was you, and all you said was "it's important". It is, important not disputing that, but it's not important enough for it's own article. It's good information, but it's too detailed- that can be fixed, but once you are able to condense and NPOVify, this would be small enough to merge.--Sean|Black 23:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per JFW.--Sean|Black 02:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - As per all the others. Daykart 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Keep or Merge with Emil Fackenheim, but in either case condense and NPOV. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I think this vote has been contaminated by being nominated before the article was even written. Later on, if someone wants to nominate it in its final form, that would be something else. (Just because I like the article doesn't mean it's a good one :-) )--SarekOfVulcan 04:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and don't merge. I'm the author and I'm finally voting to voice this: the phrase is known among people who cannot name its author. As the citations and examples show, it's a concept that has achieved a currency separate from and beyond the original meanings he attributed to it. Am I the only one who finds it distasteful to see a discussion of Hitler's legacy trivialized by comparison to a housepet? Durova 03:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's always a redirect. Most people who know this phrase do know about Fackenheim. JFW | T@lk 13:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh... I was talking about the article, not it's subject.--Sean|Black 23:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Let him work some more, then worry about the name etc. For me it's not an issue of trivialization or distaste, if it's notable then it's notable and deserves an article. But, I think that a rename and merge are definitely in the article's future. --Easter Monkey 03:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Emil Fackenheim. IZAK 04:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - does not confrom with NPOV at all. Very anti-Semitic and not neutral whatsoever. It can be included in Wikipedia but only if countered with information against the statement. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • POV is not a reason for deletion. If you get this impression then I welcome your contributions to make the article better. The claim of anti-semitic bias is surprising. Could you elaborate? Durova 05:54, 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 SPEEDY DELETE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gnarly-skull[edit]

non-notable band, no sign of meeting WP:MUSIC. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no citations given for notability. Endomion 01:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 00:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lutz[edit]

Non-notable. TerraFrost 02:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Full prof., author of three books on economics + no reason given for deletion. Is this nom a joke? -- JJay 02:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not laughing. Being a full professor is hardly a reason for having a wikipedia article. None of my professors - many of whom have several books published - have wikipedia articles. Why should this one?
I mean, serriously, the most notable thing about this person is that he's the brother of someone whose notable. Being the sibling of a notable person hardly merits a wikipedia article, and neither does this person.
As for why I didn't give a reason... I thought the non-notability of this article was self-evident. I guess I was wrong.TerraFrost 02:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First, I think you should write articles on your professors, because we need more articles on academics. Second, I don't know anything about Professor Lutz's brother, but I do know that Lutz's books are sold through Amazon and B&N [2]. That's good enough for me. -- JJay 03:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose every author who has a book for sale at both Amazon and B&N should have a wikipedia entry, too? Even if no articles currently link to them, as is the case with this article? TerraFrost 10:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That there are links to an article may speak in its favour, although not without exception, but the lack of such links may just mean that the area has so far been overlooked. I am sure there ar more links to any random pokemon figure than to Lutz, but that is just a result of some people's obsession with dedication and hard work on such matters, not an indication that the pokemon character in question is more important to the world at large. u p p l a n d 10:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If people are passionate enough about something seemingly benign to frequently edit it [3] and link to it, it seems reasonable to assume that people are going to be passionate enough about it to read it. This is not the case with this article. No edits for months on end. Until this vote for deletion.
One of the explanations I've seen thrown around for the John Seigenthaler debacle [4] is that factually inaccurate information tends to go undetected in low traffic articles, and this article, in case you haven't noticed, is a low traffic article. TerraFrost 10:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is an obvious problem, which at some point (soon I hope) will be remedied by moving new articles, as well as hopefully old articles displaying certain characteristics, into a holding area for fact-checking and cleanup, but it is not really an argument for deletion. Seigenthaler may not be as significant as the whole scandal has made him look, but the reason the article was little edited and the murder allegations went undetected for so long was not his lack of notability. u p p l a n d 11:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Although I suppose it doesn't really, now, I believe the above does constitute cause for deletion because I believe that having no article is better than having a factually inaccurate article, and as I've already attempted to show, an article with as little traffic as this one is ammong the most likely of articles to have factually inaccurate information. It doesn't enrich the experience of most wikipedians (ie. it doesn't add anything), either, due to the low traffic this article garners. So, basically, I don't believe it really adds anything and I believe it actually has the potential to do harm, since it is, as I said, among the most likely of articles to have factually inaccurate information added to it (and since factually inaccurate information can, I believe, be harmful). TerraFrost 23:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should change your reason for nomination from "not notable" to "not enough people edit this article". --Quarl 01:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't "not notable" and "not enough people edit this article" pretty much the same thing? Imho, if and only if an article is notable will it be a hub of activity. This article is not a hub of activity, and thus, pursuant to the previous statement, it isn't notable. Of course, since this guy passes per the "Professor test", I suppose further discussion ought not necessarily take place here, but rather, in the talk page for the "Professor test"... TerraFrost 07:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, "not enough people edit this article" is very often just a result of systemic bias. I also think your argument confuses notability with current fame or celebrity status. A few weeks ago I created a stubby article on the Collège de Montaigu in Paris, a college where Erasmus of Rotterdam, John Calvin, and Ignatius of Loyola were students. Nobody had created that article in the previous five years of Wikipedia's existence, and nobody has edited it after me. Would you say that an educational institution which (at least partly) educated three of the most important individuals of Early Modern European history is non-notable? In a hundred years, Erasmus, Calvin, and Ignatius of Loyola will still be considered among the most important people of European history, while many of the favourite hockey players of today and everything having to do with pokemon is likely to be long forgotten. I'm not saying Mark Lutz is another Erasmus, and I may be wrong about the pokemon, but I think you get my point. While we have a systemic bias favouring Western over non-Western topics, there is also a systemic bias disfavouring many Western classical and academic fields, except in some small areas where we have a few dedicated users. u p p l a n d 09:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
TerraFrost, since you (perhaps still) think the two are the same, but at least some of us don't, I still recommend you change the nomination to avoid the appearance of trying to mislead. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 00:28Z
Just add it to your watchlist. -- JJay 00:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But I believe this is a stub that should be expanded & Refs cited. Drmandrake 04:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if unsourcing continues. --Apostrophe 08:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being a full professor is notable (unless it is at some pretend academic institution like Bob Jones University). Lutz is also the author or editor of several books and numerous articles in academic journals. I think requiring references for every article and edit would be a good idea, but we should not start to selectively purge those articles which are really among the easiest to verify and where verification is practically as easy as nominating on AfD. u p p l a n d 10:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. --Quarl 11:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This needs to be moved to Mark A. Lutz. There are links to a Mark Lutz (actor) and there is also a Mark Lutz who writes computer books. Mark Lutz should be a dab page. u p p l a n d 11:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - from content on the page - looks like notable enough to me.
  • Keep. Passes the "professor test" in WP:BIO. May even qualify as an author depending on whether his books sold more than 5,000 copies. Movementarian 14:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above. My opinion on university professors is undergoing a shift. Wikipedia keeps most porn stars. We keep every elementary school that teaches the alphabet. Why does a professor emeritus with full length published books need to fight for space? Durova 18:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a good article about a topic that will be interesting and useful to at least a few people. Logophile 01:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of publications and certainly worth keeping. Stifle 01:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From WP:BIO: The professor test -- If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included. Mark Lutz is a college professor but, in my opinion, he is above average because he is a professor emeritus, so he "can and should be included." — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:32, 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 Redirect. Jaranda wat's sup 00:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free kick (American football)[edit]

Should be a redirect to Safety (football). This is probably an unexpandable stub. Mwalcoff 02:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I agree it should redirect as suggested. This doesn't require a delete: just place a redirect on the page and merge any relevant info into the safety article. --Daveb 04:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I assume a Free Kick in American Football (about which I know next to nothing) is a different thing to a Free Kick in English Football, so on that basis, the article seems (potentially) valuable to me Jcuk 23:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that free kicks are rather rare and simple events; they only occur after safeties, and everything you need to know is already at the safety (football) article. (Technically, kickoffs are free kicks too, but no one calls them that.) There's really no more than a paragraph that can be written about them. Am I really allowed to replace an article with a redirect without going through AFD? -- Mwalcoff 00:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep. It's essentially a merge and redirect decision, which is not handled centrally. If people protest, RfC is the best place. Sam Vimes 22:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too narrow as described best by Mwalcoff. This is not a dictionary. Madman 22:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect not an AfD decision. Sam Vimes 22:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Sam Vimes. Stifle 01:59, 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. It's not really funny enough to be worth going to the effort of BJAODN-while-still-complying-with-GFDL. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bovasial contex driven neural response[edit]

This article appears to be a complete hoax, filled with an incomprehensible mix of technical jargon from biology. All Google entries for this "Bovasial contex driven neural response" are just copies of this hoax article on Wikipedia. I highly recommend we delete this article, and ideally, even speedying it (should that be warranted). I should also mention that I am beyond embarassed that I inadvertantly played a role in keeping this article - a user attempted to move this to WP:BJAODN, and at the time, I incorrectly interpreted this as vandalism! For those who have read this, let's make this a good reminder that we need to read the article too instead of skipping straight to vandalism control - sometimes the anons and newcomers are the smart ones and are right. HappyCamper 02:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The dog was from Conroe Texas and was known on the set as "Contex". --JWSchmidt 05:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable neurological phenominon, shows in dozens of google hits--152.163.100.135 06:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not. Please provide an example of an external site referring to this phenonemon that does not use Wikipedia as its source. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at best OR and more likely junk. Stifle 02:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:32, 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 delete, but not all that quickly. Slow & steady wins the race, eh? Remeber that CSD A1 refers to context, not content. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ABQblogs.com[edit]

Non-notable website.. --Mysidia (talk) 02:50, 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 speedy. r3m0t talk 02:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear God the Light Productions[edit]

Apparently a "company" created by a couple of college students that has done nothing notable. No google hits. Delete. Catamorphism 03:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 04:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Preost talk contribs 04:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Joel7687 09:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Jakiah 10:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Quarl 11:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Can we make this a speedy delete per the new A7 rules? Stifle 02:00, 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All About All[edit]

Random wikipedia mirror, doesn't have any original content according to the article. I can't even find any mention of it on google, and allaboutall.com redirects to an advertising site. Delete. Catamorphism 03:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Two month old stub and still no external link. Endomion 06:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Thesquire 08:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Joel7687 09:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Movementarian 14:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Thryduulf 15:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom VegaDark 00:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Wikipedia > some random mirror of wikipedia. Stifle 02:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:34, 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 KEEP (early close). gren グレン 22:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asian fetish[edit]

A Wikipedia article on "Asian fetish"ism? Please. Blatant racism, and does not belong on Wikipedia. -- Riscybusiness 03:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I read over the article, and while it needs to be normalized and reference scholarly debate on the issue, I don't see this article as being racist. An article on this topic needs to exist, perhaps with a different name, because there is at least a widespread perception of the racist objectification of asian women. If this article is deleted, it will neccessarily be created again, and at least a portion of it is cited and well written. Keep and improve citation would be my vote at this point. I'm curious- what do you think is racist or outside of NPOV in this article?Lotusduck 03:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move NPOV dispute withstanding this is verifiable so shouldn't be deleted. We don't delete stuff just because we don't like what it says. The title might be changed though. Suggestions? - FrancisTyers 03:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Excellent article. Term gets 500,000 googles. See nigger or kike for other examples. -- JJay 04:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I myself would be the subject of a purported "Asian fetish" but there is no such thing. A fetish refers to an inanimate object, such as clothing, that is the source of erotic feelings. By claiming that an Asian fetish exists, the author of this article is dehumanizing people from those countries. He provides a number of citations to back up his theory, but it still amounts to a neologism and original research. Endomion 04:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI suggest reading up some more on sexual fetishism. A "fetish" is indeed an inanimate object; however "sexual fetishism" is not a mere sum of the two parts, but has its own distinct meaning. There are plenty of sexual fetishes that are not inanimate objects. Say, there's the amputee fetish, in which people are attracted to a specific mutilated body part; an asian fetish is exactly the same, where people are attracted to specific types of body parts, i.e. those that make asians look distinct from other races. Flyboy Will 04:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I respect your point of view Endomion, but the term seems to be in use even among Asian writers [5] -- JJay 04:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did you read that article you linked? Later Sigmund Freud appropriated the concept to describe a form of paraphilia where the object of affection is an inanimate object or a specific part of a person; see sexual fetish. - FrancisTyers 04:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, comment some sources are probably overrepresented, I don't think there's been a phenomenon of distaste for the interracial relationship in Harry Potter, but you are antagonizing the issue by calling multiple editors that have overloaded this article "the author". To delete this article is to say that A. There is no sexual stereotyping of asians in American culture or media, B. There is no exploitation or harrassment of Asians because of sexual stereotypes and C. There is no controversy about perversion in men who either seek out or fantacise about Asian women. This article deals with this issue well, and if it is deleted, it will be created again- perhaps with a less careful analyzation of the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotusduck (talk • contribs) 05:11, 25 December 2005
  • Keep. This is a legitimate, notable topic, and the article is well written NPOV with reputable sources. The article covers the controversial aspects of this pretty well by the way. Flyboy Will 04:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Riscybusiness' contributions - FrancisTyers 04:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, he's started his first debate. -- JJay 04:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Good heavens, incredibly notable, common sexual fetish, often a source of Asian pride. Xoloz 04:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NeoJustin 05:29, December 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, my wife being proof of my having same. BD2412 T 05:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Lucky man :) Xoloz 19:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are a bazillion fetishes documented on Wikipedia, and this one is pretty common. -- MisterHand 06:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Blatant racism says who? I'm asian, I find the article informative and interesting. I am not offended, just like I am not offended by others calling me "oriental". =) Kudos for caring, however! Kareeser|Talk! 07:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, but let's have an RfC to sort everything out.--Wasabe3543 07:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, I feel that the topic is real, but the scholarship of this article is dubious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.123.163 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 25 December 2005
  • Keep--Aleron235 16:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article contains not one word about actual love and intermarriage. This is a startling omission. Such a union exists within my extended family. By characterizing all such relationships as fetishism this article perpetuates a stereotype. Durova 18:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about fetishism, not about love and intermarriage. I don't think that the article charactarizes anything but the debate on the Asian sexual fetish. If the article cited instances as being true cultural understanding not fantasies based on some quintessential hollywood sexy Asian, if it pointed out a couple as being in love and not obsessed with how Asian women are different in bed, then it would not be neutral point of veiw. I do believe the article implies that any man who dates or marries an Asian is accused of being a fetishist, of being shallow and living out a racist fantasy. I'mnot sure how this should be expanded upon Lotusduck 19:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And as such, the article needs to acknowledge that not all such relationships constitute fetishism. This need not be a long statement, but the article is POV by its omission. Durova 21:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've been married to a Japanese lady for 10 years now. Submissive and what again? HA, HA, HA! - no. I liked the article. I thought it was pretty much on the money.
  • Strong keep. A subject generating this much controversy is definitely worth including here. It's a hotly debated topic in race relations today. --Idont Havaname 21:29, 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. There is a debate, which I have read, but it's pretty clear that noone has been persuaded at all from their original position on the article. -Splashtalk 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional people known by one name[edit]

list of not closely associated fictional characters, with list poorly defined. Lotusduck 03:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article previously survived AfD Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of fictional people known by one name. -- JJay 14:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That was more than a year ago. -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, why not add the exact date. -- JJay 15:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some of these entries (like Buffy) are only on the list because it is the nature of fiction that using a character's first or last name alone is a way to keep readers or viewers from getting confused. Endomion 04:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is true. I am known by my first name, say 90% of the time, and I'm sure someone you know is known by their first name most of the time too. Wednesday is almost never called Wednesday Adams, so the list should have her and almost every other character ever concieved of. By other rules, maybe this could be a list of characters that viewers never learn more than one name of. But again, that could be accomplished by adding a category tag to the end of each characters article, much as the "Fictional archaeologists" category works. -And hey, come to think of it, I have a question. Can any list be justified without supporting text, when cateogries will be far more updated and function exactly as well?
  • Keep. Excellent list that can only get better (you should indicate it has previously been on AfD). Only Scrooge could nominate this. -- JJay 04:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused- used for what? Useful how? If it gave any information about the characters, then it would serve some higher purpose than going onto each characters' page and adding a "Category: Fictional people known by one name" to the end. everyone on it's talk page has suggested deleting this page, and although I've read through the previous article for deletion post and I still don't get how this is encyclopedic or useful. This article is not a study in naming, it's a list of unrelated characters that authors didn't bother to write last/first names for. But accusations on the article aside, what good thing is this article supposed to be?
  • The list gives a short description and steers people to the corresponding pages. It enables anoms to add info, which they can not do with a category. There is no recent discussion on talk page about deleting this. -- JJay 05:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that there are three total entries in the talk page that don't mention that this page is useless, and one of those is me. That out of about eight comments on the talk page total. Please explain how this is a valid topic, because I have no idea what you are talking about.Lotusduck 06:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are above. Please add the link to the previous AfD discussion for this page as per procedure. -- JJay 07:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the previous discussion for deletion: *Previous deletion debate but seriously. How is this an excellent list? Once it has every one-worded god and all of the fictional books and television shows that use that name for a character, how is that better? Your comments are above, but I don't understand them at all. What is going to make this list get better with time? Complements are fine, I just would prefer to hear some justification for a list of fictional people known by one name.Lotusduck 07:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. This is a valid topic. -- MisterHand 06:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why this is a valid topic, as I have no idea what you mean.Lotusduck 06:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unecyclopedic and uncompleteable; another list for the sake of a list. Flyboy Will 06:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I liked this topic, and put a lot of work into it, and into trying to define it. I suggest supporters of this topic try and edit it, just a little. You may realize how many hairs can be split that can be used to include any character at all in this list, or how no information or enjoyment can be derived from this list. I see both of those as distinct and likely possibilities. Information can be added to lists, but it isn't. The only information added to a one-word name is the other names they are known by, aka why they shouldn't be on the list. Then we can sit down and add every villain on Stargate SG-1, every god from the show Hercules, every third character in any Shakespear play, all the miscellaneous dwarves from the beginning of The Hobbit and contemplate why anyone would want to see their names mixed together in alphabetical order. That's an impossible list even using the most stringent definitions and exclusions ever discussed in the talk page for this article. I helped nurse this baby to health, and I haven't yet heard a good reason not to kill it. I'm not making fun of supporters, I genuinely want somebody to explain it to me how this is useful, encyclopedic or even neat.Lotusduck 07:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcruft. --Apostrophe 08:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft with no encyclopediacl value. Pavel Vozenilek 08:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Listcruft, OR -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft and hoplessly objective.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 12:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Flyboy Will. Movementarian 14:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What am I missing? According to Wikipedia policy detailing what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT):

    Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. “…Wikipedia articles are not: … 2 List or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons …. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic.

    (I've only quoted the specific words related to this list. Underline and red are my emphasis.) Though I've found it interesting to see names that have been contributed, it seems that this list is precisely described in WP:NOT. — ERcheck @ 16:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are. But how closely associated are they? Any work of fiction whatsoever will have a character whose name is suucint and easy to remember. You could write an article about the significance of such eponymous characters as you think are obviously important, but the issue of contention is that Mr.Spock and Anubis and Gimli contributed in some significant way together to naming conventions, and even that would be better served by an article. I understand that there are characters known by one name, I don't understand how this isn't exactly what Wikipedia is not.Lotusduck 17:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Spock and Bean are fictional characters known by one name. They are therefore on this list. Beyond that, there is nothing to debate. Your views are clear since you nominated the list for deletion. It will be deleted. -- JJay 17:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ideally the majority vote would be a kind of consensus. We have, as I understand it, four days before votes are counted and opinions considered. If you are done debating, I do hope any other people that don't want this article deleted try to discuss reasons for doing so here.Lotusduck 17:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incedentally, Mr. Bean is not on the list. He was removed by persons not me, under the assumption that he was not known without the "Mr."- A minor character in Enders game named Bean is, setting some precident that all minor characters from fiction with unrecallable full names belong on this list. If you want to reverse that precident and fix the article to be somewhat more completable, then perhaps if it survives AfD you should. Lotusduck 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as valid as any other list on Wiki. Comment Seems odd to me that in the main its the folk that vote Keep that get challenged to explain their vote. Jcuk 23:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, the "Special Olympics" defense. --Calton | Talk 03:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What the blazes does that mean?? Jcuk 21:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to ask that myself. But maybe he means that he thinks you're only supporting this list because you've seen lists that were more useless. I'm curious, what is this list valid for?Lotusduck 04:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • For finding characters that are known by only one name! Does exactly what it says on the tin. As a wheelchair user who watches the paralympics avidly, I strongly resent the insinuation that they are "more useless" than the other games. Jcuk 10:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You've looked at the list. Isn't it also "useful" for finding characters known by their full names, like "James T. Kirk" and others? Not only that, but it can't be edited or fixed because there are no sources with any information on what qualifies as a significant one named character. As such, the article is Original Research, not taken from valid sources but made up to gratify people who edit it like you and me. Wikipedia: No original research Lotusduck 23:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think that's mainly when the Keep recommentdation seems incompatible with policy and/or guidelines. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking people to support their keep reccomendation just because I want to have a dialogue about it. The people who say delete have quoted policy and guidelines, so of course people who say keep have some other interpretation of those guidelines. Also, I think I've laid out pretty well how this list really is incompletable, since every theater production and space opera ever made has several eponymous one-word named character. Given that I think I've justified my vote, I feel I can ask people if they can justify theirs.Lotusduck 01:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic listcruft. Lists are great and all but when we start creating them based on fairly arbitrary criteria, we are getting silly. It's about as useful as creating a list of fictional people who hate the colour blue or a list of world leaders who like tea. Arkyan 00:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At least people who hate the color blue is specific. This is similar to a "list of fictional people known by their full name" which is probably a little more doable.Lotusduck 01:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless lists of vaguely related items. --Calton | Talk 03:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful list, already survived Vfd.  Grue  17:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to challange the validity of anyone's opinion, but since this is meant to be a debate, what's your take on the guideline "Wikipedia is not a list repository of loosely related topics"? If this article could be a list of actually closely related topics, then the best way for you to defend it is to edit the article so that it somehow is not a collection of barely related persons.Lotusduck 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arkyan. Observation: so far no-one seems to have responded to Lotusduck's request for a reasonable explanation as to why they are voting "keep", in terms of the policies and guidelines. Is this perhaps because there isn't one? Zunaid 14:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 'useful list, already survived Vfd.' Seems like a reasonable explanation of a vote.....why should Keep voters have to justify themselves any more than delete voters? As for policies and guidelines, I personally have found if I try to justify my vote according to them, someone else comes along and says "Ah but what about this totally contradictory policy" so I dont bother. Jcuk 18:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to do anything. I just want a discussion, because I don't understand what you mean by useful. I've read the previous VfD, and all anyone ever said was that it wasn't the least useful list or that it was useful. Now, delete voters have agreed other deleters that have quoted policy and generally explained, or maybe in my case ranted away exactly what we mean by useless and incompletable. I'm glad that people can be bold, but I'm not ridiculing people by asking them to have some sort of discussion here. What is this list useful for? If you think that the "what this list isn't" section narrows the category enough to make it completable, I have to say that I wrote that section in it's entirety, and I don't think it makes the list completable at all.Lotusduck 18:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is ever complete. -- JJay 19:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but most good articles on wikipedia have at least a possibility of becoming nearly comprehensive in their topic. When I see that most fictional swearwords start with an F, I have some reasonable expectation that this is based on a popular sample of fictional swear-words taken from reputable sources. When I get a sample from "List of fictional people known by one name" I can be sure that it is based on original research that is not verifiable or referencable by outside sources. You and I may agree that Scrooge, Mr. Bean and Spock are fictional characters known by one name, but when someone removed Mr. Bean, there was no criteria, no outside source to verify that he did belong on the list. The only applicable rules are the fairly arbitrary ones I created that allow for honorifics like Mr. That is why Wikipedia is not for original research. Can you cite a source that verifies whether Sideshow Bob is a one named character or a two named one? You could prove it by the ruberic at the beginning of the page that defines one name as literally one word- but that's not a trustworthy source- that's a un-reveiwed unedited tirade by me. So if anyone can site a newspaper or other real source to prove whether acronyms like ALF are really one word names or if The Cat is a one word name or two, then that will certainly make me re-think a few things. If this list could be something other than original research then someone should change it to that to save it, because right now it's original research, which will probably lead to it's deletion, I think.Lotusduck 21:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? Everyone knows that ALF stands for alien life form, but in print is just called ALF. -- JJay 01:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page, people have suggested that ALF does not belong on "List of fictional people known by one name" on the basis that ALF is an acronym, and that this means that it is more than one name in and of itself. What can we reference to determine the validity of Alf or names with "the" in them? Currently, even Sideshow Bob is on the list, (I think that's two names as much as Peter Parker is two names.) what source can we cite to settle whether or not he should be? We could come to a consensus, but that still amounts to original research, which is what wikipedia is not. To be legitimate we must be able to cite a source that comments on the one-named-ness of given characters. Wikipedia:No original research Lotusduck 03:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do is define the criteria, like you have done, and then use footnotes for those troublesome cases like Sideshow Bob, drawing on the abundance of good sources like newspapers. We need careful documentation of fictional characters' first names. This is the type of question that always comes up, and given the level of misinformation out there, we need to set people straight. Personally, I think the list should have two parts: 1) fictional characters that have no documented second name, such as Spock; 2) fictional characters that have two names but are most commonly known by just one, such as Scrooge. -- JJay 04:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But the topic of the article "fictional people known by one name" itself does not have a source to be cited. There are sources that can tell us that there is a Simpsons' character named sideshow bob, but the actual topic of the article is purely original research. List of fictional Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender people can have an actual source citing the importance of certain characters being on the list, even going into the obscure. For fictional people known by one name, we might be able to find someone, somewhere writing an article on Spock's ubiquity as it relates to the show not using his last name. We're just as likely not to find such an article, even given the widespread discussion of his popularity. So while characters first names and last names can be carefully sourced to ensure accuracy, can the significance of a characters' only having one name be sourced? Can the significance of all of these characters only having one name be sourced?Lotusduck 04:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Questions/Comments: Even within the article there are conflicting/ambiguous descriptions of what qualifies for the list. In the lead to the article, it says the fictional character is to be "known unambigously by one of the following ... first or last name, one word nickname, only known name." Then under the description of what the list is not: "Characters that are usually called by one name but their full name is easily recalled, like Wednesday Adams, are not included in this list...One example of this would be Radar from M*A*S*H, who has a real full name comprised of several words, but that name is very obscure information within the show... This is not a list of people with a one-word nickname, or a one word name that they are often called. Only characters with a one word nickname and an unknown or very obscure full name or other names. So Superman is not on the list because all of his names total three: Superman, Clark and Kent."
— These descriptions are ambiguous. If a character has a title, e.g. "Mr." or "Captain", do they still qualify? Spock or Mr. Spock? Captain Kirk or Kirk? In the case of Radar from M*A*S*H, he is well-known as Radar O'Reilly. Frank Burns most commonly called him "Corporal O'Reilly", so how does he qualify? How does "Holmes", aka Sherlock Holmes, qualify? The "Fonz" — Mr. & Mrs. Cunningham always called him Arthur (his given name). "Neo" from the Matrix — Mr. Smith was always calling him "Mr. Anderson". I'm not an avid fan of any of the shows, but I knew these off the top of my head. — ERcheck @ 05:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kirk= James Kirk. -- JJay 05:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree - this is my point. What really qualifies? If Radar qualifies, then Capt Kirk does because he is known unambigously as Capt. Kirk (like "Mr. Spock", the title doesn't seem to count). In the case of the others, there are multiple names that they are well-known by, not all being one word.:
- Kirk = Captain Kirk = James T. Kirk = Jim
- Radar = Radar O'Reilly = Corporal O'Reilly = Walter O'Reilly
- The Fonz = Fonzie = Arthur = Arthur Fonzarelli
- Holmes = Sherlock Holmes (name best known by)
- Neo = Mr. Anderson = Thomas Anderson
— ERcheck @ 05:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ERcheck, I am tending away from arguing that this is a sprawling, unrelated article, and trying to explain that this article is original thought, not a documentation of a real reported phenomenon. But you are right: The names currently on the list set a precedent that all names of all characters ever concieved of should be on this list-

However, if there were some pressing need for a list of fictional people known by one name, it still would need to be a documented concern in newspapers, books or scholarly journals. For instance- there is, I think, a pressing need for a documentation of movies with a dream-self discovery theme, like The Wizard of Oz and The Labrynth- but if I can't find a source that ties these films together as important besides the movies themselves, I should not make such an article, even if I think the connection is clear, sure and important. Because wikipedia is not a lazy persons' publisher. If we say that names with honorifics can be included on this list based on my opinion that is baseless gratification of me, that is me pushing my ideas onto wikipedia with no base in verifiable sources, and that is wrong.Lotusduck 18:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This still amounts to original research, so while my rubric dictates some of what qualifies, my rubric is not a real source. If I were some really strange kind of reporter, and the beginning description about what should and shouldn't apply to a list of fictional people was an article in a real newspaper, and then said article became really popular for no reason and someone thought to make a wiki article on it, then this would all be legitimate. But wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.Lotusduck 13:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Seriously bad listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random information. Stifle 02:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm going off on too many tangents of the discussion on this page, but what does listcruft stand for? I searched wikipedia for "listcruft" and while I undertand very generally what you mean, I'm still curious. Maybe a definition of listcruft would help people know why they should vote delete, maybe I'm cluttering this article with chatter. Well, time will tell.Lotusduck 05:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short answer: "listcruft" = "an indiscriminate collection of information", which in this case happens to be a list. The same goes for gamecruft, forumcruft, or any other cruft. Zunaid 06:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial. -Sean Curtin 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, listcruft --Jaranda wat's sup 00:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought this was closed. Delete per nom. - SoM 20:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have learnt my lesson, not to close AFDs in most cases but let the admins do it. --Terence Ong Talk 11:36, 3 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. I'm regarding XxBassPlayerxX and the anon as the same person, (which is more than I have to do: I could just ignore the anon who blanked the whole thing). There's minimal support for doing anything other than deleting the pair of these. -Splashtalk 23:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not My Year and Suicide City[edit]

This article is very nn. Only about 276 relevant results on Google. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 03:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've just added Suicide City, the NN band behind the NN record. Delete both. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Not noteworthy Drmandrake 04:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nomination. Flyboy Will 06:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as non-notable. article creator removed afd tag. --Quarl 11:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, but definitely merge the two articles together. Suicide City is listed at Amazon [6], but not at AllMusic. One band member (Jennifer Arroyo) claims to be formerly associated with the band Kittie, however she is not listed in the group's AllMusic page [7]. If proven they would qualify under WP:MUSIC They may not merit inclusion, but it is definitely on the fringe. Movementarian 14:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • After researching this, comparing it to the standards in WP:MUSIC, and the actions of the author and anon user I have decided to change my vote to redirect. WP:MUSIC sets a standard of notability for bands and allows bands featuring former members of "extremely notable bands" to gain inclusion. It also states that non-notable projects should be redirected. So once again, my new vote is Redirect to Jennifer Arroyo. If this article survives AfD, which does not look likely, I will perform the redirect myself. Movementarian 04:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, as the author of the page, of course i am going to say to keep it. Jennifer Arroyo was most definately the main bassist for the band Kittie. she recently left due to issues concerning the label and her want to participate in Suicide City full time. i have sent her an email requesting her to update the page with the information that i did not know. if you want proof of her affiliation with kittie, check out http://www.forums.kittierocks.com and ask anyone who has been there while she was. you could also search around or ask her via myspace. i also posted a link where members of her official website (http://forums.jenniferarroyo.com) can edit the page to help make it full. I know that with a little time, this page will be full of crditable information, i am just not completely up to the task. Suicide City just finished touring with the notable band Mindless Self Indulgence. XxBassPlayerxX 03:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - XxBassPlayerxX (talk · contribs) is the originator and sole contributor to Not My Year and Suicide City, has no edits prior to December 24, and removed the music-importance and afd tags from the Suicide City article. -- Dalbury(Talk) 04:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kittie#Former_members for proof of Jennifer J. Arroyo being in the band Kittie. Suicide City can be found at www.cdbaby.com/suicidecity , www.purevolume.com/suicidecity , and www.myspace.com/suicidecity , www.digitech.com/artistpgs/suicidecity.htm , www.thegauntlet.com/bio/1239/Suicide-City.htm , http://www.portlandmusicians.com/cm/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=101 , www.loudmerch.com/suicidecity - The band has sold over 4,000 copies of Not My Year themselves so I would rate that as being a legit and very relevant band.(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.136.190 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Above comment moved from top, where it was used to replace comments blanked the same user. -- Dalbury(Talk) 17:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This subpage on the site of Kittie's label Artemis Records lists Ms. Arroyo as a member of the band at the time of their last release, so that claim at least is verifiable. No opinion on the proposed deletion, since this isn't my forte. -Colin Kimbrell 18:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--nixie 05:55, 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 SPEEDY KEEP, unfortunately. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War on Christmas[edit]

  • Delete nonsense. paranoid delusions from the circus of right-wing extremism. --Revolución (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - They're extreme right-wing paranoid delusions, I agree. But they're notable extreme right-wing paranoid delusions. FCYTravis 03:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - The article is encyclopedic and well supported by citations. [removed user box as it was interfering with keep border - JOG] Endomion 04:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep NPOV disputes aren't a basis for deletion. - FrancisTyers 04:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article should be modified to be more NPOV but it is an issue that has come to a head in 2005. Supported by citations, provides useful info for those doing research on this. Happy holidays, everyone! Drmandrake 04:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The argument is very common these days, and there can be plenty room for both sides in the article. To use reductio ad absurdum, there's an article on holocaust denial and the wikipedia is not actually denying the holocaust. (I'm not stating the view that the two are equivalent; I am just making the point that the subject is very relevant, and it's existence does not imply the support of the belief that Christmas is under attack.)
  • The article is a morass of POV garbage - it's initial creation was someone making a point. Nevertheless, it is decidedly notable, so Speedy keep it is. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep* The Anti-Christian groups are trying to hide the facts that they are suing us over Christmas. I received threats to not put up Christmas lights on my house, or else I would be sued. Check court records and see how many lawsuits are filed over Christmas, then you will see that there is a real war on Christmas. Ironic that the vote to delete this article was made on Christmas, when most Christians are busy and not on Wikipedia to defend the article. You can really see the bias there by the Anti-Christians and their hate. --Charles Schram 01:23, 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 speedy deleted by Oberiko. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Sabarese[edit]

Delete. Non-notable, vanity page. No Guru 03:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete on the principle that you're not supposed to write autobiographies on WP. Endomion 04:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ditto. Drmandrake 04:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nn-bio -- MisterHand 06:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy {{nn-bio}} Delete Scoo 11:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. nn-bio --Quarl 11:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Tagged for speedy deletion per CSD A7. Movementarian 14:49, 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, and a plea for people to listen to Uncle G's complaints about people throwing around "Wiktionary" without checking. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ostentatious[edit]

This page seems mostly to bee a dictionary-type page with a couple of quotes, which is what Wikitionary is for. Delete. Scottmso 03:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is a candidate for the Wiktionary. Endomion 04:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Scottmso and Endomion about this being a candidate for the Wiktionary unless it is already there. NeoJustin 05:26, December 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki — (is this an option?) The article is average at best. Should be moved to Wiktionary unless a better definition already exists (most likely). See Ostentatious on Wiktionary. Kareeser|Talk! 07:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wiktionary already has an entry, and this is copied straight out of the 1913 Webster's Dictionary. The Howe quote can be transwiki'd to Wikiquote if they want it (the Addison quote is already there). —Caesura(t) 17:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per everybody Lotusduck 06:36, 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.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Aaron Schwebel. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete and, apparently, sheesh (?). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speed 3[edit]

Meme about hypothetical sequel to Speed that has been joked about on two television shows. Not notable. tregoweth 04:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say speedy delete to be funny, but I think weak Keep is more appropriate. Endomion 04:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to be a notable joke, based on the article as well. I can probably find a Family Guy reference on half a million other pop culture items, and most of them don't deserve an article. Flyboy Will 05:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 05:18, December 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable pop culture reference. Re-create if an actual movie goes into filming. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 06:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above VegaDark 10:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Sheesh.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 11:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete weak one Andrzej18 17:43, 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 ehhh, we'll call it a keep. If any of y'all want to merge it now, there's nothing stopping you. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kell Tainer[edit]

Star Wars Expanded Universe "character". I highly suspect this is pure fan-fic, but I cannot say for certain that nothing is mergeable, so I bring it here for more eyes to see. Xoloz 04:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment And I'm vehemently opposed to a Kell Tainer ever getting his own article. Fictional characters on the magnitude of Shylock or Raskolnikov deserve their own pages; characters from niche books with minor circulation deserve no more than a section in a list. The only people who ever want information on this are the people who already know everything on them. Most importantly, this all falls under the Original Research label. I don't suppose there have been any legitimate literary studies of Kell Tainer as a character. I know the precedent so far has been in favor of Pokemon characters and video game weapons keeping their articles, and I couldn't disagree with that more. Flyboy Will 05:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment needs to be broken into digestible paragraphs, have linkage and citations from a published work. Endomion 05:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable Expanded Universe character. The article needs definite cleanup and wikification, but the basic subject of the article is appropriate. Possibly consider Merge contents into List of minor Rebel characters in Star Wars --Wingsandsword 09:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Wingsandsword VegaDark 10:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appear to be the diligent fan I was waiting for. There's some decent info here, and there's no way we can tamp it down to fit into Wraith Squadron or any other article. Changing vote to full Keep. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think the article could be skimmed down, retaining relevant information, and merged back into Wraith Squadron. Take the Profile section: it could easily be edited down to "Kell Tainer, a large, handsome pilot…" And, given the fact that Kell Tainer is a relatively minor character in the grand scheme of Star Wars, his history could easily be skimmed down to a few important details as well. – Mipadi 04:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair call. I just took the mess and made it easy to read. I'd support a merge and redirect back into Wraith Squadron as a second option, if it helps establish consensus. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 06:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wraith Squadron. He's a real character and already had information posted on the Wraith Squadron page. I'm a huge fan of Star Wars, but I'm against giving every "major" character in the Star Wars universe his own page. I agree with Flyboy Will: a character such as Princess Leia or Luke Skywalker deserves his or her own article because that character is not only important in the Star Wars universe, but is well-known by non-Star Wars fans as well. Kell Tainer, while important in some books (most notably the Wraith Squadron and New Jedi Order novels), is not notable or important enough to warrant a separate article. – Mipadi 04:43, 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 alright, delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WireTracks[edit]

Company article that doesn't make a claim of notability and reads like an ad. Xoloz 04:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Interesting issue, eh? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Earl Bates[edit]

Delete This is about as boring as a death penalty case could ever hope to be. No sex, children, or race involved. No novel legal issues. If this one doesn't deserve deletion then we may as well add being executed in the United States after 1976 to WP:BIO since I can't image a less notable murderer than Joseph Earl Bates. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - If this was about an execution in China (30,000 executions a year) then maybe you'd be right. Endomion 05:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I object to the notion that executions are notable or non-notable depending on where they're performed. That smacks of Western bias. Durova 18:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The relevant difference is only that China, Saudi Arabia, etc., are relatively secretive, making WP:V information about the executed hard to obtain; also, relatedly, there is less domestic public debate over execution in those nations, given speech restrictions. Otherwise, they would be cataloged fully, as with the US.
  • Keep Boring executed murderers are still executed murderers. I think there is more here than the stub suggests, but the stub is useful on its own. Death penalty is simply too controversial in the US to delete any executed Americans. Xoloz 05:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not really. He confessed to the crime and killed the victim because he thought he had something to do with his house being shot up. The sole point of notability he has is that he was executed in the U.S. after 1976, so this is the perfect test case for whether that is sufficient to warrant a Wikipedia article. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't submitting something as a "test-case" qualify as Disrupting WP to make a point ? Endomion 06:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. He's not illustrating anything. He's testing the ground. Nothing wrong with that, in fact it's a thousand times better than the only alternative, that is nominating every single related article in a giant bulk. Flyboy Will 06:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this isn't WP:POINT. Every executed individual in the US receives ample nationwide press in the US. We don't need to rewrite WP:BIO, since every executed inmate already qualifies on that account. Xoloz 17:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If he were to list every article about someone who was executed in the United States, that would be a violation of WP:POINT, but just testing the waters isn't a problem. Oh, and keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 18:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for info: I know there have been a few executed criminal articles on AfD lately, and there are arguments for and against deletion. Could someone direct me to a discussion on this topic, if it exists? Thank you. --Fang Aili 05:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. -- JJay 05:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a person whose only notability is being executed belongs in a list of executions, and does not deserve his own article. Flyboy Will 06:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he has any sort of notability beyond being executed, then this article will be recreated with no problem. Alas, it seems he does not. --Apostrophe 08:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Death penalty is never boring. Jakiah 10:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. 400 google hits for "Joseph Earl Bates". media coverage. --Quarl 11:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not-notable, nothing to distinguish this case from other executions. He's already on the List of individuals executed in North Carolina (why do editors think they need to start a separate article for every name on a list?) -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. If editors feel the need to address the death penalty in the United States, then I suggest creating more articles on death row inmates and populating the new category. Durova 18:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand -- you support articles for the thousands on death row, but not for the thousand actually executed in 28 years? Curious position, I feel. Xoloz 19:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe that Durova is arguing that if the notability of a person derives from being subjected to the death penalty in the United States, then in that sense, those that have been setenced to death but not had that sentence carried out are as notable as those who have reached the end of the appeals process without having the sentence reduced. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with him. We should have articles for every person on death row + their victims. Every one of those cases is important, just like this case, for the political ramifications. -- JJay 20:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, when we begin talking about every person on death row, my only objection is a number problem. Plenty of folks spend only a little time there, before being commuted, retried, or killed in prison. The advantage to sticking only to the executed is that those cases have proved enduring and compelling enough for the state to go forward with the sentence of death. Xoloz 21:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • What ramifications? Guy kills person, gets killed himself. If you're talking about the controversy over capital punishment, the article does a fine job of showing that without need for articles on every person executed. --Apostrophe 20:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've never really heard of a lengthy capital murder conviction that hasn't had ample state-wide press (at least), prompted commentary on crime and criminal justice from public figures, and motivated legal response through attempted reform. Despite the effort of the nom. to classify Bates as boring, I don't see it here either. Xoloz 21:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • You seem to be arguing that everything that makes the news should end up in Wikipedia and that therefore we had no reason to split off Wikinews. Other than providing an occasion for the pro-DP and anti-DP activists to make their commentary, I find zero evidence of any lasting impact here and this case is far less noteworthy than the December 2005 South Carolina ice storm which does not appear to have an article, nor should it, despite receiving far more press coverage and causing the deaths of more people. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • The difference between a Wikinews only topic and a Wikipedia topic is one of depth, scope, and importance of the topic. Personally, I'd argue that "Sam, the world's ugliest dog" is why Wikinews exists separately -- that is "news of the day"-type story. As it happens, I think Sam is in WP too. Sigh. In any event, serious affairs of law and state (which every US execution is) are exactly why encyclopedias were made in the first place, and they still form the very heart of what I call encyclopedic. Xoloz 21:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sam is an edge case, and I certainly wouldn't complain if his article were merged into the World's Ugliest Dog Contest article. That said, I would definitely consider Sam to be more notable than Mr. Bates who also falls into that "news of the day" category you mentioned. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well then, I think we have reached an honest, very deep, impasse of meaning. To me, if an encyclopedia exists for anything, it exists for to cover significant topics of philosophy and history, of which state executions (and those so executed) are a chapter. Sincerely, I cannot see how an ugly dog meets notability requirements, where state executed fail. Xoloz 23:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Comment The execution of condemned criminals is encyclopedic. With rare exceptions, the story of each person executed is not encyclopedic. Questions of philosophy and history are best addressed in general articles, not in articles about individuals that do not provide any point on which to hang a unique argument that could not be repeated in every other article about an executed individual. (this seems to be from Dalbury)
                        • There, I also disagree. Each executed individual is a worthy subject of criminological (or, if they are wrongly executed, sociological) study. Researchers who study crime do not develop generalized patterns simply from the Ted Bundys and Charles Mansons of the world. Even the simple facts of their childhood are of scholarly (and, often, macabre popular) interest. Additionally, each capital murder is certain notably to affect its community, region, or state, as discussed above. Xoloz 00:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Perhaps, but this is an encyclopedia not a compendium of all human knowledge. The mission of an encyclopedia is to provide a concise crystalization of the details and pointers to where the detailed information of limited interest can be found for those seeking greater knowledge about a narrow topic. A pointer to the minutiae of Mr. Bates' case in the List of individuals executed in North Carolina article would more than satisfy that requirement. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                            • I don't oppose that idea in theory, but I would wish to see it applied consistently across the 'pedia. As I'm sure you'll agree it isn't, and my concern is that I don't want the executed given less extensive treatment solely on the basis of their "evil". I strongly believe that an encyclopedia should cover the best and worst of human deeds in equal measure. Xoloz 15:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm talking about the political ramifications for the people & States involved. -- JJay 21:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • To clarify my position, I have seen editors contend that executions in the United States are more notable than executions in the Third World. I reject that argument as inherently biased. It is neither possible nor wise to catalog all capital criminals everywhere. If Wikipedia repeats an error about a school, little real harm is done. If we insert the wrong name or remain unaware when a conviction is overturned, then anyone in the world with an Internet connection may read false and damaging information about an innocent person. Even posthumous vindications matter for the sake of the surviving relatives. I find more potential encyclopedic value in death row inmates than in executed prisoners. To judge by the comments of some editors, it appears some people's time would be better spent writing for Amnesty International than for Wikipedia. Durova 22:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd appreciate it, Durova, if you'd address my comments regarding the reasons US executions are more appropriate for WP, immediately below your original vote. No bias exists in such a selection, only honest, regrettable, WP:V and notability concerns. Xoloz 04:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jcuk 23:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Flyboy Will and Dalbury. Zunaid 14:59, 27 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 00:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Then the purpose could be served equally well by a list of executions iwth brief summaries, and fully fledged articles only for those who achieved notoriety in some or other way. Zunaid 08:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is an area of American society that is currently part of a heated debate. Detailed, accurate, and neutral articles about each case can only serve to help this debate and thus the public in general. I am failing to see what is the concern over a full article on each case. Nolamgm 15:51, 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anticurro[edit]

Neologism, six-bored-teenagers stuff. "Anticurro" yields nine actual google hits, only one of which might be related to this article. Klaw ¡digame! 05:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page is a prime example of why we shouldn't have to send foreign languages pages to WP:PNT before considering them for deletion. The page started in Spanish, and has now been translated into English (by User:Keithlaw and myself), yet it is just unencyclopedic vanity. --Metropolitan90 06:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. And a tip of the hat to Metropolitan90 for finishing the translation job. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:03, 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wyllding[edit]

Short dicdef. Xoloz 05:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No third-party citations given. Endomion 05:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dicdef, and a misspelled one at that. BD2412 T 05:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Jakiah 10:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not transwiki. --Quarl 11:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - FrancisTyers 16:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 23:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A second AFD debate, recorded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination), resulted in a "delete". Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John_Bambenek[edit]

This seems to be a vanity page. The subject of the article has edited the page several times, and there's been several instances of unverfiable information, such as a gubernatorial run, inserted. perardi 03:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Well known security expert. Article edited by numerous editors, but not by nom. Maybe the nom can explain why google gives 70,000 hits?. -- JJay 05:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Abstain for now per below. -- JJay 06:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's pretty funny- Love for John. -- JJay 06:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change back to keep. First vote was correct, particularly given the allegations of bad faith below. -- JJay 20:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Quite a polymath, my only problem is the category for "politician" at the bottom of the article. Endomion 06:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after removing all the vanity. --Quarl 11:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, nn. The Google hits I checked all seemed to be resumes or profiles on interactive sites. If someone can find any media coverage on him, please point me to it. In any case, a high Google count does not necessarily establish notability (I have about 5000 hits on Google, myself). -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible that this is just taken from the preface of one of his books or something? It reads that way with a strong introductory narrative feel rather than something for an encylopedia article. Because of that reason I would suggest deletion to avoid further troubles but the publications might be noteworthy to keep somewhere. So I think it should be kept for that kind of resource as long as there is no copy vios. Keep--Ari89 12:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Ari89 10:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is an exploratory committee that does meet weekly on Thursdays. Also, yes, it is the same person in that firefox article, and you can find several others if you have Lexis. Also, this nominator was involved with this vandalism [8] in the same article. -- 12.203.38.138 14:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I would not call what User:Perardi did vandalism. He removed a section he believed did not belong in the article, and gave his reasons in the edit summary. I may not agree with the way he did it, but I will not call it vandalism. And someone at the IP address you are using added John Bambenek to the non-existant Category:Jedi Masters -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply' I wasn't talking about the paragraph, check the link, I was talking about the brutal anal raping by a priest and crackwhore sister vandalism. That IP was used by him at that time frame and was confirmed by linking his contributions at other forums and the IP used there. -- 12.203.38.138 15:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Due to the seriousness of this charge, I have asked an administrator to look into it. -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dalbury. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:50, Dec. 26, 2005
  • Keep. As for media mentions, here are a few. [[9]] [[10]] [[11]]. There is a published paper [here]. The article mentioned above by Ari89 is the same person also. A copyvio'd book is available online at [[12]] if you'd like to see that he in fact wrote on of those books. As an aside, Chris Perardi, the person who nominated this, is a new user who's first order of business when joining wikipedia was hitting John Bambenek's page and it seems to be his only contribution aside of his user page. Someone mentioned above he was involved in vandalism. He is an undergrad at the same University at which Bambenek works and has had several problems with him and campus conservatives in general. (John Bambenek is a columnist for a local paper also). He has in the past threatened violence against such people and has been warned for doing it. You can read his [blog post] here that, among other things, ripped on Bambenek. It's clear that this nomination was done in bad faith based on a personal grudge. -- 130.126.146.94 16:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity --Nick Catalano (Talk) 04:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Article requires a rewrite (I will volunteer), but subject is noteworthy. Given that the article was not written by the subject and that the subject is indeed noteworthy is not vanity. Given that the nominator is also associated with UIUC, I fear this may in fact be a bad faith nomination. TheChief (PowWow) 16:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It appears very likely that it was written by the subject. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise? -Willmcw 22:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Yes, I am personally familiar with Mr. Bambenek and he did not write the article. In fact when the article was first created, I was the one to point it out to him.
  • Comment. Why does it have a link to category: Roman Catholics. Putting that in kind of gives the feel that its a vanity page by including personal stuff as only a category. I still think the other things on it maybe useful to people so im still with keeping it.--Ari89 14:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC) my stupidness[reply]
  • Keep. He is a columnist, a blogger, and is part of the faculty of a well known educational institution. His article belongs here. Although I do believe we can cut off some of the fat of the article, and maybe add a little bit more known facts later. We have a source where it seems Mr. Perardi published an email, cleverly quoting another, but nevertheless using this email to possibly smear the subject:
* John Bambenek, ultra-conservative columnist for the Daily
Illini and OBO member, is going to try to publicize the
event in his column next Friday. Not sure what can be done
about that... They're also going to chalk the Quad in
preparation for the event -- and they're brainstorming for
things to write, so we should have our heads up for that [13]
We know that the nominator clearly has a relationship with the subject, based upon the information we have been given [14], whether it is a legitimate, and positive relationship is for the rest of you to decide, based upon the quotes and statements Mr. Perardi has made regarding Mr. Bambenek. Very High Risk of bad faith, and personal conflicts, that should not be displayed in an encyclopedia. Эйрон Кинни 23:51, 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 no consensus. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Harding[edit]

Vanity about a guy's quest for Internet fame. Let's not encourage this sort of thing. tregoweth 05:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The man was on four television talk shows and almost bagged a fifth if it weren't for Hurricane Kat. Endomion 05:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The 15 minutes are up. Flyboy Will 06:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this guy was on Ellen, which is more than I can see for featured article subject KaDee Strickland. -- MisterHand 06:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you serious? The proverbial Kadee Strickland, goddamn her for being a featured article, received star billing in the crappy Anacondas sequel, and had a bunch of visible supporting parts in A-list movies such as Fever Pitch and Woody Allen's Anything Else. But if Ellen is your criteria, then KaDee was on The Tony Danza Show. Flyboy Will 10:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and get KaDee a page too Jakiah 10:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Temporary celebrities are not notable in an encyclopedia. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even temporary celebrities are appropriate for an encyclopedia as long as they are verifiable, which this one appears to be. JYolkowski // talk 18:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would question whether this guy is a "celebrity", temporary or not. Madman 22:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per JYolkowski Jcuk 23:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do you seriously want an encyclopaedia article on a man who performed a Jed Clampett impersonation as a one off on a series of Tv shows?--Porturology 01:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Vanity. Do we want to clutter up this encyclopedia with articles on folks like this?? Madman

Don't Delete. This guy is pretty cool. Obviously someone thought he was interesting enough to write about in the first place. If you actually visit his site, it's interesting and somewhat educational in a very casual since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.171.84 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete If being on morning shows was criteria for notability then wikipedia would have more talk show fairing zookeepers. Lotusduck 07:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, he was famous for being on more than four talk shows, and I think he may have done a couple of other things. Lotusduck 20:14, 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 delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Social Engine[edit]

Non-notable "literary writing" [sic], with zero Google results [15]. The one included "source" is a link to a copy of "The Social Engine", showing it to be a total of four paragraphs in length. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 05:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia should not include original research per Wikipedia:No original research. Unless the said reference has been peer reviewed /reported in well respected source, the article should be deleted. --Hurricane111 05:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is some kind of unpublished new-agey self-help thing. Endomion 06:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Or an English class essay (although it doesn't follow the five-paragraph pattern) -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced implies unsourcable. People do need to be careful inorder to not get deleted.Lotusduck 07:15, 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:12, Dec. 25, 2005

Charlie Mansfield[edit]

Self-promotion - created by a user with the same name. rossb 06:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Thou shalt not commit self-aggrandizement. Endomion 06:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like Userfy to me. -- JJay 06:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Looks like a borderline notable author, with a few published works hiding in that mess. Flyboy Will 06:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep — User doesn't have a good sense of wiki-style, nor does this person seem to know how to write in wikicode. Could be made into an acceptable article if enough interest is generated, but otherwise, I am uncertain as to whether this person is notable enough to be on wikipedia!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus keep. Despite a late charge towards deletion, I don't see that we've got any agreement to delete here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sassan Sanei[edit]

Appears to be a vanity article. — TheKMantalk 08:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't think so. He is very well known in Canada for his extensive work on the BlackBerry wireless communication system and solutions that he developed in collaboration with independent software vendors, universities, and carriers. I would like to see mention of new technical standards as well, if an authoritative source can be found for this information, but I do not have this. I fixed some grammar and added mention of the publication of the developer journal to the article, though this may be less significant.216.9.243.104 08:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Virtually every google hit is some comment by this guy on other people's blogs. A Proquest literature search, including the ABI/INFORM database, returns 0 hits. Uucp 14:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support I wrote the original article. I disagree with using the number of google or proquest hits as a basis for notability for this subject. Four reasons: 1. The fine details of much engineering work is not published on the web because of companies' tight control over trade secrets and patents, so most google hits return pages dealing with his personal views and not professional work. Perhaps others can provide more data in this area. 2. Some third-party publications, such as development of technical standards for wireless communication through the IEC (international engineering consortium) to which he is known to have contributed, is published in conference proceedings but not picked up by proquest. I'm pretty sure I have print copies of these proceedings and if I can find them will cite them in an edit to the article. 3. Nor are the contents of print publications, such as Resource magazine and the blackberry developer journal, picked up by google. I am omitted references to these articles until I could find a suitable source for citation. I did however use google as a search for the quotations. 4. Where he has been employed by RIM since 1996 when it was a tiny company means that he was an early and influential player in wireless data communication, as they did not even release the blackberry until 1999, now there are around 4 million users of this device and the historical significance of the subject in this area alone should qualify this as a worthy article, certainly not vanity. This was my first draft of this article and I was hoping other contributors could fill in more information. - Frank R.Fragnal 17:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The subject could very well be notable, but the article in its current form does not prove the importance of the subject. The subject may be connected to the BlackBerry device, but the article fails to explain how. Yes, I agree that Google isn't always the best place to look to prove notability, but the article has no other references or publications posted, so it is my only source. I don't want to imply anything by this but I think it should be mentioned that the only editors to the article were Fragnal and 216.9.243.104, who both posted within 12 hours of each other.[16] I have not voted yet, but plan to when I have made my decision. — TheKMantalk 17:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand what you are suggesting and no offence taken as I have already let several people know that I wrote this article in the hopes that they could add content. Only one person so far though. So I have added some external links that I could find including one on cnn.com from 2001 as well as a J2ME reference to better show HOW the subject is connected to the blackberry as you suggested. I do appreciate your suggestions but take it easy on me as this is my first article and I want to do it right. Thanks. :) - Frank R. Fragnal 18:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, I think I'll give the article some time to develop. — TheKMantalk 18:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have worked in the wireless industry in Canada for several years, and in landline communication before that, and can affirm the importance of Sassan Sanei's contributions to wireless data communication standards including the BlackBerry system. 65.93.23.84 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Reasons For: While many of Sassan Sanei's Google hits refer to his blog, he is mentioned in a CNN article from 2001 [17], another article from 2001 [18], and there is a short description of him on a technology conference page [19]. The article is well writen, and might have some importance. Reasons Against: The few significant references to Sanei are from archived/old internet news articles from 2001. The only page linking to the article in question is the University of Waterloo, and the addition was made by the anonymous contributor to this article. I think I should also note that there is a possibility of sock puppetry or meat puppetry. May the "let several people know" comment by Fragnal be noted. This in itself is not a criteria for deletion, but may influence the decision by the administrator to keep or delete (see Sockpuppets are bad). In Closing: I do believe the article was created in good faith, but on a relatively obsure person. If this article is kept, I would recommend only keeping the "BlackBerry" quotation only. I'll leave the final decision to the deciding administrator. — TheKMantalk 17:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. If I find more references I will add them to the article. I included the quotations which came up on various Google searches to give some insight into Sassan Sanei's views on things that have to do with more than just blackberry (personality insight). I have no objections if others want to edit or remove the others as TheKMan suggested and I can see that 65.93.23.84 already deleted one as "irrelevant" which I thought was actually an interesting one but I will not argue over it. Have we reached a consensus on whether to keep or delete?Fragnal 19:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to December 25, 2005. Insert new comments below. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:19, Dec. 25, 2005
  • Keep. I've seen this guy's name around, and I'm not Canadian and I've never even touched a blackberry. Flyboy Will 06:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unfortunately. WP:V needs to be shown.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 11:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see notability established. Posting to blogs and commenting on Web articles doesn't do it for me. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dalbury. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:01, Dec. 26, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. I was wavering over whether to relist or just close as delete, then I actually read the article. It's a blatant hoax, and even includes some old-time not-very-funny jokes presented as fact. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kasper Amundsen Tuvnes[edit]

Non notable, 1 google hit, low alexa traffic rank.--Dakota ? e 06:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. non notable, 1 is no googles, 1 4-4 alexa.--Dakota ? e 06:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Probably not true. Punkmorten 16:31, 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Future Part IV[edit]

This article is completely speculative; the links point to articles which clearly show that the idea of a Back to the Future IV is mocked by anyone who is asked about it, including Michael J. Fox — the bit about him "coming back to play Doc" is obviously Fox joking about how he is too old to play his old character now. Wikipedia shouldn't be a repository for articles about movies which have no verifable reason for us to believe will ever exist. —Cleared as filed. 06:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - You don't need a time machine to see that BTTF4 will never happen. --Dynamite Eleven 07:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We can all write an infinite series of movies that could be made. BTW: Have you been watching movies lately? Hollywood is treading water, hacking out every remake and series continuation they can. Oh they'll make it with new actors, I don't doubt that, and it will suck, quite badly.Fuhghettaboutit 09:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Great Scott, 1.21 jigawatts??!?! WP:NOT a crystal ball.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 11:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, or as a second choice merge to Back to the Future trilogy. --Metropolitan90 19:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RasputinAXP --Pc13 22:16, 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:26, Dec. 25, 2005

Catholic Public Domain Version[edit]

Delete. Self-described vanity article: "new article written by the translator and editor of the CPDV (see SacredBible.org)" included in history. —A.S. Damick talk contribs 17:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. It looks like a good project, but the vanity issue is a real one. KHM03 18:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I wrote the article and I am working on the translation. However, I argue that the article should remain because it can be edited by others and because it includes a section on disadvantages of the translation. Every translation of the Bible should have an entry of some kind in the Wikipedia. --Ronconte 21:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Every Wikipedia article (except protected ones, of course) can be edited by anyone with a working web browser, but the policy still stands that Wikipedia is not a place to write articles about oneself or one's own work. I'm a published poet with a book available for sale, but there's nothing on Wikipedia about me, because no one has cared to take enough note. I can't start an article with my name or the name of my book, just because others can edit it. I wish you well with your project, and perhaps if it becomes notable enough, someone else will write an article about it. —A.S. Damick talk contribs 22:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conflicted. Sounds like an extraordinarily interesting project, and verifiable, to boot. But I suppose "interesting" isn't enough to establish "notable." An interesting project idea doesn't deserve an article in Wikipedia, but an interesting ongoing project with some discernable progress toward success does. To me it all comes down to the fact that the person who started and runs the project probably does not have standing to judge notability for Wikipedia. So what I'd really like to see is, either the article is deleted and if it is truly notable presumably some other, unrelated Wikipedians will create a new article on it, or else said Wikipedians will rework the article so that it's not written by someone with a vested interest in promoting the project. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    And on a personal note, Ronconte, all the best to you on your project. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked at this, I would find it more likely to be considered notable if some of the longer books were completed, such as one of the five books of Moses, or one of the Gospels. As it is, it's difficult to truly answer the question "Will this project still be around in a few years?" and "Will it actually be completed by 2009?" Wikipedia does not need to look like sourceforge.net, full of pages for every incomplete project concept. That's not to discount the value of the work already done; that's just to raise the question of whether or not enough work has been done to justify calling it "notable." If CPDV has enough value to stand on its own without needing Wikipedia to bring attention to it, then it should be in Wikipedia. If it needs Wikipedia in order to attract enough attention that the project will succeed, it does not belong here. Kind of a catch-22, I know. It should be up to the project itself to establish merit with its track record. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article on the CPDV differs substantially from someone writing an article about themselves or about a book they wrote because it is a version of the Bible. It is 23% completed by a count of the verses. The Book of Psalms is completed; the Psalms is the one book of the Bible that is perhaps most often published on its own. Also, I read somewhere in Wikipedia that some articles are accepted by someone writing about their own work (can't find it now). Therefore, I suggest instead of deleting this article, changing it to a stub, so that other persons can begin a new article from that point. --Ronconte 00:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't a value judgment on the work, which may well be fantastic, on the level of St. Jerome himself. Should anyone who starts his own translation of the Bible get into an encyclopedia? Wikipedia's policy answer to that question is "no." Just as claiming to be God (a much more important sort of claim than making a Bible, don't you think?) isn't enough to get one put into an encyclopedia, making a version of the Bible is not enough, either. Notability has to be established, and it cannot be established by the fiat of the writer/translator/worker in question. Wikipedia records notability. It doesn't create it. It's not a place to get press for one's work. If your work truly is notable, making some sort of verifiable impact on Biblical studies/religion/etc., someone else will start the article. You suggest changing the article to a stub rather than deleting it, but is that because you fear that it wouldn't otherwise see the light of day? If so, then that even more proves the point about the need for notability to be established by someone other than the one with a personal interest. —A.S. Damick talk contribs 14:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with what you are saying but go ahead and delete it. --Ronconte 16:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I found this article while looking for a public domain Catholic Bible for a software project. The CPDV is exactly what I was looking for. Well, it will be when it's done anyway. :-) But Mr. Conte has more than enough done for me to get started. I'd like the article to stay. Or I would also consider writing a repleacement article once I am more familiar with the project. --LawfulGood 08:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting to December 25, 2005. Insert new comments below. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:08, Dec. 25, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ambient nights[edit]

fails WP:MUSIC, no claim of wide-public knowledge, looks like promontional JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Don't tell me we are doing articles on collections of downloadable MP3s now, with no physical evidence that the music was published. Endomion 07:53, 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. This cold have been speedied.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yoda Soda[edit]

Non notable. Maybe transwiki (to cookbook) if it wouldn't be a copyvio. gren グレン 07:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki where? I doubt anyone would want to take it. Delete as a non-notable recipe, stub with little potential for expansion, and the mild potential for copyvioness (although I don't recommend the article be marked as such, AfD should be enough to handle this). Do you think we can also get it for crystal balling (claiming that the best time to drink this beverage is during the showing of two unlikely-to-be-released SW movies)? - Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 09:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'd been looking at cookbook articles so I just assumed it. gren グレン 19:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Saberwyn -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Saberwyn. --Metropolitan90 19:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you wanted to Transwiki, I think this would be the place (if the copyvio concerns can be resolved). -Colin Kimbrell 18:58, 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 Merge to Grinnell College. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GrinnellPlans[edit]

Miniscule forum of a liberal arts college in Iowa. 400K Alexa rank, tiny membership, no incoming wikilinks, no media coverage. -- Perfecto 07:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

M11 Music[edit]

No alexa data; no incoming wikilinks; zero "link:" results in Google; 576 "members". Fails WP:WEB -- Perfecto 07:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Perfecto 07:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Quarl 11:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think you'll find Virtual Community links to this article. Also try searching for 'Music community' on Google. This site will come up first in the listing, indicating its importance. Also WP:WEB are GUIDLINES, not POLICY. There is no need to delete this entry, it just needs updating. --Az Paz 19:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anybody can make a link in Virtual Community, so that itself isn't evidence of notability. Notability should be established first before linking from there. I did verify that "music community" in quotes on google.co.uk (but not google.com) shows http://www.m11music.co.uk/ as the first result, but I believe only because it has that string in the title, not because it is important as a music community. http://www.m11music.co.uk/ has no alexa data as nominator said. Its medium google rank is probably due to it having been linked from Wikipedia for a year. --Quarl 22:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Ashibaka tock 20:38, 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 Delete. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 22:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thothica[edit]

Nn forum. Nn Alexa rank. Zero "link:" results in Google. "113" members.--  Perfecto 07:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet alert. --Quarl 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
a bit of a misleading and gratuitous comment, no? be at least fair about it... BobbyRay 04:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cool, Quarl, please. BobbyRay, I'm sorry I forgot to add a phrase in my nomination above, so it wasn't clear. The phrase is, "Fails WP:WEB". WP:WEB is the guideline that helps us identify which websites are encyclopedic or not. If you can cite reliable sources asserting the site's notability, then this article can be considered positively. Again, sorry. -- Perfecto 04:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for popping in and clarifying a bit, Perfecto. Unfortunately, I can't do that. Asides from the entry in WikiPedia, we've kept a low profile until now intentionally, however we will be posting a new website in the next few days, and perhaps that will help clarify some things for you guys from our side. I think that, from a 'uniqueness' and 'utility' standpoint, Thothica deserves mention, and will likely will soon for other reasons, as well. If I may make a suggestion for a compromise, perhaps removing the notice and putting the article on 'probation' for a few months would be fair - if by then we don't meet guidelines and someone wants to, reconsider deletion then. Thothica IS unique, it's more significant than it currently appears to be, and does serve a very useful purpose to a number of people...and it is an interesting project and informative article, according to those who have contacted us based on the information in the article. and again, as I understand it, the guidelines are just that - ONLY guidelines that editors/moderators can use IF they so choose, but they are not requirements articles are "required" to meet. thanks in advance... BobbyRay 04:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. "Creating or editing an article about yourself, your business, your publications, or any of your own achievements is strongly discouraged (WP:AUTO)." You admitted the conflict of interest and your desire to push this because it gives the site exposure. Go promote your site elsewhere, please, not here. Thank you. -- Perfecto 05:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
sorry u look at it that way. that's not the correct interpretation - i said it was the 'only' exposure we had, not that that was the goal of having the article there. we've not promoted the thing *at all* and i posted it here at the suggestion of someone else who felt that, due to the nature of what we were up to, it would be appropriate. That you choose to interpret my being open into an admission of improper use and conflict of interest, well, sorry. poor choice of words, i guess. Anyway, i can see i'm wasting my time and your time. Do what you will. I can only hope you will reconsider, but i can see which way the wind's blowing on this subject. Anyway, good luck with wikipedia - as i say in my user description, i think this is a great idea, and i'm sorry that for some reason someone's decided we don't belong. but i have to say, i'm perhaps not the only one 'conflicted' - but at least i admitted sensitivity to the issue and tried consciously not to step over the line. peace. BobbyRay 05:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I identified with you what it takes to get websites listed here. AFAICS, someone will rewrite the article a few months later if your site is encyclopedic enough. I hope you will contribute to other articles where you find interest. -- Perfecto 05:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ought to be speedy. -- Perfecto 07:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Quarl 11:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems informative. I don't understand the attempted censorship and see no problem here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.176.215 (talk • contribs)
  • Since when are articles here deemed worthy based on Google rankings or popularity? An article about an arts and sciences community seems a lot more appropriate here than articles about AOL or Yahoo!, for example - unless you also plan to propose deleting them as well? BobbyRay 02:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, alexa rank of 2,428,156 [20] (as opposed to unranked). Wikipedia has somewhat quantitative criteria for inclusion of this kind of thing (e.g. Alexa rank of 100,000), see WP:WEB. More important than AOL or Yahoo? That's silly. --Quarl 03:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that BobbyRay, the article creator, is a new user and creator of the Thothica website. --Quarl 03:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Seems to me Thothica.com has touched on on a very good idea: that the internet be used in a constructive mannor that is conducive to high-content material and civil discussion. I see that numerous "online communities" are listed in Wiki - what's the bias of "Perfecto?" Immunologist 03:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Metacomment: Immunologist's only edits are to this article. --Quarl 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Metacomment: Irrelevant comment, Quarl. Anyone, including me starts somewhere - posts a first comment/edit somewhere, probably (as was the case with me) anonymously. The number of contributions to WP of anyone has no bearings on the relevance or right to voice one's opinion. And obviously, if someone feels s/he's been wronged, s/he'll muster support from other community members. That's normal and natural. And if I am not entirely mistaken, this very same principle that you now call sock-puppet was the base of Wikipedia itself, not? Think back a little before applying different measures for the same thing. Helmar 10:06, 27 December 2005 (GMT+0200)
        • Totally relevant comment. Sock puppetry is certainly not the base of Wikipedia. Also, as may be obvious, Helmar org (talk · contribs) has only contributed to Thothica and its AFD. --Quarl 23:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks for the clarification, however we're not fully 'deployed' so naturally such rankings would be low. However it is influential beyond it's size (you should see the members list, and check out the abilities of many of the members). in any case, we will be launching officially in january and likely will meet many of the standards mentioned above. I've tried to be pretty sensitive to appearances, here, and have (for example) accepted advice/guidance from one of your colleagues when the article was first submitted. -- and please note, i didn't say more "important", I said more "appropriate" BobbyRay 03:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article. I use Thothica every day and its a worthwhile service and an interesting community Martin 24.81.1.90 03:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • as far as notability, it seems the policies at the WP WEB link are designed to ensure little guys don't have a shot. to my knowledge, we're the first of our kind of "community environment" - perhaps that's enough in and of itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyray (talk • contribs)
    • Don't have a shot at what? Having an article in Wikipedia doesn't mean you're cool, and not having one doesn't mean your not cool. It just means your Alexa rank isn't high enough, nothing personal. --Quarl 03:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metacomment to Bobbyray: Please Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block; nor ask your friends to create accounts to support you. --Quarl 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metacomment to Quarl - I resent that accusation. it's unfair and if you check the ip's of the user's involved, i suspect you'll find they likely do NOT match mine. I strongly request you rescind that accusation. BobbyRay 04:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quarl, please understand: all i am trying to accomplish here is to prevent what i STRONGLY feel, as a long time wikipedia user, the unfair deletion of the article. I don't think it takes up unnecessary space, i do feel it is informative and appropriate here, and i think it is not necessary to delete it. i do not control what others say. and i do not control what happens here. however the article in question was posted in good faith, and i believe it deserves to be here. the guidelines on the WP WEB page are just that - guidelines, and not policies, so they do NOT need to be interpreted as if they were. Plus, they seem to be more or less arbitrary - certainly not based on any research? i'm not sure i understand why ur so vociferously opposed to it, however for me, it seems quite an inoffensive article at worst, and at least interesting to a certain subset of users. BobbyRay 04:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings, all! I am one of the co-founders of Sonork, the IM Thothica is based on. I'm new to WP (except for one anonymous change some months ago). As one of its pilot phase members I am not new to Thothica, though. I find the discussion here utterly irrelevant if not downright absurd. If WP aims to be a representative and relevant source of information, entries like these IMO form the very backbone. The entry may not be encyclopedic at this very moment, but it's also a Catch-22, because it never may attain this goal if it gets deleted here. Given that the search engines don't yet list the site itself, most of the members have come via the WP listing itself - at least according to my ad-hoc 'survey' among the Thothica members on my list, while doing some research about online communities. Also as a result of the notice on the Thothica page and the subsequent mud-fight on this page, I have taken the liberty to edit the entry, removing spelling mistakes, restructuring the content, thus making it more readable. I have also removed those parts that may be 'self-promoting'. That said, from what I have read above, it seems it's not entirely clear to the editors themselves which rule (?) the entry violated. I at least hope to have removed any remaining issues other than that the entry on Dec 27th, 2005 is not encyclopedic. If this is the KO criterion, then remove the entry, otherwise keep it up and monitor its hits, plus the continuous editing and extension of the entry itself. I certainly advocate the latter option, hence my editing of the entry itself. As the entry doesn't violate any rule other than possibly being a little premature (official launch happening in a few weeks), why not keep it for now and revisit it at the end of January - I am sure the Wiki has a feature for this, not? - Helmar Rudolph, Cape Town,RSA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmar org (talk • contribs)
  • Helmar's point is rather spurious. Wikipedia is WP:NOT not an advertising venue. Period. End of discussion. Down that path lies madness and spam. Re-list the site if and when it becomes notable for itself; in the interim delete. 24.71.91.173 08:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The I'd say that in the interests of fairness, other similar articles should be deleted. "Notability" is not a fair criterion, IMHO - it's just an indicator of longevity and/or size, and as guideline, the 'Notability' criterion is itself under review for deletion. Our project is interesting for other reasons, and it wasn't posted here for promotional purposes, period. It was posted because it was different, unique, and interesting - and possibly significant. You should look at this with a Big Picture view, too - what does it say when large, established corporate sites and services are included, but small, unknown private ones are excluded, regardless of their uniqueness or utility? But I've stated the case in case for keeping the article too much already. It goes or stays based on a decision made by whoever will make that decision. Maybe it gets reposted later, maybe not. I'm just sorry it's been such a big issue. Partly my fault, but I think largely not. In any case, I propose ending the discussion here. I've had my say. Regardless of how this comes out, wikipedia is still one of the best resources on the internet for information of any kind, and my opinion in that sense won't change. And in case someone wishes to twist THAT comment into having some self-serving, unintended, intent, please don't - it's just an honest and sincere comment I felt compelled to make...as all the rest of mine have been, regardless of the editorializing that has accompanied them. peace... BobbyRay 09:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:WEB and that's the end of it. If/when the site becomes famous in its own right, then re-create it. Comment: BobbyRay, if you can't provide external verification of the site's importance, it HAS to go (as per 24.71.91.173's comments). You are more than welcome to nominate other, similar articles for deletion (be careful not to violate WP:POINT in doing so though). ...what does it say when large, established corporate sites and services are included, but small, unknown private ones are excluded... . It says that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, which means all information must be verifiable and that articles must, in some loose sense, be "encyclopedic" or "important". WP:WEB is one of the main guidelines used for determining the "importance" or "encyclopedicness" of websites. Zunaid 15:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • go for it. Nice to see that 'voluntary' guidelines with arbitrary conditions (themselves under re-evaluation) are now written stone and 'must' be adhered to. Yeah, sour grapes, and I know it. But just so you know, I'm not about to go running around nominating other articles for deletion. It's not worth the effort, really, and I'm sure would enamour me even less to those In Charge here. I also won't repost the Thothica article, as - despite the stated 'reasoning' used here to the contrary - I'm certain that the motivation for removing it, if not at least 99% percent of the reason for the antipathy towards it, is because i happen to be both the article's author as well as the project's founder. Lack of foresight on my part, I guess, and I'm guessing some here have long memories. Perhaps someone else one day may deem it worthy of inclusion post something, but I'm not going to hold my breath - it's not our goal to become "famous" or a "household name" outside of the limited subset of people who'd find it interesting. Perhaps it may, eventually, become large enough by some of your 'guidelines' for inclusion - ironically enough, guidelines that I now (and likely will then, too, if they're not changed in the meantime (which at least in the case of notability appears likely)) object to. Anyway, I hope YOUR 2006 goes well... ciao BobbyRay 16:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB and the contributor seems to think wikipedia is an advertising vehicle. Bobbyray, that Wikipedia is the ONLY place you've advertised doesn't make it any better; it makes it much worse. I don't go to Encyclopedia Britannica to look for something that has never been published anywhere else. That's what the Yellow Pages are for. Longwinded responses aren't going to help your article, it's doomed. Perhaps you need to refresh yourself what wikipedia is, rather than attacking everything it is. The reason for removing it has nothing to do with you being the founder, and here's a tip: Martyrdom never works here. You're just digging your own grave deeper with every comment you write. --Golbez 15:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • golbez, as you eloquently demonstrated, i've come to realize that no matter what I say, it will be misinterpreted and used against keeping the article. I know what wikipedia is and what it's for. My intent wasn't to advertise. My objections are related to fairness, mainly related to the standards being applied and how. But due to me being the author and being the founder of the project that's the subject of it, my position as defender of the article is untenable - nothing I can say can help, and anything I say can be turned around to appear self-serving. There are also bigger issues, but I won't go into them here. The most frustrating thing is my integrity being called into question and being unable to defend myself. Anyway, I accept the decision - that doesn't make me a martyr, just a realist. As you said, 'it's doomed', and I see that. Delete it. Have a good one. BobbyRay 18:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nominator, per sockmeatpuppet issues. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • does the concept 'piling on' mean anything to you guys? geez. BobbyRay 16:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does the concept of "stop filling up Wikipedia with your nonsense!" mean aything to you? DreamGuy 22:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanityspamityegocruft. 22:45, 1 January 2006 (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 ("per nom"). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roughneck BBS[edit]

Nn BBS in Arizona. Nn alexa rank. No incoming wikilinks. Zero "link:" results in Google. No media coverage. Neglected since anon creation in October 2004.--  Perfecto 07:45, 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. And let's all just pretend we didn't read that bit about "having the right" to remove autobiographies, for the sake of the phrase's writer. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Segginger[edit]

Vanity page, as per User:TrashLock. Claims to be "most famous" for "Trash's Adventures" (which only gets just over one page of Google hits} and for being a game developer, which isn't really grounds for notability IMO. Delete CLW 00:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Game developers may be notable, but not when the "developer" is actually just a small time coder, and not when the "games" are simple macromedia flash animations with some free licence/stolen sound effects and computer generated voices --Qirex 04:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Or should I create a similar article about myself, and everyone in my class, and let everyone they know do the same? Bjelleklang - talk 04:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Developing flash animations is not notable enough, even if one is somewhat popular. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note In case anyone didn't notice, he wrote the article himself, and is also the only one to contribute to it. Bjelleklang - talk 04:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bleh go ahead, it's not like I care much about this article. It was more of a joke than anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrashLock (talk • contribs)
  • Keep He's no Neil Cicierega, but keep anyway. --Billpg 18:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I also think the user who posted it should be banned from wikipedia because [quote] It was more of a joke than anything. [/quote] Jporcaro 19:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article is decently written and mostly factual. (I removed POV statements like "egocentric").--Aleron235 20:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, after some thought, I don't think you people have the right to delete this article. If you read up a bit on the site, you will find that autobiographies are usually tolerated. It owuld be unfair to delete my article. Everything on this article is factual (now) and this article is not even linked anywhere. It's not self propaganda, it's just that some people might want a bit of info on myself and have the great idea of looking me up on wikipedia. --TrashLock 09:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The guidelines for biographies are at WP:BIO. (My vote is unchanged, he has actually done something of note.)
  • Relisted on 25 December in order to attempt to form a consensus. Please add comments below. —Cleared as filed. 07:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monochrome BBS[edit]

Nn BBS. Nn Alexa rank. No reputed media coverage. "link:http://www.mono.org/ site:mono.org" gives zero results. Had a couple of recent edits, though, but fails WP:WEB -- Perfecto 07:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Perfecto 07:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google hits for "Monochrome bbs". There are multiple clones of the Monochrome BBS software so it seems slightly notable. --Quarl 10:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's notable, just old.Mikeblas 14:33, 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 speedy redirect, albeit more slowly than usual. Well done, RasputinAXP. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poem to remember monarchs[edit]

Poem with no source information, no copyright information, and in any case, Wikipedia is not a repository for poetry. —Cleared as filed. 08:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also it could be moved to Mnemonic verses which needs to be bigger anyway. Endomion 08:46, 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SickthingsUK[edit]

Appears to fail WP:WEB completely. No Alexa ranking, forum needs to grow by a factor of 10 (if the article is correct)), and I couldn't find evidence of major media attention. The most this deserves right now would be a link in the Alice Cooper article, in my opinion. Delete. Joel7687 08:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom --Quarl 10:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - nn fansite. -- Marcika 14:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 16:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 00:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Gardner[edit]

Okay, an elderly gentelman, no claim of notability at all. Says that he is one of the last surviving veterans of WWI - except he never fought, in fact not even going to basic training (if he went at all) until after the armistice. No other info on this guy, and zero claim of actual notability, aside from his somewhat interesting story of dodging the bullet. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the thoughtful, well considered nom. However, as Gardner seems to be one of only 24 surviving US WW1 vets, based on our list, I have to vote weak Keep or merge info to Surviving veterans of World War I. -- JJay 08:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He is already a link in that article, there are others who have no articles in WP. There is a news story here Endomion 08:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I read the article before voting. I think keep is the best option, but if not some of the details could be added to the list. -- JJay 08:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Last vet of the Great War in Pennsylvania. Had a newspaper spread and a local TV story done on him. Endomion 08:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been in my hometown paper a bunch of times, and was even interviewed on radio once. Do I get a page? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are as old as Gardner maybe. You might even get 10 minutes to edit the article, but make sure everything you submit is verifiable. -- JJay 14:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unwise comparison. You are not a veteran of the First World War. Xoloz 20:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability is inherent. Article needs a source, however. KillerChihuahua?!? 08:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I've added a couple of links to newspapers on him to establish verifiability. The story is somewhat interesting, I suppose. Flyboy Will 10:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep --Quarl 10:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, agree with Endomion. Bart Versieck 12:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Under United States law, anyone who served during wartime is a veteran. Apparently he swore in before the Armistice was signed. Thus he assumed the risks of being a soldier. Having gotten lucky about the timing doesn't make that oath less solemn. I'm a war veteran who served overseas and I support this. Durova 22:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It needed a little tidy up, which I have given it. Moriori 03:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, , if this guy were Canadian I doubt we'd even be having this discussion. -- MisterHand 05:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, at this point, all surviving WWI vets (under 100 left) are very notable. Xoloz 20:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I am with Durova on this, he got lucky but he was willing to take the risks... plus his story is noteable enough Orbframe 22:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The media interest denotes the notability, and if it doesn't come under any of our predefined categories of notable, then we should invent another one. David | Talk 22:22, 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. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Groove[edit]

Vanity Page Ajsegal 08:46, 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 NO CONSENSUS. I'm going to list it for transwiki, after which this debate can be revisited; replacing transwiki by delete in this debate produces a borderline debate that ins't enough on its own. There are very plain OR problems, and people should stop being soft o those. -Splashtalk 23:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Overview of Class Roles in World of Warcraft[edit]

A lot of work has gone into this page but it is fancruft and reeks of original research. Reyk 09:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. Add references. -- JJay 10:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if references and confirmation of external peer review can be provided. If these can't be provided, delete outright as original research. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 10:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. This article embodies everything I despise about wikipedia: poorly written original research on gamecruft with extreme POV (warrior is the best class etc). At least run this through a spellchecker, for God's sakes. Rouge. Sheesh. P.S. www.gamefaqs.com Flyboy Will 10:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Would need extreme cleanup if kept. --Quarl 10:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or serious cleanup, "Wikipedia is not gamefaqs.com" Scoo 11:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:ISNOT GameFAQs.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 11:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I posted it in its present state just to see if I had the formatting correct so far. Needs improvement, I haven’t figured out how to do internal or external links yet. Thanks for catching the Rouge/Rogue error, I never have been able to figure out how to spell French words (they seem to relate to vowels in a way entirely alien to me) and I did run it through a spell checker (though not for God's sake). FYI, I went out of my way to leave out any POV, I hated playing warrior and enjoy playing Warlock, so looking at he article now I can see accidentally put a reverse bias in instead. Expected to have time to develop the article as I learned how Wiki articles are formatted (was just happy to figure out to use three equals signs for subheadings on this go), and wasn’t expecting such a strong ire, nor such an immediate reaction. I use Wiki all the time and figured the first article I wrote should be about something fairly innocuous and uncontroversial (like a silly video game) and one that I am relatively familiar with from all the articles/post I’ve read on the subject. Had no Idea that I would be befouling such sacrosanct and hallowed ground with my “fancruft.” Much thanks for so swiftly pointing out the error of my ways. Wiping article now, you guys have fun. Churchofmau 11:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC) ChurchofMauPOTATOgmail.com[reply]
  • Delete per  RasputinAXP . -feydey 14:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main Warcraft article. Endomion 16:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. It doesn't fit here, but it deserves to survive and would fit perfectly over there. karmafist 16:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per karmafist. A lot of actual work went into this. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I suggest other voters look into this more carefully before discussing what to do. Believe it or not, World of Warcraft is a category at Wikipedia with three subcategories. Obviously it's impossible to merge all of that with the main article. If some of it belongs at Wikibooks then it ought to be studied systematically, not done piecemeal. Most of these articles have an active base of contributors. This isn't the mad project of one individual. There are issues to be addressed, such as the overuse of screen shots. However since none of the rest of this material is under challenge and this particular article fits within a framework that's being accepted, my opinion is to let it stay. Durova 19:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's original research, and will always remain that way. There's a perfectly acceptable medium for this kind of stuff, gamefaqs.com. Flyboy Will 19:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOR. --Apostrophe 20:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a hopeless addict of the game and still I can say without any hesitation that this kind of thing does not belong on Wikipedia in any form. As stated above there are numerous forums and the like where this kind of work would be appreciated and useful, but here is not one of them. Arkyan 00:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. Pavel Vozenilek 05:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki not encyclopedic material.  Grue  17:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as per karmafist. Scoo 12:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clean-up and Rename to List of character classes in World of Warcraft Chanlord 04:38, 3 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evet Socrates[edit]

appears to be a vanity page, some google hits but all apear to be to this fellows webpage or to mirrors of wikipedia; no hits on amazon.com and article's subject is purportedly a singer/songwriter Fuhghettaboutit 09:37, 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 nomination withdrawn. The article was already moved to Classified (rapper). Mindmatrix 20:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Classified (Rap Artist)[edit]

Non-notable musician. Delete --Quarl 10:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There is a link to some of his lyrics here. Endomion 15:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: From Amazon- one of Canada’s top selling independent rap artists [25]+ no reason given for deletion. -- JJay 16:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand to a good paragraph (if you can), and move to Classified (rapper) --FuriousFreddy 23:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per this link, has had a video in medium rotation on MuchMusic, and has charted at least to #46 on a national genre specialty sales chart compiled by SoundScan. And being a sometime CBC Radio Three listener, I can attest to having heard him there. Which may not all be hugely compelling stuff, but certainly makes him at least marginally notable. Keep, but move the title as per FuriousFreddy. Bearcat 05:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination --Quarl 06:28, 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. Already deleted my a admin anyway.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reed College Freethinkers[edit]

Delete Almost no info, not notable enough VegaDark 10:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. --Quarl 10:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Original article erased by online troll; new version written up; a very worthy organization. --member of national Secular Student Alliance
While you added a lot more info, and while it sounds like it very well may be a worthy organization, I still don't feel this qualifies as notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Also, I don't believe votes in these matters count unless they are by a registered user. You should consider registering so your vote will count. VegaDark 10:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete College group with 10 active members.--Porturology 12:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete College group with 10 active members. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. 10 active members and no significantsupra-regional media attention or impact. - Marcika 14:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete less than 10 unique Google hits. Might be worth a mention under Reed College, but student organizations come and go too quickly to merit a full merger. Best wishes on your student projects. Not encyclopedic. Durova 19:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Student organizations that exist at only a single school are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 19:21, 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. -Splashtalk 23:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Elberg[edit]

Must be a hoax. To my knowledge, no Markus Elberg ever coached any Russian team. The claim that he won the Spanish League and European Champions League 8 times in a row sounds ridicoulus. The Google search does not show that such a coach exists. Delete. Conscious 11:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I do not assume it is a hoax, but there is absolutely no way to verify the information in this article. Endomion 15:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is a hoax. Punkmorten 16:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PVF Anubis[edit]

-- Search4Lancer 11:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't even comprehend what this is about, but I'm assuming it is crufty. Search4Lancer 11:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article does not even mention which game it is talking about. Endomion 15:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It could be referencing a ship from the game Freelancer. However, it's not clear (the only reason it could be that is due to it's mention of afterburners) -anabus_maximus (Talk to me) 21:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Andrew 15:31, 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 deleted. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Goliard[edit]

nn humor site, Alexa ranking 1.3 million, All Google turns up for this site are self-referential links. Delete.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 11:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I insist that advertisers for websites provide a link. Life is too short. Endomion 15:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Jmabel | Talk 21:18, 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. -Splashtalk 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Gonda[edit]

Requested delete. Page moved Sleepyhead 11:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete feydey 14:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userfy (as Sleepyhead and Bachrach44 already did). -- Marcika 14:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - user himself has decided this page should not have been created. Rufous 03:21, 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. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine science high school alumni[edit]

No useful content at this time. No edits for 2 months. Can be easily recreated once an editor contributes some useful content. novacatz 11:38, 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. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SuperCoolNothing - Art Journalism Website[edit]

Not notable web-page with no alexa ranking. feydey 14:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails to establish notability. -- SoothingR(pour) 14:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - They created this article to drum up hits, but failed to even include the link. Endomion 15:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN MNewnham 20:34, 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. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mariann from Brooklyn[edit]

Non-notable semi-anonymous caller to a Howard Stern radio-show (which doesn't even have its own article, apparently). Delete. Marcika 14:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - This page was written by a user (Mariann I presume) with exactly one edit. This information would be fine on a User page. Endomion 15:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Other Howard Stern regulars have their own articles Howard_Stern#Regulars_on_the_Howard_Stern_show. "Mariann" is also listed there as "Maryanne". I suppose, if we delete her, we should also delete most of those people since for most of them notability does not extend beyond the show itself. Flyboy Will 19:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upon actually checking the link I posted above, I see that those people are merely sections in The Wack Pack. That's perfect. Delete, since all relevant information for her is already in the larger article. Flyboy Will 19:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Wack Pack. Should be noted that The Wack Pack states her name is Mary Ann from Brooklyn so, if correct, a redirect is not appropriate. -- JLaTondre 17:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus:Keep. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William De Ow[edit]

I don't believe that being a cousin to a king of England makes someone instantly notable, especially not when all what he seems to have done is having owned a manor, which wasn't even all that spectacular ("grade two"). SoothingR(pour) 14:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Facts about this gentleman are already elucidated in the Stonehouse article. Endomion 15:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if he lived today there would be no question of his significance. If someone wants to redirect to Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, that would be okay but not my first choice. JYolkowski // talk 19:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reserving my opinion for now. He seems to have done more than own a manor, as this site [26] names him as a rebel against William Rufus. There is a question as to whether more than that can be found to put in the article. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he is likely to have been a notable person in his own time and place. Merge and redirect somewhere later if there is nothing more to be said, but I don't see the point in not keeping it until then. u p p l a n d 23:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JYolkowski Jcuk 00:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Verifiability for this character is very sketchy: the only real verifiable information about him is that he existed and owned land in Dorset in 1086. Other information available online seems to echo one or two modern sources and to be related primarily to gealogical research and local mythology, neither of which are always the most reputable when it comes to historical accuracy; I would be tempted to suggest that the article was written by someone promoting Stonehouse, Gloucestershire (witness the tone of that article as well). - squibix 15:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It does come down to whether any notability can be verified. There are all too many sites that present 'facts' that have no traceable history. -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability not verifiable. If someone comes up with a decent reference establishing notability beyond being listed in the Doomsday Book, I'll reconsider. -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to Thomas Cox's Magna Britannia, Antiqua et Nova (c1738), he was accused of treason, demanded trial by combat, failed, was blinded and dismembered. [27]. I've added that to the article. -- JLaTondre 17:23, 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. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We Are The Music Makers[edit]

It is hard to verify any information about this band and there are concerns that it does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. QQ 14:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The only hit for "We Are The Music Makers" on Amazon is for an album by Joy Electric. Endomion 15:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete for this version; see this Google query. If we get around to writing articles on Joy Electric albums, then this article should be about the relevant album. --Idont Havaname 21:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: vanity page, no albums released on even a micro-indie.--Hraefen 01:44, 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. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian[edit]

WP:ISNOT GameFAQs. A Non-Returning character in Beyblade. feydey 15:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fancruft per nom. Endomion 15:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 16:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No context, not notable. --LesleyW 05:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No context, not notable
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GTC Fenris[edit]

Can't discern what it's really about-- Search4Lancer 15:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't know what game this is for, but I don't want to see each variety of space ship with its own fricken WP article. Endomion 15:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gamecruft stub. Chris the speller 19:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - NeoJustin 05:41, December 27, 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. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GVCv Sobek[edit]

No idea what game this is for, appears to even be a strategy guide, no less-- Search4Lancer 15:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, whatever game this is for, we should let players find out for themselves how to win.Bjones 15:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ah, yet another article about the "Vesudans" in an undisclosed game. Endomion 15:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If there can be an article for every single Pokémon (387 odd I might add) I see no reason for there to be an article for each ship class in Freespace. There is enough room for expansion. I urge you not to delete this artice. Oh, and it's Vasudans. - Ferret 09:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also consider the content in the GTVA Colossus, which is another Freespace ship if you doubt potential for expansion. - Ferret 09:58, 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, copyvio, afd, whichever. -Splashtalk 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zviad Pochkhua[edit]

Poorly written blatant vanity-- Search4Lancer 15:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP is not a resume listing service.
  • Tagged as copyvio. -- JJay 16:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably vanity. Note that the article's discussion page contains the article too!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commander Davis[edit]

A google search for "Commander Davis" "Clone trooper" gets only one hit, a fanfic message board post. Delete as non-notable vanity. --InShaneee 23:44, 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. This is a marginal subtopic article that has very little information in it.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Execution tracing[edit]

This is spam-ish for an external article, but contains some apparently useful info that should be merged somewhere. Expert help please?

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is based on one page in a PowerPoint presentation. It lacks both the context and any substance. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:12, 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 Speedy deleted. Thryduulf 21:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Pettit[edit]

Jim Pettit

Delete - self promotion, non notable. --Oscarthecat 20:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless self-advertising user produces a notable CV... --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - You fail the test of notability automatically if you have to do your own bio. Endomion 16:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also marked this for speedy deletion. It's a poster child for speedy. Having held a job and having written software is not notable. Chris the speller 19:09, 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 REDIRECT to Mind transfer. -Splashtalk 23:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mind enema[edit]

As a huge Red Dwarf fan, I can personally vouch for this article's lack of relevancy either to Wikipedia, the world's knowledge or any Red Dwarf category. The Mind Enema was a minor and passing reference in one episode of the TV Sitcom. Rob 01:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mind transfer, which includes the following content: "Red Dwarf, where a person's memories and personality can be recorded in just a few seconds and, upon their death, they can be recreated as a holographic simulation. Arnold Rimmer is an example of such a person." Endomion 15:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Endomion -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:14, 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. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Baret[edit]

This seems to be a vanity article. Austrian 16:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Notability. Computer technicians are twelve for a nickle. No citation of his accomplishments in the media. Endomion 16:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:15, 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. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barney Live! The Let's Go Tour[edit]

This is a one-line sub-stub with no context or wikification that is borderline advertising. It provides no information about who/what Barney (Live) is, where the tour is happening (even which country), how people can find out more about it. If it is due to start in January 2006 then I would presume that all the auditions have now taken place making the article out of date. Thryduulf 16:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete obvious advertisement. Endomion 16:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT not a crystal ball. Durova 19:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense. Catamorphism 01:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love you, you love me, we're one happy family. That's a Delete, by the way Sceptre (Talk) 21:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - NeoJustin 05:40, December 27, 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. Hmmm, wrong language and spammy...Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SolvIT Networks[edit]

The page is written in Romanian. Several users knowing Romanian confirmed that it is basically advertising as it is a text about a company ([28]) written in non-scientific way. Comments: 1. Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English#SolvIT_Networks, 2. Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Romanian_Article
mmtux talk 16:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advertising SolvIT Networks, furnishor of complete solutions for management infrastructure, ... (and I don't even speak romanian) - FrancisTyers 16:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. — TheKMantalk 04:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, as above. Cchan199206 05:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertising - AdamSmithee 16:57, 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. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Usenet spammers[edit]

A nearly empty list about a non-notable subject. Delete. karmafist 16:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WikiSpam about UseNet Spam. Endomion 17:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't spam actually on of the most notable things about Usenet? It seems that the 1988 spam claimed as the earliest one in this article isn't mentioned in Newsgroup spam. Move this to some useful location such as Usenet spam, merge with Newsgroup spam and redirect there. u p p l a n d 17:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and do not merge, unless a List of Wikipedia vandals or Wikipedia POV pushers is in the works. In short, the phenomenons are notable, but the individuals perpetuating them are not. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:36, Dec. 25, 2005
  • Delete. not notable at this scale. --Improv 18:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, might as well put this up for speedy at this rate --Appleboy Talk 18:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 05:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the 1988 spam reference to Newsgroup spam since it is backed with a source (the actual message in Google's archieve) and then delete the remainder of article. There are other organizations who provide lists of spammers - let's leave that job to them as only the history, methodology, & impacts of spamming are encyclopedic. -- JLaTondre 17:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Usenet history is notable.  Grue  17:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But these two articles don't contain a list of Usenet spammers! So, by deleting this list we're erasing useful information from Wikipedia. And that, IMHO, is a bad thing.  Grue  19:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want a list, that's also in History of spamming. As for the list in this article, the two blue links are both in Newsgroup spam & History of spamming and the red links are both unsourced entries by IP editors. Merge the 1998 reference as I recommended and all the verified information is still kept. -- JLaTondre 14:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - NeoJustin 05:40, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 05:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bangladeshi cricketers[edit]

Duplication. Superseded by List of Bangladeshi Test cricketers and List of Bangladeshi ODI cricketers which have more detail and which is de-facto standard for other cricket player lists by country. See List of cricket topics#Test for list of other like lists. Delete -- Ian ≡ talk 16:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bangladeshi cricketers is more complete. Perhaps we should replace this list with a direct link to the Category page (can we do that by way of redirect?}jguk 17:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects shouldn't cross namespace, and I'm not certain that redirects to categories work anyway. Thryduulf 21:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked, redirects across namespaces do work - see User:Jguk/sandbox. BAsed on this, I recommend a redirect, jguk 21:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could make a disambiguation page for the two lists mentioned by the nom. Punkmorten 21:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make a disambig between the ODI and Test cricketers lists. Thryduulf 21:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the category. Pavel Vozenilek 05:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changed opinion - disambig page looks as a better option. The same for other lists bellow. Pavel Vozenilek 05:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not actually correct to say it's been superseded. Most Bangladeshi cricketers have played neither Test nor ODI cricket, jguk 09:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not most. a quick count (and I'm sure there'd be a few more which I missed because of name spelling variations) showed 27 out of 35 on the list were also in the ODI or Test cricketers lists. m -- Ian ≡ talk 12:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • By most I meant most Bangladeshi cricketers that we'd consider notable enough for an article, not just those for whom we currently have an article, jguk 10:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reorganise. Not all notable cricketers have played for their country. Choalbaton 15:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And those are best served by the category. I think making into a disambiguation page is best, with Test cricketers, ODI cricketers, and the category - that should cover everything. Redirects across namespaces are confusing, and usually discouraged, I think (though at least it's better than redirecting to the WP: namespace...). Sam Vimes 23:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but limit to cricketers who are not in the other two lists (with links to them). Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive. You can have a lot of red links in a list, and you can organize the people by position, for example. howcheng {chat} 06:52, 4 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 keep. —Cleared as filed. 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Zealand cricketers[edit]

Duplication. Superseded by List of New Zealand Test cricketers and List of New Zealand ODI cricketers which have more detail and which is now de-facto standard for other cricket player lists by country. See List of cricket topics#Test for list of other like lists. Delete -- Ian ≡ talk 16:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Zealand cricketers is more complete. Perhaps we should replace this list with a direct link to the Category page (can we do that by way of redirect?}jguk 17:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects shouldn't cross namespace, and I'm not certain that redirects to categories work anyway. Thryduulf 21:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make a disambig between the the two lists. Thryduulf 21:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked, redirects across namespaces do work - see User:Jguk/sandbox. BAsed on this, I recommend a redirect, jguk 21:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • make it a disambig. Not a redirect, since there's information here which is useful enough that wouldn't be transferrable to a category (whether the players are current or former, how many tests and ODIs they played, etc). Grutness...wha? 01:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page title is "New Zealand cricketers". Most of these have never played Test or ODI cricket. The category can easily have an intro linking to the other lists. It would be a kind of two in one -- both a redirect and a disambiguation, jguk 09:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. --LesleyW 11:31, 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 keep. —Cleared as filed. 05:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cricketers from Sri Lanka[edit]

Duplication. Superseded by List of Sri Lankan Test cricketers and List of Sri Lankan ODI cricketers which have more detail and which is now de-facto standard for other cricket player lists by country. See List of cricket topics#Test for list of other like lists. Delete -- Ian ≡ talk 16:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sri Lankan cricketers is more complete. Perhaps we should replace this list with a direct link to the Category page (can we do that by way of redirect?}jguk 17:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects shouldn't cross namespace, and I'm not certain that redirects to categories work anyway. Thryduulf 21:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked, redirects across namespaces do work - see User:Jguk/sandbox. BAsed on this, I recommend a redirect, jguk 21:50, 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 23:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Pierce[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable biography, written by Larvatus whose own autobiography was userfied a day ago. No indication that Mr. Pierce is notable outside Usenet. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:36, Dec. 25, 2005

  • Delete per nom. If someone can find evidence of coverage in non-Internet media, I'll reconsider. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Firstly I would expect any print book on the history of Usenet would most likely mention Tim Pierce, secondly who says Usenet doesn't count for notability? It's still a huge network with a huge audience. If there is a precedent, point me to it. I'm not a fan of the guy, but I'll never agree that he's not notable. --LesleyW 11:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Can you name such a book? It isn't verifiable unless and until someone can supply the refence. And yes, Usenet is huge, but again, I want to see references verifying notability, and high Google counts don't necessarily prove that (I have 5,000 Google hits myself, and I'm not notable enough for my own article). -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll try when I get a chance, but all the public libraries around here are closed until 4 Jan. --LesleyW 23:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a person supposedly famous for Usenet use, I'd expect them to have more posts to Usenet than little old non-notable me. He doesn't. By a substantial margin. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Also note that a Wiki user named Tim Pierce participated in the discussion about deleting the Larvatus article; if he is the same person covered by this article, perhaps the content can be moved to his user space. Engineer Bob 23:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For all reasons that make Tim Pierce a Usenet legend. Larvatus 00:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
  • Keep He's certainly notable in the Usenet culture. Haakon 17:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think Wikipedia needs entries on every Usenet character under the sun; the movers and shakers like David Lawrence, Gene Spafford, Henry Spencer, yes; pundits and kibitzers like me, no. It strikes me as ironic that Archimedes Plutonium has a Wikipedia entry but that Tom Truscott and Stan Barber do not. As far as Wikipedia is concerned I would rather be known for my contributions as User:Twp than as Tim Pierce. Tim Pierce 12:30, 3 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.

I like this article, please don't delete it!

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Wiktionary. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beer shits[edit]

Just some slang neologism [29]... poop jokes are soooo funny you know. Doesn't really fit as a speedy delete though. W.marsh 16:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to wiktionary. This is a slang term, but not exactly a neologism. Crypticfirefly 18:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwikki to Wiktionary per Crypticfirefly -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is everything some fraternity asshole used in a sentence once worth keeping?

Why delete? If need be transwiki to wiktionary, but i feel it is valid. (In my area this is referred to as an 'AGB' or 'After Grog Bog')

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 23:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Dollars[edit]

This is a local barter group. This obviously isn't actual currency. Little verifiable information is available. For instance, I don't see an independent reliable source regarding its usage level. Rob 16:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Terence Ong Talk 16:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I put back the original version (as I found it) to be fair. So, when voting note only 500 members are claimed[30]. Even this number isn't verified. A google doesn't seem to reveal info not provided by the group itself. I lived my whole life in Calgary, and I've never heard of this thing. It's just some little groups project, with no signficance. I think the article gives quite a false impression that this stuff is actually accepted currency. It seems this article is just an attempt at free advertising for an unheard of program. --Rob 17:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is the precedent of many other local currencies (or "community currencies", "complementary currencies") with articles. See, for example, Local currency#Modern Local Currencies, Category:Community currencies, List of Canadian community currencies. Whether or not someone living in a city of about a million people has heard of everything that's gone on in that city is not a measure of it's validity for inclusion. I haven't heard of every single thing mentioned in the Calgary, Alberta article and I've spent most of my life living here. (I'm providing specific feedback on comments about the article's content on the talk page.) --GrantNeufeld 21:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I haven't heard of everything in Canada either, but I sure heard of the currency mentioned there. I'm sure every single person (even tourist) in Canada has heard of the Canadian dollar. One attribute of currency, is it tends to be known where it's used. But, I concede the mere fact I personally don't know of something, doesn't mean much, and we have to g--Rob 17:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)o by published sources. So, I'll wait and see. But, when you do have time to update the article, I would urge you, as somebody familiar with it, to rewrite it completely with the non-Calgarian, even non-Canadian in mind. Consider the reader who's just learning about Calgary, knows nothing of our economic system, and could be misinformed by this. While I am certain you wrote this in good faith, and the program is operated in good faith, I fear allowing an article like this, and its precident, opens the door to others to make similiar articles, about a "currency" that aren't in such good faith. When you have time, I request the first two or three sentences make explicitly clear exactly (or as much as possible) what scope/utility this "currency" has (how many people use it, how many organizations accept it, how widely known it is). --Rob 23:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I had no problem finding external references to the scheme's existence and validity. Maybe should be removed from Category:Currency of Canada though. --LesleyW 05:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a verifiable article, and also notable for being an alternative currency in a large city. The meaning of local currency is also well-established (and there's a link in the article if any confusion remains), so I think Rob's self-reverted edits are unnecessary. - squibix 16:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "local currency" means the currency that's generally accepted in a local area. A (clueless) foreign tourist coming to Calgary, who asks their travel agent "What's the local currency" would be told of the Canadian dollar (assuming they had of an honest travel agent). No travel agent would mention Calgary Dollars. A tourist asking the same question of Hong Kong would be told of the Hong Kong dollar. Now, if you read Calgary Dollars and Hong Kong dollar (in their current state) both give the impression that the currency is real and fully useable. Of course only one of those two articles is factually accurate. Here's a quote from the factually correct article "The issue of local currency was then resumed by the Hong Kong Government and the authorized local banks after the emancipation.". Here's a quote from the misleading article "Calgary Dollars is a local currency ...". Notice how both assert they are a local currency, yet they use the term in quite a different manner. Also, I just removed Category:Currency of Canada, as there's actually a law that says nobody can claim something to be the Currency of Canada without authorization of the Canadian government. This is really going to far. --Rob 17:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about Category:Currency of Canada; Calgary Dollars are not currency over the whole of Canada and thus obviously don't belong in that category. However, your insistence on an overly narrow meaning of 'currency' and 'local currency' make the rest of your point false. Yes, in the case of your question to the travel agent 'local currency' means the Canadian Dollar, but 'a local currency' also has a well-attested specific meaning which applies in the case of Calgary Dollars: witness the top Google hits for the phrase. 'Currency', similarly, is not limited to nationally-issued monetary units: as the dictionary has it, currency is 'money in any form when in actual use as a medium of exchange.' Calgary Dollars, though not widely used, certainly fit within that description.
Note also that your use of the Hong Kong article is not the clearest example: Hong Kong is actually a part of China, and therefore the fact that Hong Kong dollars exist seperately from Chinese currency means that they are much more likely to be termed a local currency than, say, Canadian Dollars. - squibix 19:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're making the false assumption that geography/locality means the same thing for Calgary Dollars that it does for Hong Kong dollars. It doesn't. Calgary Dollars (like apples) are worth something to whomever wishes to accept them, anywhere on Earth. They are worth no more, and no less, in Calgary, Edmonton, or Hong Kong for that matter. Nobody must take them, and most people won't take them, even in Calgary. The word "Calgary" exists in their name, but they have no *legal* tie to Calgary. Hong Kong dollars are legal tender and *must* be accepted for certain purposes by certain persons in certain situations in a certain place (the exact rules of when/where is beside the point, and I realize other currencies are used). By the same token the Canadian dollar *must* be accepted as settlement of certain debts in certain places in certain circumstances. If I eat at a Calgary resteraunt that advertises a meal for ten dollars, but doesn't say what type of dollar, and I leave ten Calgary Dollars at the table, and walk off, I've just committed a criminal offense. If I had left ten Canadian dollars, I would have legally settled the debt, and the resteraunt could not legally demand any further or alternate payment.

Also, I suggest the growing mistaken use of "local currency" has resulted from the fact there are so few *real* local currenies, like that in Hong Kong, and people just don't know real ones exist. But, our articles are supposed to inform, not misinform. Nobody's explained what beneficial knowledge this article provides. We don't write artcles for those in the know, but for those who don't know. --Rob 23:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Update article to explain what a community currency is to explain what the system actually is. -Dr Haggis - Talk 01:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Admittedly the article does a poor job of explaining Calgary Dollars, but it is verifiable and has been reported on the CBC news and other mainstream media. The article should probably be strengthened by adding reference to Social Credit's interesting past in Alberta. --NormanEinstein 15:24, 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 23:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skvish[edit]

Not notable, not verifiable, likely hoax. Google finds only one page containing both Lozar and Skvish: our own article. Amazon.com doesn't have any books written by anyone named Mojca Lozar or David Glumac. —Caesura(t) 16:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonsense. Endomion 17:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The authors seem to be real (Slovenian authors), but the article is not notable. --mmtux talk 18:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I searched and couldn't find anything about the authors, let alone the 'skvish'. My search results showed Mojca Lozar as an independent candidate in Slovenian elections and David Glumac as writing a review for Amazon! This is definitely rubbish. Lupinewulf 06:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to object, since both Mojca and I are real, and I can provide you with a scan of the book(s), but if you think it's not something that should be listed, be my guests! //David

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reining Creek Ranch[edit]

This is an entry on a breeder of horses. If they were instrumental in defining or promoting a certain breed they ought to be kept, yet I see none of that here. Pilatus 16:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Reads like vanity / advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmtux (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 18:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The parking meter in front of my house is verifiable, important to anyone who parks nearby, and utterly, utterly un-encyclopaedic. Pilatus 18:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? Point me to a book, newspaper article, website, or such about your parking metre. OTOH, there appear to be several web hits on this, and if I read periodicals about horses I could probably point to further references. JYolkowski // talk 19:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I get twelve unique Google hits on this outfit, none of them third-party reviews. Amongst other things, WP:NOT a business directory, advertising medium or propaganda vehicle. Yellowikis is down the hall, two doors on the right. Pilatus 19:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad for nn organisation.  Grue  17:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. Malcolm Morley 07:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This entry does in fact promote and define very specific breed and bloodlines of high quality horses.
    • Comment Please provide references for this claim. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Have you visted the supporting websites? Do you have ANY knowledge of QuarterHorse and Paint bloodlines? The information seems self expanitory
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Farm Report[edit]

  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and nothing in allmusic.com. Quite NN. Chris the speller 18:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 48 Google hits when excluding Wikipedia mirrors. Punkmorten 21:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — TheKMantalk 10:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Davril2020 00:00, 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 23:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway Baptist (2005)[edit]

  • Delete NN album (allmusic=0) by NN band, also up for deletion (The Oxford Farm Report) Chris the speller 18:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — TheKMantalk 10:26, 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 23:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern Prometheus (2005)[edit]

  • Delete NN album (allmusic=0) by NN band, also up for deletion (The Oxford Farm Report) Chris the speller 18:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — TheKMantalk 10:26, 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 SPEEDIED as indicated below by Alkivar. -Splashtalk 23:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michelbytes[edit]

NOTE: speedied as nn-bio, personal attack page.  ALKIVAR™ 12:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since Looper5920 never got around to create this page, I'm giving it a go for him. The subject of the article is non-notable..there are literally tenthousands of people on the internet that offer their help to other people. They're not in need of an article on Wikipedia. I say delete. -- SoothingR(pour) 19:10, 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. -Splashtalk 00:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upsilon phi delta[edit]

By its own admission, this is a local sorority started in 1993. Generally, local organizations aren't kept without some claim to notability, of which I see little. Maybe merge to parent organization, if there is one, but I am not sure what content is worth it. Xoloz 19:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge some of this to Ursinus College, which could use some more text. -- JJay 20:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete content would stick out awkwardly on the Ursinus College article. The sororities listed here are by contrast major organizations. Endomion 23:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a local sorority for this College. Isn't that more important than the major organizations? -- JJay 23:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine a five-paragraph article for a high school, with a sixth paragraph just about the chess club at that school. That's what I mean by sticking out. Endomion 02:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We have lots of articles like that. -- JJay 02:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you advocating two wrongs make a right? --Apostrophe 05:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm advocating saving some information on this very important group of Ursinus College scholars. -- JJay 05:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"very important"? Your comment above doesn't quite support the position of "saving some information", either way. --Apostrophe 01:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no real stake in this discussion, but I do find "very important group of... scholars" to be a questionable characterization. The article gives no evidence they are of scholarly note. Xoloz 17:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All students are scholars. What else would they be doing at college? -- JJay 21:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LOL :) That was ironic, right? ;) Xoloz 01:50, 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. There's not actually anything in the article, so there's not much point relisting. -Splashtalk 00:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese monarchs family tree[edit]

The article is in the worst possible condition. It contains almost no information and even though there were recent edits, no improvements were made. Even though similar sites exist like the English monarchs family tree, these type of image sources belong to Wikisource or Commons. This page should therefore be deleted. mmtux talk 19:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • As of my timestamp all the images are redlinks, the deletion log shows the first was deleted as an unsourced image tagged for >7 days so I presume the same fate befell the others. It would make a good article on Commons if the images existed, but not on Wikipedia. A List of Portuguese monarchs already exists, so delete. Thryduulf 21:35, 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, after discounting new accounts used only for working on this article or voting on this AFD. —Cleared as filed. 05:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super smash stadium[edit]

Fails to pass web notability test: fan fiction site stored in a relatively non-notable host (Alexa rank: 144,750, 366 Google hits, 12 Google hits for its previous name). The Superpowers subsection can be considered vanity. ReyBrujo 20:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would like to point out, that the web notability rules state that a website can be proven notable if it mantains an Alexa rating of at least 10,000. You yourself stated that SSS's Alexa rating is 144,750. That's well above the minimum requirement of 10,000. Even if you try to dodge the issue by considering SSS a webcomic it even beats the webcomics' minimum requirement of 100,000. Not only that, but SSS is also an established website (seven years old, with a fan base of hundreds) that has set a trend (inspired dozens of other SSB fanfictions and spinoffs). Not only does SSS pass the web notability rules, it passes them with flying colors.

The only real thing that should be discussed here, I think, is wether the Superpowers section is vanity. (I don't believe it is, but even if it was that would only be reason to edit it out, NOT to delete the entire page.) Believe me when I say I do understand why it may appear as vanity, since it is a section written about the writers themselves. But what you need to realize is that the Superpowers ARE SSS. I don't even mean just the notable Superpowers who did really big things, like Lemmy Koopa. All of the Superpowers are an extremely important part of the SSS storyline. SSS is a website that is defined not only by what the staff members add but by who the staff members are and how they interact with each other. Trying to say we can't talk about the Superpowers in an article about SSS would be like trying to tell a history book writer that they can't talk about the Presidents in their discussion of the history of the United States. Sure, we could do it but it would result in an incomplete article that doesn't tell even half of the story. Knight9910 5:14, 26 December 2005

    • Comment Actually, Alexa rank is backwards. That is, for a site to be notable, its Alexa rank, according to Wikipedia, should go from 1 to 10,000, and in case of a web comic, from 1 to 100,000. An Alexa rank of 144,750 fails to both goal. As for the fan base, notability requests a forum with at least 5,000 members. Remember that AfD is just a test to see if the community believes the page is notable enough to stay in Wikipedia. If it fails now, nothing prevents it to come back in a year to see if, by then, it becomes notable enough. -- ReyBrujo 11:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Even so, this article deserves to be here. First, I double-checked Alexa. That 144,750 is for SMBHQ, not SSS. SMBHQ is SSS's parent site. It is not SSS. Second, the web notability rules state that a website can be listed on wikipedia if it is an established site that has set a trend. (Actually, someone took that out, but it should be there for obvious reasons. And no, not just because I want it there.) SSS is an established website. It has been on the internet for seven years, having gone through three seasons and acquired a fanbase of hundreds, if not thousands, although admittedly most of said fans do not post on the message board. It has also set a trend, having been the first massive SSB fanfiction, and having single-handedly spawned hundreds more.

What I am saying to you is that Alexa ratings and forum members aren't an accurate gauge of a website's notability. For example, Neglected Mario Characters is also a child site of SMBHQ, meaning it has the same Alexa rating as SSS. NC also has only a meager forum population of a couple hundred at best. If ratings and forum members are the only things that matter then NC's wikipedia entry should be deleted as well. You know, nevermind the fact that NC was THE FIRST SPRITE COMIC EVER and was the very beginning of that trend, having inspired almost as many sprite comics as Bob and George. Well, guess what. SSS was ALSO the first of its kind and single-handedly inspired HUNDREDS of other websites. SSS is a great site that has had a HUGE impact on internet culture. If that's not "notable" then frankly I don't know what is. Knight9910 15:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment In regards to the assertion that the SSS Superpowers section of the entry could be considered Vanity, having read the guidelines on what wikipedia considers "Vanity", I would like to point out that the SSS Superpowers section does not refer to the personal lives or activities of the people referred to in it, but rather, refers to their impact on the site as a whole, as well as referring to the place in the fiction of the site of a character based on them. This does not meet the guidelines of vanity, in the context of the website the entry refers to, any more than the page on George Washington is vanity in the context of the United States history. Pdusen 24:09, 28 December 2005 (EST)
    • Comment on the Superpowers section. If anything, it portrays me in a negative light. (Yes, I wrote it too.) I'm not quite so sure on the other entries, but my short and not-so-productive reign resulted in negative vanity. At least the entry on me isn't vanity. However, like the other articles I have seen in my short time here, it seems clear that you have to have a certain amount of popularity to be here. My comment is thusly filed for reference. --Metal Man88 05:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would vote to keep this because it's obviously more than advertising or vanity. The website guidelins were obviously just made to discourage those from happening, and this is not fitting within those problem areas, so I would say keep this article. 11:51 31 December 2005 (UTC) - User:VanillaX
  • Keep One of the major arguments in favor of the deletion of this article is the claim that SSS lacks notoriety, as well as its parent site, SMBHQ, which features a link to SSS on the front page and has since its creation 7 years ago. However, SMBHQ has clearly established itself within the popular world as a well-known resource. Proof of this can be found at this page, which contains a scanned section of Nintendo Power, a national gaming news outlet, clearly mentioning SMBHQ. And because SMBHQ has garnered national attention, it is not obscure, and neither are any of its subsections, especially one that has been clearly linked to on the main page for seven years. Pdusen 20:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hey, I didn't realize SMBHQ was in NP! Awesome! - Knight9910 19:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails to meet WP:WEB's notability standards. --Stormie 12:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's clear that you did not read what I posted immediately before your message, Mr. Stormie. For that I forgive you. Pdusen 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only argument that at first seemed to hold water was the notoriety. It is hard to prove that you caused spinoffs even if it is obvious you did. However with the addition of the Nintendo Power article I can see no reason to delete this article especially with the testimony by Metal Man88 that shows there is no vanity.--Nodal 20:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This fanfiction just seems too esoteric regardless of any Alexa figures. It looks to be more at home in a History section of the Super Smash Stadium homepage. - Liontamer 22:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While the website is based on a certain group of games, there is plenty of information provided on the website (as well as, eventually, in the Wiki article) regarding the characters and the stages for any outside observer who has never heard of Super Smash Brothers to fully understand what is going on. Therefore, the fanfiction is not esoteric. Pdusen 00:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable fan fiction. I would like to point out that Knight9910, Pdusen, Metal Man88, and Nodal have all registered in or after December, with all edits pertaining to this article and related matters. In fact, Nodal's only edit is the vote on this page. --Pagrashtak 10:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Which proves what? Many of us came for the original purpose of maintaining this article, and others came to dispute this outrageous claim of non-notability. This in no way makes our comments any less valid. Pdusen 22:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It doesn't prove anything, and I never said that your comments or any one else's comments are not valid. I am merely stating this because it is something that is typically taken into consideration when determining the outcome of an AFD. I've added a template above that should help explain. --Pagrashtak 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Thank you. I would just like to point out that thus far I have given Verifiable Evidence as per the template you posted: The grounds on which this discussion began, the claim that SSS lacks notoriety and the claim that the Superpowers section could be considered vanity, have both been essentially proven incorrect by me, as can be seen above. It would take quite a stretch of the imagination to claim that national media attention does not prove notoriety.Pdusen 01:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I disagree. Nintendo Power just barely mentioned SMBHQ and said nothing about the Super Smash Stadium portion in particular. That's not enough for me. I don't think it's that much of a stretch of the imagination at all. As for vanity, I consider this a secondary issue to notability in this case, but I'll say this: For me personally, I feel that anytime anyone writes about himself, he is treading on thin ice as far as vanity is concerned, regardless of how notable he is. I'm sure many others will disagree with me on this and that's fine, but that's my personal Wikipedia style -- I err on the side of caution with vanity. --Pagrashtak 02:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment For a magazine to be able to publish such a reference, particularly in the case of Nintendo Power, they must recieve submissions regarding such links on the internet by, not only one reader, but enough to garner notice by their letter filters. Nintendo Power has quite enough articles to try and squeeze into one issue every month, without giving a full-page free advertisement to a website that sends them little in the way of profit incentive. So why mention the site at all if not for demand? As for the lack of mention of the SSS itself, because they were doubtlessly strapped for space as I previously suggested, it makes no sense to link to a specific subsection of a website when the entire site is equally relevant (as well as having a shorter URL.) As well, Super Smash Stadium is a main section of SMBHQ: It has a link on the main page that every visitor goes to and has had that same link for eight years. I agree that one must be cautious in the case of vanity. However, I think only mentioning what about onesself is essential information in regards to a topic (For example: I built that stabel) does not qualify for vanity.Pdusen 02:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Now you're making false claims. That is not a "full-page" advertisement by a long shot. The entire text of that page that relates to SMBHQ is this: "If it's news about Mario that you crave, you can log on to smbhq.com, where information and opinions about our favorite video game plumber flow freely." And don't claim that NP was strapped for space - the top third of the page is a graphic of Mario at a computer. The editors would have had ample room to mention SSS if they really wanted to. The rest of the page is taken up with graphics, several other fan sites, and one third of the page is devoted to marioparty.com. Does one sentence about a web site whose Alexa ranking is not enough for per se notability really entitle a subsection of that site to an article? --Pagrashtak 23:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment Actually one sentence is a big deal when SMBHQ has not even given any money for advertising. I happen to subscribe to Nintendo Power and there are almost no fan websites ever mentioned. I remember being surprised at the time that they had this. For Nintendo Power to personally recommend a website shows a lot of trust on their part that everything on the site is important enough for them to state the website. If there was information on there that was not important people might blame Nintendo Power. With this amount of trust if they could have they probably would have loved to write a long article based on the website. However then their advertisement purchasers would have felt that this devalued their own article because why should they pay money when this website is getting it for free?--Nodal 00:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment I didn't say that it was a full-page article. You misunderstood. What I said was that Nintendo Power wouldn't GIVE a full-page article to a website that does not ask them or pay them to. Pdusen 00:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should say that SSS is second only to NC in popularity at SMBhq. Not sure if it needs a wiki page though. - SPKx 23:20, 3 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. -Splashtalk 00:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So bad it's good[edit]

This is an entirely subjective listing of movies, TV shows, etc. Inherently POV. FreplySpang (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Entirely too subjective. Perhaps redirect to camp (style)? Gamaliel 20:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 20:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Punkmorten 21:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark 01:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Iten 04:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If The Golden Turkey Awards had more information I'd recommend a redirect in that direction; unfortunately it doesn't (in fact, it's in need of bolstering itself) -- so delete, although it wouldn't be a bad idea for an article on this involving an authoritative source... or two... or three. B.Wind 20:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, already in Cult film, IIRC Sceptre (Talk) 21:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - NeoJustin 05:37, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -This article needs to be cleaned up and kept. No other source directly covers all concepts of being so bad it's good (The Golden Turkey Awards and camp (style) both only deal with cinema). Most of the links here mention that the subject is noted for being so bad it's good and yet no article exists to explore this concept. This subject is inherently POV, but it is a shared POV that keep certain subjects such as "My Mother the Car" and Low Fidelty music (Wesley Willis, Weird Paul) relevant.--Cenestrad 23:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The camp (style) article does not "only deal with cinema". Gamaliel 00:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry your right. The coverage of so bad it's good in cult film is what I should have included. I still like the idea of this article and think it could be made worth keeping. --Cenestrad 04:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom TheRingess 04:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Expand and Clean up I should point out that I have a vested intrest in this article, as my brother came over and wrote it on my computer after attempting to show what you can use Wikipedia for. He knew that I have a fascination with really bad forms of art, such as Biz Markees "you got what I need" or Plan nine from outer space. While it is true that the nature of these things are subjective I doubt you could find ANYONE to actually make an argument that Biz Markees singing was really good on that song, or that Plan Nine From Outerspace, was actually a cinimaitic masterpiece. On other notes Andy Kauffman and Neil Hamburger were intenionally bad as part of their comedy, so it was in effect their desired result(although this is ussually not the case in other art forms. Mystery Science Theater 3000 was a television show that capitalized on some peoples love of humourly bad cinima

the reason for my brother creating the site was so that (hopefully) others would contribute to it. I had pointed out other examples when I was talking to him GG Allen, whom apparently has SOME real fans according to the article from wikipedia, was left out for said reason. Sammy Terry(a local cheesy horror TV host) was left out for being not well known enough. But in actuallity he hadnt put a great deal of thought into the article, as he was mostly hoping that others would add to it, and I could find reference to other "gems" of entertainment that are "so bad they're good"

Please keep this article and expand on it, as it could prove a valuable link to lesser known works for fans of bad art and I dont know of any other source to find these links... 152.163.100.73 16:58, 28 December 2005.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/So_bad_it%27s_good"

  • I have tried to make some small improvements to this article. I hope it's deletion will be reconsidered and that it will be given a chance to grow into a full article.--12.205.49.238 20:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If good art is meant to provoke a reaction, art that is "so bad it's good" certainly meets the standard, although the reaction it provokes is usually not the intended one. Amusement at the blatant lack of talent,or wide-eyeyed looks of disgust are often common. This form of media often gains cult-like status esspecially among younger veiwers or listeners and VH1 has done several programs on songs or videos that are "awesomely bad"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_bad_it%27s_good"

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpius Diamond[edit]

An unpublished bok, perhaps it will never be published. Cannot be verified. It seems that the article was written by the author, although I am not sure of course. Austrian 20:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; even if true, it's not notable Tom Harrison (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Future books are usually not notable (exceptions are continuations of existing series, such as Harry Potter 7 or Dune 7). Endomion 23:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 23:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile cat[edit]

Advert for mobile phone software MNewnham 20:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's signed by the development and advertising teams. If it's not an advert than its a copyvio.--CastAStone 21:21, 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 - Izehar 23:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Targownik[edit]

Delete While I have found enough details to verify that he is a real person (and add his middle name to the article) I haven't found verification for them all, and worse, even assuming good faith on the part of the author that all the provided details are true, I don't see where they add up to notability. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not notable VegaDark 21:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable bio Tom Harrison (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I flagged it for notability a while back hoping for more info. Does not meet WP:BIO guidelines. Samw 02:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.--nixie 11:56, 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 - Izehar 23:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Rao[edit]

Self-promotion. (Text comes from Dr. Rao's promotional website. It seems like a safe guess that the poster has permission to use it to advertise, so it's faster to process it through AfD.) Spared from speedy because it does, in fact, make a claim to notability: "He is well known globally for developing his unique blend of different alternative medicines...." FreplySpang (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, advert. Tom Harrison (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Advertisements don't belong here. --Idont Havaname 21:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ad! Dlyons493 Talk 21:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: NN. --Bhadani 13:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. - NeoJustin 05:36, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. - Ganeshk 22:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is wrong, just because someone wrote something like this that is advertising the website, it isnt neccesary that it was fromt he owners of the site. I have seen his videos and read about him and even though the site is selling medical products, don't jump to conclusions. I saw his video on this patient with lung cancer who had his 3/4 lung removes was told he had 1 month to live, this doctor saved him and now the guy is playing as the umpire in some cricket match. He is pretty well known in new york. So what is wrong with having an article about him?????. - unknown user
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barton Ct. Productions[edit]

A NN creative community of teenage filmmakers MNewnham 21:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It sounds like a noble effort by some good people, but it's also not encyclopedic. - squibix 16:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Melchoir 11:25, 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 - Izehar 23:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Social enterprise architecture[edit]

Delete. No indication of notability. Links appear to be to some guy's Italian language blog Jmabel | Talk 21:11, 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. -Splashtalk 00:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Wells[edit]

This is an autobiography, only edited by User:Leewells. The notability is also questionable: "Lee Wells" IFAC -Wikipedia gets 201 Google hits whereas "Lee Wells" artist -Wikipedia gets 819. (the -Wikipedia thing is to exclude Wikipedia mirrors) Punkmorten 21:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable Tom Harrison (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ever try google? People don't have to make news to have pages here. -- Eddie 04:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not A7 but very little info to go on. Unverifiable. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 04:45, 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 KEEP. -Splashtalk 00:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guttæne FC[edit]

Amateur football team on the 9th and lowest tier in Norway. It seems they haven't attracted any substantial media attention either. Punkmorten 21:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Anything that is the worst in Norway is important. -- JJay 21:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You bet. Norway does not get the attention here that it deserves. We need to look at both the best and the worst so the article should be expanded with more analysis and comparative examples. -- JJay 23:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It's in the category of Norwegian football clubs in which you can find much lesser and less notable articles (Hey, being the worst is an achievment) This may better suited for Norwegian Wikipedia though.
  • Comment what next? throwing all the English articles into a UK Wiki?! Jcuk 00:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. real registered team, even if not particularly good. If we have articles for teams of the status of A.F.C. Newbury or Biddulph Victoria F.C. in England, then I don't see any reason we shouldn't have the Norwegian equivalents. Grutness...wha? 02:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment again. AFC Newbury have been in the qualifying rounds for the FA Cup. These guys are five divisions below what's required to be permitted to qualify for the Norwegian Cup... Sam Vimes 00:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Worst football team in Norway" lends notability, just not the kind the team would like to have. Endomion 04:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment [31] On their own website, they've scanned a two-page coverage from the evening version of Aftenposten. Which probably translates into somewhat significant media coverage. And the assertion is confirmed (though the article says probably the worst team in Norway, and was written before the reality show of Tufte IL hit off). Sam Vimes 00:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - NeoJustin 05:36, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Amateur sports team which is at the bottom of the Norwegian football division system. There is a new team which winds up in last place every year and nobody really cares who wound up in last place just a year ago. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 23:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tykell[edit]

A google search reveals nothing about this. The whole article sounds like a tongue in cheek advertisement and the only contribution is by an anon which probably is the user Tykell. Hasn't been touched expect for a spelling mistake in many months. SandBoxer 21:36, 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 - Izehar 23:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid B Castilla Squad Number Detail[edit]

Obscure squadnumbercruft. Very unlikely search term. Punkmorten 21:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete partial article that never gets around to its title in its text. There are no numbers at all in it. Did the author forget to return to finish this, or did he/she/it pass away? B.Wind 20:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 20:59, 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 wasKeep. If the Canadian population believes that this is an important road to their country, then I believe them. As an American, I do not know sqaut about this road, so I trust the judgement of the voters, mainly SimonP, a Canadian editor that is well-trusted in Wikipedia. So, accept my apologies and let's move on. Zach (Smack Back) 11:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4th Line Road (Ottawa)[edit]

This article is about a road that is present in rural parts of the Canadian capital of Ottawa. IMHO, I do not think this might be notable enough to include in Wikipedia. Delete. Zach (Smack Back) 21:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 21:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Jaranda wat's sup 21:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just a random street.  Grue  22:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The M1 Motorway is a random street...still has an article though Jcuk 00:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found this article using the "Unwatched" pages feature that is available to admins. I think the list is still in the A's, but if you feel that the M1 Motorway street article does not need to be on here, you are welcome to place it up for deletion in the same manner as I did. Zach (Smack Back) 00:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a numbered provincial route. FCYTravis 00:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It exists, doesn't it? Kurt Weber 03:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I exist also but that doesn't mean I should have a article. --Jaranda wat's sup 04:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it does. Kurt Weber 04:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, no. Your little agenda aside, Wikipedia has pretty explicit policies which can't be disregarded just because you feel like it. Bearcat 07:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Carleton County, Ontario or keep, appears to be a major and/or historically significant road. JYolkowski // talk 03:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ottawa. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Claims to be a major road, and is notable for following the fourth parallel. Jcuk 21:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you misunderstand the claim; it's talking about the meridians of the local county land survey, not Earth latitude. Bearcat 07:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - NeoJustin 05:34, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, quite an important road, and I'm sure more could be written about it. - 22:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC) This was placed by User:SimonP. Zach (Smack Back) 22:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a major enough road; it's a main street in one of the towns it passes through. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:24, 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 - Izehar 22:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Fallek[edit]

NN fanfic, NN schoolkid bio, NN prank, or some combination thereof. No google hits that correspond to content. Alai 21:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete madeup. KI 22:57, 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 SPEEDY DELETED by other admins. -Splashtalk 00:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Medicine[edit]

Google Medicine doesn't exist (yet), and Google hasn't said anything about it. Wikipedia does not speculate on things that may or may not come to be. jackohare 21:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it is your idea then my vote is changed to Userfy --jackohare 22:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

AUTHOR: I respectfully disagree. As soon as an idea is published it comes into existence. Google medicine, though still only theoretical, is my idea so you could say this is a kind of vanity publishing, but don't say that is doesn't exist. Wikipedians should be able to perceive and write about emerging ideas as well as document existing ones. Dmfigaro 22:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well... Google Medicine really doesn't exist, though. It doesn't exist any more than the Ford Hovercar exists or the Pfizer HIV vaccine exists; it hasn't been made yet, even though it has been suggested that it may be made at some arbitrary point in the future. --jackohare 08:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless Google announces its intention of creating a service like this, there shouldn't be an article. The idea was put forth by a third party, and the article reads like a promotional flyer. Kerowyn 22:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you are nonnotable, therefore this article is nonnotable. You also don't work for Google, thus you are engaging in libel. KI 22:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No original research. 24.71.91.173 22:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. -- JJay 23:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright. Hands up. Who wants to make new policy that gives every AfD an automatic keep vote? JJay here seems to be doing exactly that, so why not save him the trouble? Delete this article for being original research. --Apostrophe 05:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did I miss a poll or something? Has policy changed with the new speedies? Is keep no longer a valid option here? Or is keep only allowed for certain articles? Where do I line up for re-education? Please help me to conform. -- JJay 05:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hey, hey. I'm just saving you the trouble of typing. I get no thanks, I tell ya. --Apostrophe 05:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No third party evidence of the existence of "Google Medicine" Endomion 23:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Endomion's evidence, my own research, and Jackohare's nomination.--ViolinGirl♪ 23:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Arkyan 00:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A shame. Wikipedians would have gained from attention widely from the medical community. I will delete this "non-notable (KI); non original; non-existing" opinion piece myself. You can read it later in the New England Journal of Medicine. My opinion of wikipedia has been altered. 24.82.179.182 02:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)DMfigaro[reply]

Journals and encyclopedias have very different aims. While it is acceptable to report research on new and emerging ideas in a journal, an encyclopedia is more a place for general, established ideas. When Google Medicine becomes the next big thing, it will have an article here. --jackohare 03:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research --Quarl 03:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just rec'd a message from your administrator. I would respectfully request that my words, my thoughts, my "original ideas" be deleted as soon as possible. I would actually like to do this myself. I hope to hear from you soon. 24.82.179.182 03:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[email protected][reply]
  • Delete, as per the author. JJay, what part of No Original Research do you not understand? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just because JJay has a different opinion does not grant one the license to impugn his intelligence. Endomion 03:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although it should be moved to a different title that makes it clear that it is so far only a proposal by someone unconnected with Google. Kurt Weber 03:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi fellow Wikipedians (I'm considerably calmer now). I could expand the article as a discussion of "search engines use in medicine" rather than focussing on Google or the notion of something specific like Google Medicine. P.S. My suggestion is to be vigilant about fairness. Some of the comments at the top of this page seem, well, odd and from "left field". 24.82.179.182 05:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)DMfigaro[reply]
That would be much welcomed. The new article should be named differently. Pavel Vozenilek 06:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - NeoJustin 05:34, December 27, 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 22:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chosen by god[edit]

This band has released one demo, and do not meet WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 22:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Quarl 03:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Only links are to vanity sites. B.Wind 21:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...to be Deleted Sceptre (Talk) 21:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - NeoJustin 05:32, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom.--nixie 09:30, 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 - Izehar 22:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Efird Corporation[edit]

Advertising. per WP:NOT. - FrancisTyers 22:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 22:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged as copyvio, but should be deleted. -- JJay 23:13, 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. -Splashtalk 00:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Dave MC[edit]

Seems non-notable. Wackymacs 22:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you be more specific?. -- JJay 23:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can, JJay. Let's start with the 42 Google hits for "Big Dave MC" (some of those involve Wikipedia; others involve Big Dave McLean); Googling "B.I.G." "Ruff Records" "BBG Records" earns the Golden Donut, as does Googling "B.I.G." "Ruff Records." That was enough to convince me that Big Dave MC fails WP:MUSIC.... Delete. B.Wind 21:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks B.Wind. It's hard to vote without that kind of information. Delete per above. -- JJay 21:25, 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 - Izehar 22:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simia Contagio[edit]

Looks to be a hoax article Kerowyn 22:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "loss of moral judgment" This is a hoax. KI 22:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "chaos in the monkey society" This is a hoax. Endomion 23:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "increased tendacy to fling or throw poo at other monkeys" This is a hoax. VegaDark 01:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax --Quarl 03:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - NeoJustin 05:31, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep the version done by Quarl. howcheng {chat} 07:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binary alphabet[edit]

See talk:ASCII, the current article there (which has no incoming links) is basically a poor article on ascii. However since the term is not normally used to reffer to ascii and apparently is used to reffer to something else so it should not be simply redirected to ascii. Therefore the article needs to either be replaced with one covering the term in set theory or deleted. Since i am incapable of the former i am submitting for deletion. Plugwash 22:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the new disambig page. I've boldly replaced the "poor ASCII" content with a disambig to ASCII and "members of a binary set". I think it is not uncommon or surprising for imprecise language to refer to ASCII as "binary alphabet" so we need this for those looking for ASCII and to prevent them from writing another "poor ASCII". (I couldn't find any wikipedia article on set theory using the term "alphabet".) --Quarl 03:00, 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 merge and redirect to South African College. howcheng {chat} 07:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Ball[edit]

This subject may lack notability. This was previously a speedy, but I changed it to an afd. Esprit15d 22:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not really worth voting here, I'm just going to merge the two lines to the school. -- JJay 22:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the school and/or disambiguate with Kenny Ball, the British bandleader.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was del, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking. mikka (t) 19:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gang_Stalk_Persecution_Complex[edit]

Listing on AFD since it was tagged Rick Block (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very poorly written, hard to tell, but it looks like original research.TheRingess 22:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most likely a copywright violation. KI 22:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: one of a set of recently-created articles: see the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking page for a fuller discussion, including a chorus of remarkably synchronized and similar-sounding support from a group of new editors and a set of recent IPs. -- The Anome 23:43, 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 - Izehar 22:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chung fu Tzi[edit]

I believe this page is completely made up. If this is true, it should be deleted. Can anyone prove otherwise? KI 22:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Possible hoax. An earlier version of the article had a link for Heng Tzang which pointed to a corporation in Taiwan by that name. Another bio article links to this one and may be a hoax supporting the hoax. Endomion 23:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Endomion. JoaoRicardotalk 04:34, 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 - Izehar 22:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Corfu Incident[edit]

Minor band, no assertion of notability, does not meet criteria of WP:MUSIC. Stormie 23:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No claim to notability. JoaoRicardotalk 03:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (speedy?) - band fails WP:MUSIC - then redirect to Corfu incident. B.Wind 21:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Utter bollocks. (Btw, I wrote it, before you accuse me of being offensive) Alexrushfear 22.38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy--Shanel 03:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeperzzz[edit]

Advertising http://www.sleeperzzz.com. Jyril 23:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per nom...it's a no-brainer.--ViolinGirl♪ 23:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, per nom. «LordViD» 23:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - advertisement. --Hurricane111 00:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - advertisement. VegaDark 00:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedily. --Quarl 02:42, 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. mikka (t) 04:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Harassment (anti-personnel sense)[edit]

More tinfoil-hattery, bearing a remarkable resemblence to gang stalking and other similar recently-created pages. Either there's a group of people working in concert on these, or there's one person using a lot of different proxies. Delete: original research (to say the least). -- The Anome 23:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes to delete[edit]

Votes to merge[edit]

seems conspiracy theory-ish. Possibly Merge. If not, then the article should be edited because it seems kinda biased. --TaeKwonTimmy 02:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes to keep[edit]

  • Keep If the 'delete' voters will look into the five electronic weapons I describe in the article, they will see that I am making no claims about these readily available weapons which do not legitimately arise from the technology. Simply saying these weapons don't perform as claimed is not sufficient. For example, the Dr. Joseph Sharp voice-to-skull (Army V2K) technology is described in the 1975 issue of the journal "American Psychologist", article titled "Microwaves and Behavior" by Dr. Don Justesen.

The LIDA machine, together with its U.S. custodian, the late Dr. Ross Adey, at the Loma Linda, California Veterans Hospital research wing, is shown in an Associated Press photo. Was demonstrated some years ago on CNN.

I have personally built ten copies of the Dr. Oliver Lowery Silent Sound device, which anyone with moderate electronics skills can do. The U.S. patent, 5,159,703, amply provides backup to the silent sound technology.

The fact that hypnosis works I don't need to provide backup for. If you can feed speech into someone's subconscious without them hearing it, many people can be hypnotized that way.

I telephoned a manufacturer of through clothing (and through non-conductive wall) radar and was told that I could purchase a unit if I had the cash (at that time the price was around $100,000 which I could not afford, but the unit was available to anyone.)

Such technology can be had by anyone with the money, and that it can cause extremely debilitating effects. I do not specifically claim "mind control" with this equipment. One does not need to do "mind control" to destroy a target's ability to earn a living and quality of life.

The sheer importance of the public's need and right to know about this technology outweighs the arguments of the objectors above.

Eleanor White, professional engineer, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raven1 (talk • contribs)

  • I have read the website cited there, which has Justesen's article (or what it claims is Justesen's article). It is a secondary source. He simply mentions another study that proved this; he didn't prove it himself. I was unable to find references for this other study on the web, and I don't have access to my university's library at this moment. I would appreciate if the authors of this article could provide primary sources with the appropriate citation standards. Also, please note that anecdotal evidence is usually regarded as very poor evidence, or even no evidence at all. JoaoRicardotalk 03:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPThere are plenty of people claiming to be targets of this technology and there are plenty of patents proving that, in fact, these weapons are available to anyone with the know-how to build them. If you look on www.mikrowellenterror.de/english you will get a better pro argument than any I have the time or space to give you here. There is now a book by noted author Gloria Naylor which tells one persons story of this type of crime being perpetrated on an innocent person for no good reason. That book is called "1996". Here is a webpage with alot of technical references to the types of equipment that are declassified -www.geocities.com/free_united_states

And I agree with the above statement which states the importance of these weapons being exposed to the general public in order to give people a chance to defend themselves in the future. Knowledge is power and at the moment only the perpetrators of the crime and their victims are aware of this crime activity.

T.Josephine - a person who knows too well about this crime, U.S. citizen

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.53.212 (talk • contribs)

Keep ... Keep this article as it explains some of the situations that a target of Voice To Skull is subjected too.

Thanks Kamran Naqvi www.voicetoskull.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.148.102.54 (talk • contribs) JoaoRicardotalk 16:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In books such as "How to get Even with Anyone" harassing electronics may be ordered for as little as $25 (acoustic devices). To imagine that such devices are on sale and NOT in usage is inane. Man has never invented a weapon he did not use. They 1. EXIST 2. Are easily available to the public, either for purchase or through instruction on how to make your own and 3. in ever growing, common usage. Since these devices are designed exclusively to harass, it follows that harassment is therefore being done with them. V. Cutler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.178.195 (talk • contribs) JoaoRicardotalk 16:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (read again: KEEP!!!) - message from John Allman, UK

The "electronic harassment" Wikipedia entry a few people apparently want deleted (offering their feable reasons so tersely and ill-informedly that it's simply not worth my effort refuting them) strikes me as quite a reasonable introduction to the underpublicised topic of "electronic harassment", though I'd galdy have helped the author prepare something even MORE scholarly, if she'd been aiming at printed publication in (say) The Encyclopedia Britannica.

Removing Wikipedia documentation of the "electronic harassment" topic can only help to keep this tort/crime as underpublicised as it has been, ever since citizens first began to report it, more decades ago than much of the general public is aware.

Whose interests would be served by suppressing or reclassifying this information in the manner which a handful of people are now proposing? Not those of anybody who wasn't up to some kind of mischief, that's for sure! Would the interests be harmed of anybody whose interests deserved to be protected, by "letting sleeping dogs lie"? Of course not! The threatened Wikipedia status quo is utterly HARMLESS, except to those bent upon inflicting harm on others, with enhanced deniabilty and impunity.

Since there are present political moves afoot to introduce legislation in the USA on the very subject of "electronic harassment", and legislation is already in place in other jurisdictions, it would be unaccetably politically partisan on Wikipedia's part to suppress publicity of the electonic harassment topic, as proposed. After all, USA Senators and Congressmen (or, say, their European counterparts - France presently taking the lead in its Parliamentary opposition to electonic harassment) and (more important) voters in every demnocracy in the world, will be bound to want to look up what "electronic harassment" is, or is claimed to be, every time the phrase is used in draft legislation in their own jurisdictions.

A decision on Wikipedia's part implicitly to take one side rather than another in the ongoing and imminently to be escalated political debate, in such an obvious way, is not the sort of decision that any self-respecting "encyclopedia" in a free society should take, however great the pressure exerted from proponents of one side of the political debate. Such a decision would jeopardise Wikipedia's public reputation for political independence. It would infringe freedom of speech. As Augustine of Hippo put it, AVDI ALTERAM PARTEM - hear the other side - of EVERY contested issue.

Besides, perhaps those clamouring for deletion of "electronic harassment" and "gang stalking" entries, their derogatory renaming, or their merging (as though the original author of both entries claimed the phenoma were INVARIABLY linked, which she didn't), are acting, knowingly or complicitly, on behalf of those with contrary vested interests. (Mine is not the only mind which this sinister possibility has crossed.)

I happen to be somebody deeply concerned about e-harassment, but that does not invalidate the following primary argument - an OBJECTIVE argument - for retaining the status quo. It is essentially the same argument that I used when defending the retention of the Gang Stalking entry, just a few days ago.

On principle, I would cheerfully oppose, for the identical primary reason, the censorship of a Wikipedia article on so-called "Astrology", if I learnt that this was proposed, meaning in this case micro-Astrology, the form that modern Astrology usually takes, and which is peddled commercially as an effective means of personal fortune-telling.

I regard Astrology in this sense as a hoax and a pseudoscience. I wish that so many people weren't silly enough to believe in such "Astrology", especially far too many recent world leaders guilty of making some very poor decisions during past centuries, after consulting so-called "Astrolgers". But I would NEVER seek to defend a decision on the part of Wikipedia to obstruct members of the general public from discovering on Wikipedia what those daft enought to believe in this so-called "Astrology" meant by the term! That's simply not a job for an encyclopedia to take upon itself, much as I disbelieve in such "Astrology" MYSELF, with all the conviction that I have reluctantly come to believe, and to engage in militant opposition to, so-called "electronic harassment".

I offer for your consideration the following quote from a politician opposed to the class of weaponry that is within the class most plausibly deployed during electronic harassment, and which falls squarely within the general class of "manipulation" weapons, which the European Parliament specfically said it wanted banned (development AND deployment thereof!), six years ago, in Paragraph 27 of Resolution A4-0005/99 - q.v. at http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=DOCPV&APP=PV2&LANGUE=EN&SDOCTA=8&TXTLST=1&POS=1&Type_Doc=RESOL&TPV=DEF&DATE=280199&PrgPrev=TYPEF@A4%7CPRG@QUERY%7CAPP@PV2%7CFILE@BIBLIO99%7CNedUMERO@5%7CYEAR@99%7CPLAGE@1&TYPEF=A4&NUMB=1&DATEF=990128

As recently as 2004, Dr Caroline Lucas MEP (UK, Green Party) wrote, on her own behalf and that of her British colleague Jean Lambert MEP, as follows, here quoted with implied permission, since she made her comments in the public domain, and has been aware often (without objecting) that I have been quoting her comments as I have abridged them, since shortly after the 2004 Labour Party Conference in the UK.

"Electro-Magnetic (EM) weapons are one of the newest and most serious military developments in the world today. Enormous secrecy surrounds their development … Unless this development is stopped, we are entering an Orwellian '1984' type scenario, which could potentially permanently transfer enormous power to those in control of the technology. … We regard the unsuccessful attempts in the 70s … to have these weapons controlled by a UN Convention as having been a major missed opportunity, which has now led to a new arms race in this field. We have sought to renew the attempt … to outlaw these weapons and the research that leads to them, primarily that concerning external manipulation of the human central nervous system."

Dr Lucas documents, in a quote I have abridged above only slightly, and without distorting her meaning at all, a problem about which thousands of people worldwide have been campaigning for decades now, politically and otherwise. A number of such complainants fall victim to psychiatric stalking, merely for holding beliefs that might not even be mistaken to any extent, which they adopt to create a framework that makes sense to them of tangible experiences ton which they are able to testify, under oath if called upon to do so, that they actually experience, some of which experience is physically painful, and almost all of which is psychologically distressing.

I have recently founded a charity primarly to conduct resaerch into this very topic and to provide help for alleged victims of new techniques of torture and harassment, such as are documented in the "electonic harassment" entry that some would like Wikipedia to remove, if it succombs to such pressure from the victims' adversaries and their complicit or ill-informed advocates.

I have stood three times for political office this year alone, in part to get the subject of "electronic harassmanet" discussed rationally, in the public arena, as an electoral issue, and in part to challenge the failures of supposed "democracies" that have made it necessary to make such stands. Please see http://www.AllianceForChange.co.uk.

"Electronic harassment", the phrase some would like Wikipedia to delete, is rapidly becoming the de facto most-favoured phrase for the genre of abuse which the general public has been using increasingly, when attempting to describe succinctly a problem with thousands of alleged victims worldwide, most of whom have no classical symtoms whatsoever of any mental illness.

A phrase such as "electronic harassment" this much in vogue surey merits an encylcopedia entry, if only because of the ubiquity of the use of the phrase, even amongst sceptics as to the phenomenon's very existence, whose scepticism ought to be cured easily enough by more open-minded research. It is the favoured phrase we used during seventeen meetings last October in Washington DC, with Senators, Congressmen, and their Legislative Assistants, eleven of which meetings I was privileged to attend personally, despite not even being a USA citizen myself. We were invited at every meeting I attended to draft legislation that addressed the very problem spme would like Wikipedia no longer to document, "electronic harassment", whose Wikipedia entry some people would co-incidentally like you to delete, barely a week or so before the date by which the draft legislation we were asked to draft is expected by those US legislators amd their aides we aproached. Go figure!

Wikipedia will discredit itself totally by failing to remain strictly neutral in the cases of contentious issues now in the political arena in the USA, France, Russia, the European Parliament and so-on, like e-harrassment and gang-stalking (which sometimes coincide, but not, in my experience, always) that our present day political activism is proving effective at making political "hot potatoes", worldwide. Adequate neutrality here consists of letting the deletion-candidate entry STAND, as is, without any disruptive or implicitly derogative name change, and allowing those who dispute the facts asserted in the entries that they want you to delete to have their own dissenting say, without empowering them to silence US.

John Allman +44 1423 797693 (UK landline) +44 7930 519793 (UK cellphone) http://www.thatfund.org (founder and secretary) http://www.AllianceForChange.co.uk (convenor) http://www.Slavery.org.uk / http://www.ExodusNow.com / http://www.BanMindWeapons.com (3 identical sites) http://www.sysos.co.uk/John_Allman_CV2005-12-21-doc (my CV, with links to accademic credentials)

PS The URL for the US DoD Military Thesaurus entry on V2K weapons other KEEP prononents have mentioned is http://call.army.mil/products/thesaur_e/00016275.asp (q.v. ASAP).


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 demand NPOV and references. -Splashtalk 00:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albums that have been considered the greatest ever[edit]

Inherently POV, at least without scrupulous referencing and fact-citing. FuriousFreddy 23:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Strong keep. Didn't you just nom all the song articles? Weren't they all kept? What is the point of continually nominating these lists? -- JJay 00:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could you please place the AfD template on the article. -- JJay 00:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apoligies; I never saved my changes when I was filling out the AfD "paperwork". And this is not a bad faith nominatiuon. I see that the list of "songs considered the greatest ever" was kept as "no consensus", although the delete votes outnumber and (as far as reasoning) outweight the keep votes. Nominating two lists isn't "continually nominating lists". But, in all honesty, there's really no reason for a list like this, besides the inherent POV that will result from lack of geographical scope, lack of genre variation, and lack of factuality (The Chronic popularized sampling? Really now...)--FuriousFreddy 00:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it wasn't just you who nominated the articles. But the complaints you raise could have been addressed on the talk page-by editing the article-through use of templates, etc. Instead, you decide to go straight to AfD. That is unfair to the many editors who have worked on this article for a long time. -- JJay 00:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This may sound cold, but the amount of time users put it working on an article has no bearing on whether or not I list it for deletion or have it merged. Someone could write a perfectly formatted, 23K article on the contents in the platic cup on my desk, and spend months working on it; if it needs to be deleted, it should be deleted. Since we already have the List of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time and similar lists, all this is really going to do is either (a) apre those lists or (b) introduce personal preference and POV, as shown currently. As such, I don't see the neccessity for it (or the similar list of films, songs, etc. Wikipedia is rapidly becoming into a teenage fan portal. --FuriousFreddy 01:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well those lists are very different...but the bottom line is that you want this list cut, the part about lack of geographical scope, lack of genre variation, and lack of factuality is really not the issue for your nom. In any case good luck explaining your case to the other keep voters, I have nothing further to say about it. -- JJay 01:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see why the state of the article can't go into the afd discussion when it isn't at all likely that that state is going to be changed. This article will continue to be only pop albums, it being "fixed" will only be the result of all of the biases common on wikipedia being added to this list. Lotusduck 03:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/move to something a little better sounding, I have issues with the term considered being in the title, but I'm not coming up with a better alternative (writer's block!) Barring that, I would say Keep based on the fact that these albums have indeed been named "Best Ever" by some credible body at some point. Arkyan 00:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone needs to cite those credible references, then, and get rid of the POV that fills the article. --FuriousFreddy 00:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is possible to write an NPOV article on this topic, though it will certainly be difficult. But see for instance List of films that have been considered the worst ever, which in my humble opinion is a very good article and an example of what lists should be. The article should be constantly reviewed and further entries should be included only when they were considered the greatest ever by someone notable (mainly music magazines, I think). No "it is widely regarded as" and no "it is the favorite album of singer X". JoaoRicardotalk 02:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Albums which have appeared consistently in best album rankings Endomion 03:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not inherently POV, as the nominator points out. Kappa 05:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to be consistent with other AfD decisions.  Grue  17:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable and inherently POV. Considered by whom? "Greatest Ever"??? Why dont people spend more time writing articles with real encyclopedic merit? --BadSeed 00:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is deserving of its entry on Wikipedia because it provides an overall picture of the most renowned albums in history - it cites a number of other articles such as Rolling Stone and provides a birds-eye view. The article title could be better named perhaps Most Renowned Music Albums Ever or such-like (the article seems to be divided into Best Selling, Genre Defining, Best Ranked) so perhaps an all-encompassing title such as Most Renowned would be more apt than the current title. The intentions of the article are fairly clear but I agree with others that the title requires renaming jgianni 00:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have similar pages for Computer and Video games as well as films (both best and worst). I see no reason why we shouldn't have a page dedicated to music so long as we keep the citations and references credible. -- Chupon 01:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since certainly more albums are made than films or videogames, can we agree that this should be moved to "Pop albums which appear consistently in top rankings/reviews"? Certainly the eventual mixing of comedy albums and folk albums would only confuse the article. Lotusduck 03:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have a point. I agree the title should have some reference to pop/rock. Maybe even American/British pop/rock? Oh, this is getting complicated. I'm getting second thoughts here. JoaoRicardotalk 05:55, 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 - Izehar 22:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Watchdog (Mortal Kombat character)[edit]

Nonsense article; no Watchdog character, or rumor thereof, has ever existed (Notorious4life 23:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Speedy delete - possible hoax without proofs. --Hurricane111 00:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax --Quarl 02:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax. --Thelb4 18:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. - NeoJustin 05:30, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete and Redirect to Golden Ticket.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Ticket[edit]

Band with no notability asserted. 0 valid allmusic entries - the "hit" refers to another band (as seen my members/composer list) [33]. Tagged for {{nn-band}} but removed by author of article. Hurricane111 00:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Charlie and the Chocolate FactoryGolden Ticket, since this is one of the main premices of the movie is Charlie finding this ticket. Zach (Smack Back) 00:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article and the reasons for delete, it's not about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. SandBoxer 01:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know the article is about the band, but I figured at least my suggestion of redirect will be useful. But, if people wish for this page to be gone w/ no redirect, then I have no objections to it. Zach (Smack Back) 02:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim to notability, vanity article. JoaoRicardotalk 02:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or delete then redirect to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) --Quarl 02:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Golden Ticket Youngamerican 05:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Golden Ticket. Thelb4 18:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect to Golden Ticket to eliminate history of vanity article and maintain continuity with well-known cinematic and literary feature. B.Wind 21:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then you can redirect to golden ticket. Renata3 21:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then redirect like B. Wind suggests. - NeoJustin 05:28, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Golden ticket as a plausible search term. I don't care whether or not we delete the vanity article before redirecting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Golden Ticket does have notability, as you can see in the article, they were chosen to open for International Reggae Star Beenie Man, no small feat. This vote was placed by an annon. See [34].Zach (Smack Back) 21:58, 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 No Consensus: Keep. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Places of interest in Bermuda[edit]

I was trying to come up with a useful way to clean up this article but came to the conclusion it probably should just be deleted. No other country has a 'Places of interest' article, and it seems to be an arbitrary list. Some of the items in the list may be noteworth enough for their own articles, but without being able to come up with a better solution for this list I'm going to have to nominate it for deletion. I would happily support something like a merge if someone can think of a useful way to do it, though. Arkyan 00:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Make the list a real list with bullets, then merge it with Bermuda. Endomion 00:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment . I agree with Endomion, just do a merge. -- JJay 01:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per above. -- JJay 02:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As these places get articles of their own, they may be mentioned in the "See also" list at Bermuda as popular tourist destinations, but being a tourist guide should not be an objective of articles on places. JoaoRicardotalk 02:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge; don't delete). There are countless "Visitor attractions in X" and "Tourist attractions in X" articles in Wikipedia (contrary to what nominator says). I've cleaned up the format and renamed it to Visitor attractions in Bermuda. --Quarl 02:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have a look at it now that I've dealt to it a little... Grutness...wha? 02:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nice job. Thanks. -- JJay 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - another thing - please dont' move to "Tourist attractions", because several of the places listed aren't. Nonsuch Island, for instance, is a nature reserve which tourists aren't allowed to visit, and Tucker's Town Peninsula has restricted entry to only the billionaires who own land there (lucky for some...). Grutness...wha? 02:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Places of "interest" is POV, and this smells of WP:NOR. --Apostrophe 05:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: at least there should be very short description for every item to avoid every restaurant owner adding his put there. Pavel Vozenilek 05:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There should be - I only had half an hour or so to do this earlier. But a brief description is a good idea - I've made a small start on it. Grutness...wha? 09:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, someone has put a lot of work into this and it certainly looks a lot nicer! I do think it is a bit bloated and would be better served by dividing it up and merging it either back into the main Bermuda article or one of the sub-articles in some form or another. Therefore I would like to retract my nomination of this article for deletion and instead propose it be merged into the appropriate articles, but I would await more consensus on the matter before hacking it into pieces. Arkyan 08:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very nice work, just another list. Renata3 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 speedy keep, because the previous nomination was earlier today. Please don't do that.--Sean|Black 01:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War on Christmas[edit]

I know it was nominated a month ago yesterday, but it's fallen apart even worse since then, and since the war on christmas implies, that there is, somewhere, an active war being faught against christmas, I find it odd, that not one single source can be found that shows the existance of this "war" -- 205.188.116.72 (talkcontribs) 00:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. It was speedily kept earlier today, not last month. Sheesh. Flyboy Will 00:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. As per the last AfD's final decision. -Scm83x 00:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - I disagree entirely with this article's tone but that should be fixed through editing, not deletion. Thanks to various windbags on Fox News this term is, unfortunately, notable. --Cyde Weys votetalk 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is this page listed in the log for Dec 19th? Flyboy Will 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - This is absurd. The article makes it clear in the very first sentence that we're not claiming that a "war on Christmas" is actually taking place, simply that it is alleged to be happening. This article is being worked on heavily right now. Rather than wantonly re-AfDing it, a good-faith editor should try to help that process by making constructive suggestions. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Isn't it more absurd to have an article about something that all editors involved admit doesn't come remotely close to existing? -- 205.188.116.72 (talkcontribs) 00:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - first of all, it's false that all editors involved agree with that. Read the talk page archive. Secondly, no. We have articles on many non-existent things that nevertheless have some cultural currency. Look at the list of examples in Moral panic, such as Poisoned candy and spermatorrhea. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    question Why do we have articles on non-existant things?--—the preceding signed comment is by User:205.188.116.72 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer - because things can exist as issues, topics of discussion, controversies, conspiracy theories, moral panics, etc, and can be talked about enough to become notable, without existing in the most literal, physical sense. Why have an article on Zeus? Why have an article on Bigfoot? Why have an article on luminiferous aether? I think the answers to those three are pretty obvious. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please the entire category Category:Moral panics for a full list of all sorts of things that have articles in this similar vein. Also, my personal favorite poster-child example for AfDs of this type: Endor Holocaust. -Scm83x 01:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply, It exists. And I'm an Editor too!!! Chooserr
  • Speedy Keep, Already been voted on. Chooserr 01:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I agree with GTBacchus and Cyde Weys. Edit the article into better shape, not eliminate it altogether. — Diamantina 01:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, [35] Notable topic, fix.--Tznkai 01:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and block user. -- JJay 01:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Few hours won't change opinions 68.63.88.28 01:16, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_25&oldid=1081091920"